[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 19]
[Issue]
[Pages 25105-25233]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 25105]]
VOLUME 155--PART 19
SENATE--Tuesday, October 20, 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.
Lord God Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, we praise You that You
have not left us solely to our own resources. Instead, You promised to
be our strength, our ever-present help in time of trouble.
Lord, our lawmakers need You during these challenging days. Guide
them with Your wisdom, as Your loving providence prepares the road
ahead. Give them the grace to be valiant pilgrims of life's sometimes
dreary and dusty way. Teach them to toil and ask not for reward save
that of knowing they do the things that please You. May the spur of
conscience be the guiding star to lead them to the right decisions.
Strengthen their will to always choose that which is morally excellent
rather than what is politically expedient.
We pray in Your sacred 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, October 20, 2009.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 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 leader remarks, there will be a
period of morning business for 90 minutes, with Senators permitted to
speak for 10 minutes each. The majority will control the first 45
minutes and the Republicans will control the second part of that.
Following morning business, the Senate will proceed to the
consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2892, which is
the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. There will be 3
hours 15 minutes for debate prior to a vote on the conference report.
The Senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. today for our weekly
caucus lunches. If all time is used, the vote will occur around 4:30.
However, some of the debate time may be yielded back and we could vote
earlier than that.
We are still working on an agreement, the Republican leader and
myself, to consider the Medicare Physicians Fairness Act. Senators will
be notified when any agreement is reached.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McConnell. 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.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader is recognized.
____________________
HEALTH CARE WEEK XIV, DAY II
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, over the past few months, I have
delivered a series of floor speeches on the kinds of commonsense
reforms that Americans were looking for but have not seen in the
ongoing debate over health care. In particular, I have noted the
glaring absence of medical liability reform in the various Democratic
plans that are kicking around here on Capitol Hill.
My point has been simple: Throughout the debate, the administration
has been hauling out one group or another onto the White House lawn as
a way of suggesting support for its health care plans. We have seen
doctors. We have seen nurses. We have seen hospitals, State
governments--you name it. But one group you have not seen is the
personal injury lawyers who drive up the cost of medicine and premiums
for all of us by filing wasteful lawsuits against doctors and hospitals
all across our country.
The connection between lawsuits and higher health care costs is
obvious. Because of the constant threat of these suits, doctors are
forced to order costly but unnecessary tests and procedures to protect
themselves. The routine nature of this so-called defensive medicine is
one reason health care costs have skyrocketed over the past decade, and
junk lawsuits are the primary reason doctors today spend a fortune--a
fortune--on liability insurance even before they open their doors for
business.
The prevalence of wasteful lawsuits is evidenced by the fact that
Americans spend more on lawsuits than any other country and more than
twice as much as all but one other country--not because American
doctors are somehow more negligent but because our lawsuits tend to be
more wasteful. In fact, according to the New England Journal
[[Page 25106]]
of Medicine, 40 percent--40 percent--of liability suits in the United
States are entirely without merit, and even in cases in which the
plaintiff prevails, most of the compensation goes to someone other than
the victim.
There should be no doubt that wasteful lawsuits are a major reason
that health care costs in this country are out of control and that we
should do something about it.
We have seen the good results of medical liability reforms at the
State level. States that have adopted medical liability reform have
witnessed premiums for medical liability insurance fall dramatically.
Recent reforms in Texas, for example, helped drive down insurance
premiums for doctors by more than 25 percent. These savings have
allowed doctors in Texas to see more clients and increase charity care.
Here was a commonsense reform that surely everyone could agree on.
Yet, just like the other commonsense reforms Republicans have proposed
as a way of fixing our existing health care system, our advice was
ignored.
The administration and Democratic leaders in Congress were determined
from the outset to press ahead with a massive--a massive--expansion of
government rather than take step-by-step reforms that the American
people have been asking for all along. We have seen it in every
Democratic proposal, including the recently finalized Baucus plan. In
the face of indisputable evidence that medical liability reforms would
lower costs, the Baucus bill offers nothing more than lip service--a
sense of the Senate that ``Congress should consider establishing a
state demonstration program.''
Well, we already have State demonstration programs. We have them in
California, we have them in Indiana, and we have them in Texas. They
work, and we ought to be doing that at the Federal level.
If Democrats were serious about getting rid of junk lawsuits, I am
sure they could have found room in the 1,500-page Baucus bill for it.
Unfortunately, they did not.
Americans expected more than this. At the outset of this debate,
everyone agreed that one of the primary reasons for reform was the need
to lower health care costs, and commonsense experience and the
testimony of all the experts tells us unequivocally--unequivocally--
that ending junk lawsuits against doctors and hospitals would lower
costs. The question was not whether we should have included it. The
only question was, Why would Democrats leave out such a commonsense
reform?
Unfortunately, the answer is all too obvious. Here is how a former
Democratic National Committee chairman put it recently in a candid
moment. This is what he had to say. ``The reason why tort reform is not
in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on
the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on,
and that is the plain and simple truth.''
That is Howard Dean, Dr. Howard Dean, not Senate Republicans. Howard
Dean says the reason this obvious, commonsense reform was not included
in the Baucus bill is that the authors of the bill did not want to face
the wrath of the lawyers.
This is precisely why Americans are concerned about government-driven
health care. Commonsense decisions become political decisions. And
Americans do not want politics interfering with their health care.
Medical liability reform should be in this bill. The fact that it is
not only makes Americans more concerned about the impact government-
driven health care would have on their lives and on their care.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REED. 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.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will proceed to a period of morning business for 90 minutes,
with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each,
with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or
their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the
Republicans controlling the second half.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
____________________
EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise again to urge my colleagues,
particularly my colleagues on the Republican side, to put aside their
amendments so we can move immediately and pass an extension of
unemployment insurance benefits.
We are facing a crisis of employment throughout this country. We are
seeing people who are exhausting their benefits. The need is now. The
time is now. We must act now.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans have already exhausted their
unemployment benefits, including 3,500 Rhode Islanders. Unfortunately,
this number is growing every day. These people are out of work, without
an employment check or paycheck, with jobs remaining scarce.
It is important to recognize how we got here. A $236 billion Federal
surplus accumulated in the 1990s under President Clinton and handed to
President Bush evaporated in 2000 due to President Bush's unsound and
excessive tax cuts which cost nearly $1.8 trillion and failed to spur
sustainable economic expansion and were targeted to the richest
Americans, not middle-income Americans. Indeed, most working Americans
actually ended up less well off as the median income for families fell
by $2,000 from the year 2000 to the year 2007. Let me say that again.
In the period of the Bush administration, with the huge tax cuts which
he proposed as being the key to our economic recovery and our economic
progress, incomes of middle-income Americans fell, they didn't rise.
Incomes of the very richest Americans rose dramatically and continue to
rise.
In addition, the Bush administration praised the doctrine of
inadequate supervision of our financial markets, a lack of adequate
risk assessment by financial institutions throughout not only the
United States but the world, and they combined that laissez-faire
attitude toward regulation of Wall Street with very costly and unfunded
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result of these profligate policies,
President Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit upon taking office.
This is on top of an unprecedented set of circumstances facing our
Nation both at home and abroad--the virtual collapse of the financial
markets in September, the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. With
regard to Afghanistan, the same inattention the Bush administration
showed toward regulation they showed toward our efforts in Afghanistan,
and today we face a crisis of the first order there.
Today, we are in a serious situation. Through decisive action, which
I will credit began under President Bush last September but
particularly carried out through the stimulus package, we are
responding to this economic crisis. But economists of all persuasions
tell us we are in a very difficult and challenging moment. Unlike the
1980s and prior economic downturns, they do not expect a traditional V-
shaped recovery--a quick decline and then a fairly rapid ascent to
normal economic performances. In fact, economists are predicting that
job gains will not be manifest until next year. It always seems to be
the situation that employment numbers lag behind other indicators,
including economic growth and availability of credit, and this lag is
particularly challenging today because it
[[Page 25107]]
means people are out of work and unfortunately may stay out of work
into next summer and beyond.
There have been some signs of recovery. The last time the Dow hit
10,000 was October 2008, and we recently have seen it headed up in
crossing 10,000. It is no longer in a meltdown, but we are far from a
full, sustainable recovery.
Wall Street is one indication, but it is not the indication most
Americans look to in terms of their own family's welfare. The most
important aspect of a family's welfare is steady, dependable, rewarding
employment, and that is the challenge we face today. People are
concerned about jobs. Many Rhode Islanders with jobs are coping with
reductions in hours and earnings, while those without jobs are
tirelessly looking for work in a labor market that is worsening, and
jobs simply aren't there.
We have a particularly dire situation in Rhode Island. There are
74,000 unemployed in my State. That is a big number, but it is much
bigger in terms of my State of Rhode Island. We are the smallest State
in the Union. With a population between 900,000, and 1 million, 74,000
unemployed people is a huge amount. It translates to 13 percent
unemployment. If you look at the underemployed, if you look at those
who have dropped out of the labor force, it is probably much higher. If
you look at subcategories--teenagers, for example, much higher;
minority communities, much higher. As a result, there is a growing
frustration and too often a desperation gripping the people of Rhode
Island.
A key component of stabilizing the economy is ensuring that Americans
without jobs can continue to support their families, and that is at the
heart of our unemployment compensation program. This compromise
legislation which I helped craft along with Leader Reid, Chairman
Baucus, Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire, Senator Durbin, and others,
strikes a careful balance. It is completely offset. It helps unemployed
workers across the country by providing all States with an additional
14 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits. It also continues the
historical precedent and sound policy of recognizing that workers in
the hardest hit States such as Rhode Island have even greater
challenges finding work and are in the greatest need of assistance.
Rhode Island and other States with unemployment rates at or above 8.5
percent would get an additional 6 weeks of benefits, for a total of 20
weeks. This provision will help more than 25 States, including South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Michigan.
Unfortunately, the other side of the aisle, instead of permitting us
to take up the bill quickly, is blocking legislation to extend
unemployment insurance.
First they argued that they needed to see a CBO score, even though
this legislation has been scored by CBO and, again, it is fully offset.
It is quite obvious it is fully offset.
Now my colleagues on the other side are delaying passage of this
measure by offering a range of amendments that are not related to
unemployment benefits. It is my understanding that the junior Senator
from Nebraska is offering an amendment with respect to ACORN funding.
This amendment not only has nothing to do with extending the benefits
to jobless Americans, but it has already been considered on several
occasions. In fact, I joined the Senator in passing his amendment to
the Transportation appropriations bill just the other week.
Another of our colleagues wants to extend the $8,000 new homeowner
tax credit which costs an estimated $16.7 billion. This is a worthy
effort, but in the context of trying to get aid immediately to
unemployed workers, I don't think it is the best use of our time.
It is counterintuitive to delay an extension of unemployment
insurance with these types of amendments. Again, the homeowner tax
credit is something I support. It is something we should do. It is
something we should consider paying for also. But now is the time to
deal with the most obvious crisis: people without work, running out of
benefits, facing a desperate situation. They are falling behind in
mortgage payments, accelerating another aspect of our problem--the
crisis in foreclosures. They need this extension. Debating amendments
that send messages but don't provide help for working Americans is not
what we should be doing.
I wish to underscore the urgency we are facing. People are exhausting
their benefits. They are receiving nothing. They still have to provide
for their families. In Rhode Island, 3,500 people would benefit
immediately from a Federal extension, a majority of whom have already
exhausted their benefits going back, in some cases, several months.
Thousands more Rhode Islanders will see their benefits end unless we
act. These families need this help to stay afloat, to pay their bills,
to stay in their homes. It is truly ironic that the Republican Party is
delaying an extension of unemployment insurance to the middle class,
yet in the past they have had no problem supporting huge tax cuts
skewed toward the wealthiest Americans.
It is my hope we can work together. This is not a Rhode Island
problem alone. It is not a Democratic problem or a Republican problem.
I have been joined--and I wish to thank my colleague from South
Carolina, Lindsey Graham, for working on this, because South Carolina
is feeling the effects of this recession. Every part of this country,
with very few exceptions, is feeling this problem. I again urge that we
pass this measure.
In addition, we should recognize that there is one other aspect we
should consider; strengthening and expanding work-share programs, which
allow employers to cut-back hours rather than lay people off if the
employer maintains pension and health benefits. In turn, employees
receive a proportionate unemployment insurance benefit for those hours
reduced. It has been very effective in Rhode Island--averting nearly
5,000 layoffs in the first eight months of this year.
I urge immediate consideration of this extension, and I hope we can
pass it this week.
With that, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor for the third time
in the last couple of weeks to urge passage of the Unemployment
Compensation Extension Act. This will help the almost 2 million
Americans who are in danger of losing their benefits. I am proud to
join Senator Jack Reed, and I thank him for his leadership in trying to
get this done and working out legislation that can be supported by
hopefully most of the Members of this Senate. For nearly 2 weeks, we
have been working to pass an extension to help struggling families
across the country.
The Senate bill we have introduced is a good bill, as Senator Reed
has said. It extends unemployment benefits for up to 14 weeks in all 50
States and by an additional 6 weeks in States with the highest
unemployment rates. The extensions are targeted: only unemployed
workers who have already exhausted their benefits are eligible. That
means that almost all jobless workers who use this extension will have
been out of work for a year or longer. That is a very long time.
Unemployment insurance was created to provide workers with an income
while they look for another job, but with unemployment almost 10
percent nationally, it has gotten harder to find work, not easier. The
number of long-term unemployed--those without a job for 27 weeks or
more--rose to 5.4 million in September. In my home State of New
Hampshire, the number of long-term unemployed has more than tripled in
the past year. So now we have reached a perfect storm with
unemployment. There are more than six people for every job opening, and
nearly 2 million Americans are about to run out of all benefits, the
benefits they need to pay the rent, to pay their mortgage, to buy food,
to pay for gas, to continue to look for a job.
The Presiding Officer and I both know that unemployment is spent on
necessities and it is spent immediately. So when we extend benefits, we
are not just helping the workers who have lost their jobs; we are
helping small businesses that provide the goods and services unemployed
workers need. In fact,
[[Page 25108]]
economists say that dollar for dollar, extending unemployment benefits
is one of the most cost-effective actions we can take to stimulate the
economy.
So now, as this economy is trying to recover, as people are
struggling to find work, it makes perfect sense that we would extend
unemployment benefits for those people who need them. The American
people are calling for the Senate to act, but some of our Members just
aren't listening, and they have held up an extension for almost 2
weeks. They don't seem to want to move forward under any circumstances.
My office is getting calls every day from people in New Hampshire and
across the country, and they want to know why the Senate isn't acting
quickly to pass an extension. Unfortunately, some Senators seem to be
holding up the process to win political points, to delay our entire
legislative agenda. They are playing politics while 7,000 workers a day
run out of benefits, the benefits they need to put food on the table,
to pay their bills, to keep our economy going.
This is not the time to play politics. This extension will help
millions of Americans. It will help Americans in Democratic States, in
Republican States, in Independent States, in purple States and red
States and blue States.
It is important for us to pass this extension to help those Americans
to stimulate our economy by getting money back into the hands of people
who will spend it immediately.
I, again, urge all those Senators who have been standing in the way
to stop playing politics and to pass this critical extension.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for
adding to the statement of the Senator from Rhode Island about this
unemployment issue. As you can tell, this is a national concern. There
was a time, I say to the Senator from New Hampshire, who is one of our
newer Members, this was not even debated. Whether you were talking
about minimum wage or unemployment compensation, it was a bipartisan
issue. We basically knew, as the Senator said, the people hurting out
there are not all Democrats, not all Republicans; they are all
Americans and they are from all over this country.
Unfortunately, we have now drifted into a status where even this has
become a political issue. I say to my colleagues on the Republican side
of the aisle who are blocking unemployment benefits for the millions of
unemployed people in this country: Go out and meet some of these
people.
Last Friday, I went to Pilsen, which is a section in Chicago. I went
to an office called the National Able Network, where they are trying to
help the unemployed find a job. I sat at the table with about 12
unemployed people around me. I wish my Republican colleagues would
actually sit down and meet some of these people who are unemployed.
They will learn something. These are not lazy people. These are not
people who enjoy being unemployed. These are people who are now
desperate--desperate people.
Let me tell you about Ira. I will not use his last name. I met him.
He is a 43-year-old African American. He worked at one of the biggest
banks in Chicago up until 14 months ago. He was in charge of human
relations. He said: My job was to place people in jobs. Now I am trying
to place myself in a job. He is going to DePaul University to pick up a
certification in his field in the hopes that will give him an edge to
find a new job.
Ira is a father with a family and his son suffers from a serious
illness. Ira has no health insurance. He lost it when he lost his job.
Corinne is another one. Corinne had been a vice president in a bank
in downtown Chicago, which the Presiding Officer would know if I
mentioned its name. She worked her way up, at age 61, to a good-paying
job. She lost it when the bank went out of business and merged. She
said: I look through all these classified ads and go on the Internet.
There are not too many jobs for vice presidents at banks, and that is
what I used to be. Now she says: I am willing to do whatever it takes.
Corinne has no health insurance either.
I went around the table and asked people what they were up against.
They said, basically, if we stop unemployment payments, if Congress
does not extend it, we will turn to our savings. One lady said: I don't
have any savings; I have spent it all to keep my house so I don't go
into foreclosure.
That is the reality of this issue. So why are the Republicans
stopping us from extending unemployment insurance benefits? Some of
them oppose it. Some of them believe people who are unemployed are just
plain lazy. They should sit down and talk with some of these folks. As
the Senator from New Hampshire said, there are six unemployed people
for every available job in America. This is not laziness. This is a
reality of a recession which this President inherited.
Some others want to try to refinance and reconfigure unemployment as
we know it--the unemployment benefits that are collected from all
working Americans, while we are working, for the rainy-day possibility
that we will lose a job someday. There is money in this fund to pay
these benefits.
One of the Senators on the Republican side came to the floor last
week and said: I wish to find a new way to refinance unemployment
benefits. That is a great exercise and a great challenge. For goodness'
sake, while you debate this issue, are you going to let hundreds of
thousands of people wonder whether they will be able to keep food on
the table? That is the reality.
There is a third group, honest to goodness, that believes these folks
do not deserve to receive this money, that it means they will not try
hard to find a job. That is fundamentally unfair. If you believe in
family, family values, and a safety net for America, unemployment
insurance is absolutely critical and essential.
Mr. President, 400,000 American families have run out of unemployment
insurance benefits already, and the Republicans are stopping us from
bringing up the bill to extend this safety net to unemployed Americans.
There are 20,000 in my State of Illinois who lost their benefits a few
days ago, at the end of September. There are another 200,000 families
across the country who will lose their benefits this month because the
Republicans continue to stop us from extending unemployment insurance
benefits.
What are they waiting for? Mr. President, 1.3 million Americans will
lose their temporary assistance by the end of the year if the
Republicans stop us from moving on this legislation, 50,000 families in
Illinois, similar to the ones I met with last Friday.
This money is essential for these families. It is essential for the
economy. The money we put in an unemployment check is going to be spent
by these people instantly. They are living paycheck to paycheck and, in
this case, unemployment check to unemployment check.
Never in the history of the country's unemployment insurance program
have more workers been unemployed for such prolonged periods of time.
That is why we are extending the benefits. Half of all jobless workers
cannot find a job within the first 6 months they receive benefits. That
is the highest percentage of prolonged unemployment in the history of
the program.
I can tell you what this comes down to. We are either going to stand
up for these people who have been victims of this recession or we are
going to watch more and more Americans show up at the bread lines, show
up at the soup kitchens, show up at the homeless shelters. The New York
Times had an article yesterday that said 1 out of 10 Americans in
homeless shelters today is a victim of foreclosure. In the Midwest, it
is one out of every six.
We are pretty comfortable as Members of the Senate. Our life is not
bad at all. We know our next paycheck is coming in. But what about
these poor people? I say to the Republicans, it is time to wake up to
reality. Don't talk about family values, rewarding work, and standing
up for people when you believe in them and turn down these
[[Page 25109]]
unemployment benefits. It is time to pass these benefits now, and the
Republicans had better step aside.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who have come
before the Senate on this critical issue, our ability to extend
unemployment insurance, and to ask our Republican colleagues not to
block our efforts and to allow us to bring up this bill and do it
quickly to help the families who are suffering in every one of our
States.
This week we have an important opportunity and a need to address a
real ``kitchen table'' issue for families all across this country. We
have an opportunity and a responsibility to pass an extension of
unemployment insurance and, in doing so, to provide a measure of
financial stability to millions of Americans who have been laid off in
the most difficult economic times since the Great Depression. We have
the opportunity and the responsibility to provide peace of mind to
families who are left without a job and nowhere else to turn and are so
concerned about their future, families who, right now, as we debate our
ability to bring this bill to the floor of the Senate, are having a
much more agonizing debate about how to make next month's rent or even
next week's grocery budget if their unemployment runs out.
For these families, this bill Senator Baucus has worked so hard on to
bring to the floor helps them out. What this bill does is extend the
unemployment to laid-off workers in States that have been hardest hit
by job losses by 6 weeks, and it provides every single unemployed
worker who has exhausted his or her benefits, regardless of the State
in which they live, an additional 14 weeks of support. It makes some
critical changes to help our families. It makes clear that the
additional $25 per week in benefits that Congress included in the
Recovery Act does not count against someone who is seeking food stamps.
This bill could not come at a more critical time. This month, we have
seen banner headlines in newspapers all across the country that make a
very stark point about the tough climate our laid-off workers face
today. In my home State of Washington, employment has now risen to 9.3
percent. That number alone does not illustrate the need to provide
immediate relief. Even with the robust recovery program that has saved
and created jobs throughout my State, our workers are feeling the very
sharp effects of this recession.
Since this recession began in December of 2007, there have been over
145,000 jobs lost in my State. That means 1 in 20 jobs in Washington
State has been lost. These unemployed workers are searching for an
average of 6\1/2\ months before they find a job. While those statistics
clearly point out the need for this legislation, the stories behind
these statistics provide even more of a call to action--stories of
single mothers who are scanning the classifieds every morning and then
having to search through coupons each night to afford to feed their
family dinner; stories of skilled workers, with many years of education
and the debt that comes with that, facing stacks of unpaid bills;
stories such as those that over the past few weeks, as unemployment
benefits have become exhausted for millions of workers, have poured
into my Senate offices, stories such as the one of Wane Ryan of Bonney
Lake, WA, who shared it with me.
Mr. Ryan says he is a carpenter, with 23 years of experience, who has
been looking for work for more than a year. In his letter, Mr. Ryan
tells of recently selling all his personal belongings, relying on food
banks, and being on the verge of financial ruin, through no fault of
his own. He wrote me to ask for another emergency unemployment
extension just to keep his head above water.
There is Kristina Cruz, from Seattle, who received her last
unemployment check just a few weeks ago. Kristina told me she has been
unemployed now for 20 months, after spending 10 years in human
resources. She talks of going above and beyond in her job search, a
skill she picked up as her career. But still, she said, interviews have
been few and far between. She told me she is stressed out and panicked.
She says she is not interested in living off the government long term,
but in the midst of this economic crisis, she believes we need to pass
this extension.
There is the story of Angela Slot and her family from Washougal, WA.
Angela's husband designs kitchens and has been out of work since last
May. He has returned to school, put out over 1,500 applications in
different fields in different States and for every different type of
job. Yet today he remains without work.
The Slot family has taken out loans, used all their savings and
unemployment payments just to stay in their home and provide for their
three children. Without this extension, the Slot family calculates they
will not have their home by the end of this year.
For these families and millions more like them, the question that
haunts them every single day is what will we do if this support runs
out? Where will we go when our savings are exhausted, when the credit
card can no longer make ends meet, when the bank will not wait for a
mortgage payment any longer? To whom do we turn?
In a time of national crisis, it is our job to make sure we are
answering those questions. We can do that by providing a bridge to
financial stability for families today. By the end of this year, my
State projects that nearly 18,000 people will be in need of these
benefits just to keep them afloat.
I, personally, know how important it is to have the government in
your corner during financial times. When I was young, my dad had to
stop working. He was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. That left my
mom at home to support and raise seven kids, as she also took care of
my dad. It was a very difficult time for my family. We made a lot of
sacrifices to get by. But you know what. Our country was there for us.
Through food stamps, VA benefits for my dad, student loans, my family
made it through those tough times, and I am here today. That is why I
believe strongly that we need to be there now for the millions of
Americans who are struggling today.
We cannot sit on the sidelines. Doing so would only compound the
problems we already face--more families pushed into bankruptcy, more
families who will have foreclosures happen to them, more people will
lose their health care, and less progress will be made on this
important road to financial recovery. We cannot sit by as working
families are pushed to the brink by a financial crisis they did not
create but for which they are still paying.
Angela Slot ended her letter to me by saying she felt families such
as hers, families who are just scraping by, are ``falling off the
radar.'' This unemployment extension bill is our opportunity to prove
to her and many others that is not the case. We have not forgotten
them. We know they are out there.
I urge our colleagues to listen to the voices of their constituents.
I ask our Republican colleagues not to block this effort, not to say no
to these families, not to turn a blind eye but to join us in passing an
unemployment extension that makes sure America's laid-off workers are
not ignored.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I speak in support of extending
unemployment benefits to provide much needed relief to jobless workers.
Nearly 2 million Americans, including more than 13,000 Minnesotans,
will exhaust their unemployment benefits by the end of the year. We are
facing record high unemployment in this country. The number of
Americans out of work has almost doubled over the past 2 years. People
who want to get back to work are still facing a depressed job market,
where there are six unemployed workers for every job opening. It is no
wonder that I have received so many letters from my constituents,
scores of people going to 60 job interviews, sending in hundreds of
resumes.
I thank Senator Shaheen for her leadership here; Senator Durbin, who
just spoke; the majority leader, Senator Baucus, Senator Dodd, Senator
[[Page 25110]]
Jack Reed, and my other distinguished colleagues in working with me to
provide this much needed relief. I was so pleased that we were able to
put together a proposal that included all 50 States because I simply
could not explain to the people of my State that while people in
Wisconsin who are unemployed would get extended unemployment benefits,
those in Minnesota would not. Our States share a border, but when
people suffer in one State, they also suffer in the other.
This is a fiscally responsible solution that is fair and will provide
for a State such as Minnesota, where unemployment is still high but
below 8.5 percent, which was the mark that was used in the House bill.
Unemployment is unemployment no matter where you live. Minnesotans
without jobs do not suffer any less because our State's unemployment
rate is slightly lower.
Several constituents wrote to me earlier, when Minnesota's
unemployment rate was around 8 percent. At that time, as I mentioned,
the proposal from the House would have cut things off at 8.5 percent.
After getting these letters and talking to people in my State, I
decided that was not good enough.
In one letter, Marilynn, from St. Paul, wrote:
Unemployment may be 8 percent for the State of Minnesota,
but in our house it's 100 percent.
As Marilynn notes, unemployment is a national issue that does not
simply begin or stop at State lines. Being unemployed in North Dakota,
South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, or any other State does not hurt any
more or less than being unemployed in Minnesota. Deep, persistent
unemployment hurts no matter where you happen to live, and the solution
my colleagues and I crafted strikes the right balance in recognizing
that fact.
Mariann from White Bear Lake, MN, wrote:
The tremendous stress of trying to search for an affordable
job and raise two children on my own is overwhelming in
itself. I cannot help that I live in one of the States with
lower than 8.5 percent unemployment.
And Brian from Anoka wrote:
In fairness, what is good for one unemployed person should
be good for all unemployed persons everywhere.
As the Senator from Illinois knows, sometimes we get letters that are
all the same, from groups that organize, but these were individual
letters from citizens out there who are hurting and who actually looked
at the paper, heard the news, and decided: Wait a minute, the House
bill, at 8.5 percent, does not help me. I am going to be left with
nothing.
Simply put, this legislation in the Senate provides relief in a fair
way to all those in need. This legislation helps jobless workers who
desperately need relief. This legislation does not add to the deficit.
This legislation is the right thing to do. Despite our best efforts, we
have not been able to convince some of our colleagues on the other side
of the aisle to agree that struggling middle-class Americans deserve an
up-or-down vote on whether their unemployment benefits should be
extended.
While my colleagues can perhaps afford to wait in their States--maybe
the unemployed people in their States aren't writing them these
letters--the more than 13,000 Minnesotans who will exhaust their
unemployment benefits by the end of December cannot afford to wait.
They have already waited too long. The time to act is now. This is the
decent thing to do, and in a stretched economy, it is the right thing
to do.
I know people are happy that we have started to see some good numbers
on Wall Street. We need that. Maybe it will help us with our 401(k)s.
But what do you say to Barbara, from Mahtomedi, MN, who understands
Wall Street is doing well, but writes this:
My husband has been looking for a job since March and
without unemployment to help us out, I don't know what will
happen. All four of us have been looking for steady
employment for months. We drive old cars, bought a house
within our means that we have been fixing up slowly by
ourselves the past 22 years, buy everything used or on sale.
Please don't let Minnesotans get left out in the cold--oh
yes, don't forget about the heating bills coming in the next
months. We need jobs and extending benefits will help us
survive.
And what would my colleagues who are now stopping this bill from
coming to the floor say to Carolyn of Woodbury, MN, who writes:
As of the early part of November of this year, I will have
completed all my unemployment benefits. I have been looking
for work daily since May of 2008 and have had several
interviews but no offers yet. I like working, I am looking
for work, I want to work and I am able to work but have not
gotten any offers yet. Is there any chance that unemployment
benefits will be extended? My unemployment is my only source
of income and if I am not able to get that and don't have a
job what will happen to a person like myself?
The time for partisanship is over. This is about people's lives and
their ability to survive and to continue to provide for their families.
I am very glad this Senate recognized that an unemployed person in
Minnesota needs as much help as an unemployed person in Wisconsin, but
now it is time to get the bill passed.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last year, the President of the United
States, during his campaign, stated that there was going to be a change
in the way we do business here in our Nation's Capitol, and that when
it comes time for a conference on a bill that the American people would
be brought in; that C-SPAN cameras would be there as Republicans and
Democrats in a room that was open to the American public; that they
would sit down and negotiate and come forward with results from a
process that the American people would all be aware of. I have the
direct quote here.
So what is going on today? Here is the bill from the HELP Committee.
This is only some 600 pages. And over here we have the Finance
Committee bill, some 1,500 pages. And not far from here--very close to
here--there is a handful of Democrats and administration people behind
closed doors who are reconciling these two bills. Sooner or later they
will come out of that room--fortunately no longer smoke filled, but
certainly with no access or information available for the American
people--with perhaps a 2,100-page bill which has yet to be on the
Internet so that the American people can see it. A remarkable process.
No one should wonder then about the cynicism that is out there in
America about the way we do business in our Nation's Capitol.
Less than 6 months ago, the President stood before a receptive
audience and he told the members of the American Medical Association,
and I quote him:
Now, I recognize that it will be hard to make some of these
changes if doctors feel like they're constantly looking over
their shoulders for fear of lawsuits. Now I understand some
doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments
to avoid being legally vulnerable. That's a real issue. I do
think we need to explore a range of ideas about how to put
patient safety first, how to let doctors focus on practicing
medicine. I want to work with the AMA so we can scale back
the excessive defensive medicine that reinforces our current
system. So this is going to be a priority for me.
That is a quote from the President back when he spoke to the AMA less
than 6 months ago. Yet in this 600-page document there is not a mention
of medical malpractice reform. In this 1,500-page document there are 20
pages of sense-of-the-Senate language. In case there is anyone who
doesn't know what sense of the Senate means, it means exactly that. It
does not mean law.
So the President of the United States talks to the AMA and tells them
that we are going to bring about change. We are going to stop this
practice of defensive medicine, which by the way, the estimates say
account for as much as $200 billion a year added to health care
expenses. But what have we got here, and here, and going on behind
closed doors? Does anybody believe the Democrats are going to come out
with anything that is meaningful on medical malpractice reform? No. But
what they will do is to say that we are going to try some demonstration
projects. We are going to try some demonstrations.
[[Page 25111]]
In fact, on September 9, 2009, before a joint session of Congress,
the President went a step further and stated:
Now, finally, many in this Chamber--particularly on the
Republican side of the aisle--have long insisted that
reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down
the cost of health care. Now, I don't believe malpractice
reform is a silver bullet, but . . . defensive medicine may
be contributing to unnecessary costs. I know that the Bush
administration considered authorizing demonstration projects
in individual States to test these ideas.
And by the way, the reason why they did that was because they
couldn't get meaningful malpractice reform through the Congress.
Continuing the quote from the President:
I think it's a good idea, and I'm directing my Secretary of
Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative
today.
Shortly thereafter, the President did issue a memo on medical
malpractice reform where he stated:
We should explore medical liability reform as one way to
improve the quality of care and patient-safety practices and
to reduce defensive medicine.
So we all read with great interest about the new initiative. The memo
went on to state:
We must foster better communication between doctors and
their patients. We must ensure that patients are compensated
in a fair and timely manner for medical injuries, while also
reducing the incidence of frivolous lawsuits. And we must
work to reduce liability premiums.
The memo concluded with the grand policy crescendo and a request that
the Secretary of Health and Human Services announce:
. . . that the department will make available demonstration
grants to States, localities, and health systems for the
development, implementation, and evaluation of alternatives
to our current medical liability system.
There is nothing to be demonstrated. We already have two
demonstration States--California and Texas--where medical malpractice
laws are working. What is needed is leadership. Despite all the
promises, the President and his party have yet to put forward any real
medical malpractice liability reforms as part of either of the two
health bills that have been shepherded through two Senate committees
that are being merged behind closed doors by a select few.
I wish to point out that every time we tried to get an amendment on
the 600-page bill--not the 1,500-page bill--those amendments to do even
the slightest change in medical malpractice were voted down on a party-
line basis. It is a failure of leadership.
How many patients are subjected to unneeded and unwarranted tests and
procedures--some of which are certainly not painless--because the
doctor has to perform defensive medicine? How many medical
practitioners in America today are like the chief of surgery, the
surgeon I met at the Palmetto Medical Center in Miami, who said: No, I
don't have insurance. I couldn't afford the premiums. I don't have
insurance. But if they sue me, all they can do is take everything I
have. What kind of incentive is that for people to engage in the
medical profession?
As I said, the Finance Committee bill--1,522 pages--contains 20 lines
of nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate language that merely expresses a view
that ``health care reform presents an opportunity to address issues
related to medical malpractice and medical liability insurance.'' Let
me repeat that. This is the 1,500-page bill. In 1,500 pages, there are
20 lines of sense-of-the-Senate language which says: ``Health care
reform presents an opportunity to address issues related to medical
malpractice and medical liability insurance.''
I am not making that up. I am not making it up. It surely does
present an opportunity to address issues related to medical malpractice
reform. However, the other side passes on such an opportunity. It is a
fact that just the narrowest specifics of medical liability reform
could save $11 billion this year alone. As I said, there are some
estimates which claim it could be as much as $200 billion when you look
at the defensive medicine that is being practiced today.
California addressed this precise problem in 1975 by passing
legislation that capped jury awards for ``noneconomic'' damages such as
pain and suffering in medical malpractice suits. Not only does this cap
reduce the amount of damages but it has had the effect of deterring
unwarranted lawsuits. Malpractice filings have fallen in almost every
county in California, medical malpractice insurance premiums have
dropped, and patient costs have lessened.
In Texas, the trial lawyers had created such a problem for lawsuit
abuse that patients didn't have access to doctors for several primary
and specialty care services. Women couldn't find OB-GYNs. Several
counties didn't even have neurosurgeons or anesthesiologists. Texas put
in place a new structure that ensured patients got full compensation
for their losses while at the same time curbing lawsuit abuse. In
Texas, ``Patients are the ultimate beneficiaries of the tort reform
measures passed in 2003,'' said Dan Stultz, M.D., president/CEO of the
Texas Hospital Association.
It's clear that hospitals are able to attract more
specialty physicians and offer new or expanded services that
have enhanced patients' access to care and saved lives.
A survey conducted by THA--that is the Texas Health Association--in
July 2008 found that 85 percent of hospitals are finding it easier to
recruit medical specialists and subspecialists.
We could replicate these success stories across America, but the
other side has refused to consider medical malpractice amendments to
the bills. Instead, the Democrats and the White House are attempting to
buy the silence of American medical associations and doctors everywhere
who support reform by increasing the deficit by $250 billion in
Medicare physician payment increases.
CBO estimates the medical malpractice reform would reduce the Federal
deficit by $54 billion over the next 10 years. Others say it is as high
as $200 billion. The question is, is there anyone who denies that
medical malpractice reform would not reduce health care costs in
America? Is there anyone? Of course not. This bill is ample testimony
of the influence of the trial lawyers of America on this body. We
should be ashamed.
Talk is cheap. This issue requires real leadership. I believe the
President needs to stand by his word and put forward real medical
malpractice reforms rather than simply request applications for
demonstration grants. I hope the President will demonstrate a
willingness to listen and a willingness to reach a bipartisan agreement
on this important issue. Patients, doctors, hospitals, and taxpayers
need action.
We are going through an interesting process. Mr. President, 1,522-
page and 622-page bills are being merged behind closed doors with a
handful of elected representatives, leaving out not only everyone on
this side of the aisle and most of the people on that side of the
aisle, but the American people are being left out of this process. The
American people are getting more and more angry. I don't think this
will go over well with the American people. In fact, I think they will
steadfastly reject it.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. WICKER. Madam President, do you know how long I have at this
moment to speak to health care?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has a total of 27 minutes 15
seconds.
Mr. CORKER. I will not take 27 minutes. Thank you for letting me know
that.
Madam President, I was on the Senate floor last week, which is a
rarity for me. I spend very little time on this floor. Most of my time
is spent in committee hearings. But I rise today to speak regarding the
proposed Stabenow bill, a bill that is designed to pass on a
[[Page 25112]]
$\1/4\ trillion in unfunded liabilities to future generations. As you
know, we have been talking about health care reform in this body for
some time. I have met numerous times with almost every official
involved in health care reform and talked about how I thought it was
unwise to look at taking $404 billion out of Medicare and not using
that money to deal with the issue of SGR or the ``doc fix,'' the fact
that physicians across this country are going to see a 21-percent cut
in fees in the very near future, and what that would do to the Medicare
population depending upon these services.
I talked to the President on July 15 about how this body and the
House were putting together pieces of legislation that did not make
sense. I urged the President to use a responsible approach as it
relates to health care reform. I have met with the chairman of the
Finance Committee, the distinguished Senator from Montana, numerous
times to talk about the Ponzi scheme that is being created by the
Finance Committee in looking at how we finance something that is going
to be a part of our citizens' lives for years to come and certainly a
tremendous strain on the American budget.
I have been told from day one that in fact we were going to put
together a health care reform bill that will be paid for. I think most
people know now the way that is being looked at is we are going to take
$404 billion out of Medicare, which is an insolvent program, and
leverage a new entitlement program--something the people of Tennessee
do not believe makes much common sense. I know you are aware of the
fact that in addition to trying to solve this problem by taking money
from an insolvent program, we also are planning to pass what
Tennessee's Governor has called the mother of all unfunded mandates;
making States, if you will, increase their Medicaid rolls at their
expense so we in Washington can say we have reformed health care.
But I have to say one of the most sinister moves I have seen take
place in my 2 years and 10 months being in the Senate is the Stabenow
bill. The Stabenow bill seeks to say we are going to deal with SGR,
that we are going to deal with our obligation in Medicare to pay
physicians at least the rates they are making today. We are going to
pass on a $\1/4\ trillion bill to future generations in order to get
support from physicians across our country.
I talked to physicians in our State this weekend, a meeting at
Tennessee Medical Association--the American Medical Association was on
the line--and I was shocked at the response. Today the Hill cited a
meeting where Senator Reid and others met with physicians in order to
buy their support. I know we all know the selling of one's body is one
of the oldest businesses that has existed in the history of the world.
So the AMA is now engaged in basically selling the support of its body
by leveraging--by throwing future generations under the bus, by in
essence urging that we as Congress pass this week a $\1/4\ trillion
spending bill, unpaid for. If we would do that, we might get their
support in health care reform.
I have to tell you, I have never witnessed something more sinister
than the Stabenow bill. It is my hope that this week Senators on both
sides of the aisle will come together and realize we have to graduate.
We talk fondly about the ``greatest generation,'' our parents and
others, who did so much in the way of sacrificing for this country to
make sure that generations who came after had a better way of life. I
am sad to say that--while I consider it the greatest privilege of my
life to serve in this body, and I thank the citizens of Tennessee for
allowing me this lease, this 6-year lease to serve in this body to try
to conduct myself in a way that will put our country's long-term
interests first--I am sad to say I serve during what I would call the
``selfish generation.'' The political leadership we have today, of
which we are a part, no doubt embodies the most selfish policies this
country has seen in its history. There is no question that is the case;
that for short-term political gain, in order to make some constituents
happy, in order to give people what they want with no sacrifice, we are
willing to throw future generations under the bus.
It is my hope, this week even, this body will graduate from that
selfish existence, doing things we know absolutely are undermining the
future of this country, and that we will come together and look at this
legislation in the appropriate way. I hope there will be Senators on
both sides of the aisle that revolt at the majority leader's push to
purchase the support of physicians all across our country by, in
essence, creating legislation that puts our country another $\1/4\
trillion in debt.
Madam President, I wanted to say this is not at all what the
President said he would do. This President has said he would offer
health care reform that balanced the budget. The American people
understand by doing what the Stabenow bill seeks to do this week, that
is absolutely not true. This administration absolutely is not living up
to the commitment it has given the people of this country.
This body needs to stand up and do what is right. I hope we will do
that this week. I hope we will defeat the Stabenow bill as it now has
been introduced. I hope we will work together to do those things that
are responsible.
I absolutely agree physicians around this country do not need to take
a 21-percent cut. I have probably been the most outspoken person on
that issue in the Senate since I came here. But what we need to do is
balance our resources, not continue to do things we think make sense on
one hand to the detriment of future generations. It is my hope this
will be embodied as part of the overall health care reform package.
This gets to my point I have been making on this floor and in
committees and other places for months; that is, it makes absolutely no
sense to use $404 billion out of Medicare to finance health care reform
and not deal with SGR. I hope other Senators will join me in revolting
against this most sinister act that, hopefully, will not come to
fruition this week.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded the call the roll.
Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I rise today to discuss why meaningful
medical liability reform must be included in the health care reform
package. Americans spend far more on lawsuits than any other country,
and more than twice as much as all countries except for one.
According to a recent study conducted by the Tillinghast-Towers
Perrin Group, the direct cost of health care lawsuits is $30 billion
per year. These costs are multiplied by the indirect costs of lawsuits,
especially doctors ordering costly tests out of fear of being sued.
Estimates of wasted money spent on unneeded tests range from over
$100 billion each year to nearly $250 billion annually. In a 2006
article in the New England Journal of Medicine, it suggests that as
much as 40 percent of medical liability lawsuits are frivolous.
Medical liability insurance premiums are threatening the stability of
our Nation's health care system. These rates are forcing many
physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers to move out of
high liability States, limit the scope of their practices, and some
even to close their doors permanently. This crisis is affecting more
and more patients. It is threatening access to reliable, quality health
care services.
I have a good friend from Nevada who practices obstetrics. In his
practice he specializes in high-risk pregnancies. Because of medical
liability problems that we have seen in the past several years, his
insurance company limits the number of high-risk pregnancies in which
he can assist.
If you are a woman and you are pregnant with a high-risk pregnancy,
it
[[Page 25113]]
would seem to me you would want the doctors who specialize in high-risk
pregnancies to see you. This only makes sense. However, because of the
medical liability crisis we are facing in this country, the best of the
best are limited in the number of cases they can handle.
Because of the unaffordable medical liability insurance premiums, it
is now common for obstetricians to not deliver babies and for other
specialists to no longer provide emergency calls or provide certain
high-risk procedures.
Ask yourself this question: What if I were in need of an emergency
procedure? What if I were the woman who had a high-risk pregnancy and
could not find a specialist to provide me with the health care I
needed?
The medical liability crisis is threatening patient access to
reliable, quality health services all across America. Additionally,
costly medical liability premiums have forced some emergency rooms to
shut down temporarily in recent years.
In my home State of Nevada, our level 1 trauma center was closed for
10 days in 2002. This closure left every patient within a 10,000-
square-mile area unserved by a level 1 trauma center.
Unfortunately, a gentleman by the name of Jim Lawson was one of those
in need of a trauma unit at that time. Jim lived in Las Vegas and was
just 1 month shy of his 60th birthday. He had recently returned from
visiting his daughter in California. When he returned, he was injured
in a severe car accident. Jim should have been taken to the University
Medical Center's level 1 trauma center. Unfortunately, it was closed.
Instead, Jim was taken to another emergency room where he was
stabilized and then transferred to Salt Lake City's trauma center.
Tragically, Jim never made it that far. He died that day due to cardiac
arrest caused by blunt force from physical trauma.
Why was Nevada's only level 1 trauma center closed that day? Due to
the simple fact that doctors could not afford the medical liability
insurance premiums, and there were not enough doctors to provide the
care.
Ultimately, the State had to step in and take over the liability to
reopen the trauma center. Our State has caps on how much someone can
sue for, so medical liability insurance is affordable.
More than 35 percent of the neurosurgeons have altered their
emergency or trauma call coverage because of the medical liability
crisis. This means patients with head injuries or who are in need of
neurosurgical services must be transferred to other facilities,
delaying much needed care.
Doctor Alamo of Henderson, NV, brought another example of this
problem to my attention. Doctor Alamo was presented with a teenager
suffering from myasthenia gravis. She was in a crisis and in need of
immediate medical treatment. Because of the medical liability
situation, there was no emergency neurologist on-call to assist this
young woman.
Dr. Alamo called several neurologists in the area and none of them
wanted to take her case because of the medical liability situation. So
Dr. Alamo had the young woman transported all the way to California by
helicopter to receive the medical care she so desperately needed.
These kinds of situations should not happen and should not be forced
to happen because of the medical liability crisis we face in America.
Stories such as these are all too common across our country.
To address the growing medical liability crisis in my home State of
Nevada, the State enacted legislation that includes a cap on
noneconomic damages and a cap on total damages for trauma care. Several
other States have enacted similar reforms.
This should not be a Republican or a Democratic issue. Simply put,
the current medical liability crisis means patients cannot find access
to care when they need it most in many areas.
Without Federal legislation, the exodus of providers in the practice
of medicine will continue, and patients will find it increasingly
difficult to obtain needed care. As we work on comprehensive health
care reform, one of our primary goals must be to enact meaningful
medical liability reform to help patients access care.
As you know, President Obama recently addressed the entire Congress
on health reform. During his speech he said:
I do not believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but
I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive
medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs.
The President went on to say he asked Secretary Sebelius to move
forward on demonstration projects in individual States to test ways to
put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine.
Let's face reality. There is no doubt that defensive medicine occurs
every day and that the costs to the health care system are staggering.
As I mentioned earlier, tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars
are wasted every year due to the practice of defensive medicine,
largely in an attempt to avoid frivolous, junk lawsuits. Just think of
how many uninsured patients we could cover with this money or how much
cheaper the premiums would be for those who already have insurance.
We must stop playing games and start doing something real to address
important health care issues. Unfortunately, the Finance Committee bill
that was voted on last week only includes a meaningless sense of the
Senate on medical liability reform. That seems to parrot some of the
President's remarks.
Specifically, the language in the bill expresses the Sense of the
Senate that States should be encouraged to develop and test
alternatives to the current civil litigation system as a way of
improving patient safety, reducing medical errors, encouraging the
efficient resolution of disputes, increasing the availability of prompt
and fair resolution of disputes and on and on and on. It is only a
Sense of the Senate.
The provision also expresses the sense of the Senate that Congress
should consider establishing a State demonstration program to evaluate
alternatives to the current civil litigation system.
Let's be honest with ourselves. The Sense of the Senate is fluff. It
ignores the substantial progress many States have already made with
medical liability reform. Capping noneconomic damage awards has been
highly successful in a number of States, such as Texas, and is
something we should consider as part of health care reform.
It is important for the Senate to consider capping punitive damages,
limiting attorneys' fees, and providing that if multiple defendants
contributed to a mistake, each defendant should pay only for the
portion of the mistake for which they are responsible.
So let's do the right thing. Let's enact real medical liability
reform rather than a meaningless Sense of the Senate. As part of the
health care debate, I will be offering a comprehensive medical
liability reform amendment that sets reasonable limits on noneconomic
damages while also providing for unlimited economic damages.
My amendment is a responsible reform measure that includes joint
liability and collateral source improvements, and limits on attorney
fees according to a sliding scale. My legislation also includes an
expert witness provision to ensure that relevant medical experts serve
as trial witnesses instead of so-called professional witnesses who are
too often used to further the abuse of the system.
What happens today in our medical liability system is we have
professional witnesses. Too often they are not a specialist in the
field for which they are called to testify. Yet because juries do not
know they are not a true expert, their testimony is allowed to
influence liability claims.
My amendment uses a Texas style of caps on noneconomic damages that
provides a cap of $250,000 for a judgment against a physician or health
care provider. In addition, the patient can be awarded up to $250,000
for a judgment against one health care institution.
Under Texas law, judgments against two or more health care
institutions cannot exceed $500,000, with each institution not liable
for more than half
[[Page 25114]]
that. In total, noneconomic damages cannot exceed $750,000.
Medical liability reform works, and it is already turning the tide
against frivolous lawsuits and outrageous jury awards in some States.
We have seen it in California, in Texas, and in my home State of
Nevada, where the number of medical malpractice lawsuits has decreased
dramatically.
It has been a crisis driving doctors out of business for too long. It
is time to protect patients across the country and to ensure access to
quality health care.
To illustrate my point, I would like to tell you about the success of
medical liability reform in Texas. Over 16,000 new physicians have come
to Texas since reform was enacted. The number of high-risk medical
specialists in Texas is growing. Since 2003, Texas has added 650
emergency room doctors, 350 heart doctors, over 200 obstetricians, 160
orthopedic surgeons, and almost 60 neurosurgeons.
These additions are not limited to urban Texas. The ranks of rural
obstetricians have grown by almost 30 percent. Twenty-two rural
counties have added an obstetrician and 10 counties have added their
first OB. The statistics go on and on about the success in Texas.
In addition to improvements in access to health care, charity care
has also greatly expanded due to medical liability reform. Today, Texas
hospitals are rendering $600 million more in charity care annually than
they were just 6 years ago--$600 million more in charity care by
hospitals than they were giving before medical liability reform.
Liability savings have allowed hospitals to upgrade medical
equipment, expand emergency rooms, expand outpatient services, staff
Emergency Rooms 24/7 with high risk specialists, improve salaries for
nurses, and launch patient safety programs.
Without reforms and the attendant savings, these healthy developments
would not have been possible. Lawsuit reform has been a magnet for
attracting doctors and the funding mechanism to improve access to care
and enhance patient safety.
Physicians have seen a decrease in their medical liability premiums.
Since 2003, physicians in Texas have saved, collectively, almost $600
million in their liability premiums. Today, most Texas doctors are
paying lower liability premiums than they were almost 10 years ago.
All major physician liability carriers in Texas have cut their rates
since the passage of the reforms and most of them by double digits.
Texas's reforms prove lawsuit reform can improve access to care,
expand the number of doctors and types of care hospitals are able to
offer, and help reduce medical costs. According to a conservative
estimate by the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, if Congress adopted
only a few of the proposed lawsuit reforms, the deficit would decrease
by $54 billion over 10 years.
Madam President, $54 billion is how much it would save the
government. To put this in perspective, this is twice as much as the
Finance Committee plans to raise by taxing medical devices.
During the Finance Committee markup, CBO's Director, Dr. Elmendorf,
added that he felt the savings to the private sector would be
approximately equal to the $54 billion saved by the government.
Madam President, $54 billion to decrease the deficit, and the savings
in the private sector is another $54 billion. Under this conservative
estimation, which is substantially less than what third-party estimates
have shown, enacting medical liability reform would save at least $100
billion between the government and the private sector over 10 years.
So why would the Democrats leave medical liability reform out? Well,
they did put a Sense of the Senate in the Finance Committee bill. What
are the savings from the Sense of the Senate to the private sector and
the government? A big, fat zero.
I will tell you why the Democrats left out medical liability reform.
It is because it would hurt a Democrat special interest group: they are
known as trial lawyers.
Howard Dean, the former chairman of the Democratic National
Committee, put it simply:
[T]he reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because
the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial
lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on,
and that is the plain and simple truth. Now, that's the
truth.
I hope as the debate unfolds on the floor that many of my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle will change their mind about enacting
serious medical liability reform. My medical care access protection
amendment is not a battle of right versus left. It is a battle of right
versus wrong.
This amendment is the right prescription for patients. We need to
secure patient access to quality health care services when they need it
the most. I urge my colleagues to adopt this commonsense amendment when
it is brought to the floor.
One last comment. We are going to be adding what is called the doctor
fix. We are going to be adding the doctor fix unpaid for. It is $250
billion over the next 10 years. I have been talking a lot about the
Federal debt and what we are doing to our children. The other side
wants to do what we all want to do around here; that is, make sure
doctors' fees in Medicare are not cut because they are already paid at
a very low rate, but they are doing that without honoring what they
talked about known as ``pay-go''.
We heard a lot about that during the campaign: We need to pay for
everything. We cannot keep adding to the deficit. They accused this
side of the aisle as being fiscally irresponsible. Now they are going
to add $250 billion, take it off the table, and say: Well, it does not
count. We are just going to add to the deficit $250 billion; that we
can fix the doctors' payments, but we are not going to pay for it.
I think this is pretty outrageous. That is why we are going to have
amendments to attempt to fix what is happening to the doctors but to do
it in a fiscally responsible way so we are not adding to our children's
and our grandchildren's tax burden in the future.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
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. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the
pending business before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is just under 3 minutes remaining in
morning business.
Mr. McCAIN. And then?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Then the Senate will turn to the conference
report on homeland security.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, thank you.
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. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining
time in morning business be yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Morning business is closed.
____________________
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010--CONFERENCE
REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R.
2892, which the clerk will state.
[[Page 25115]]
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
2892), making appropriations for the Department of Homeland
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and
for other purposes, having met, have agreed that the House
recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate
and agree to the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree
to the same, signed by a majority of the conferees on the
part of both Houses.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of October 13, 2009.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, I speak today in support of the conference report
providing appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for
fiscal year 2010. I especially wish to thank my ranking member, Senator
George Voinovich, for his cooperation in producing the agreement that
is now before the Senate. It has been 8 years--8 long years--since the
attacks of 9/11. There are some people in this country who have become
complacent about the threat of another attack. Don't count me as one of
them. I am not one of those people.
There have been numerous terrorist attacks around the globe,
including the London, Madrid, and Mumbai bombings. Just last month, a
Denver man was indicted on a charge of conspiracy to use weapons of
mass destruction. Where? In New York City. So we must continue to be
vigilant. Nor can we be complacent about Mother Nature's power to wreak
havoc with a major earthquake, flood, or hurricane, meaning that such
disaster relief will require the funding provided in this bill.
This year, I have set five goals for the Homeland Security
Department, five goals that I trust we all share. What are they? No. 1,
to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws. No. 2, to
protect the American people--your people, my people, the American
people--from terrorist threats. No. 3, to prepare for and respond to
all disasters, both manmade and natural. No. 4, to support our State,
local, tribal, and private sector partners with resources and
information. No. 5, to give the Department of Homeland Security the
management tools it needs to succeed.
I believe the conference report we are presenting today meets those
goals.
Funding for the Department of Homeland Security totals $42.8 billion.
Do you know how much money that is? That is $42.80 for every minute
since Jesus Christ was born. That is a lot of money. It is an increase
of $2.65 billion over 2009. Again, I thank my friend, the very able
Senator George Voinovich, the ranking member, for his notable
contributions to this legislation. I thank Senator Daniel Inouye and
Senator Thad Cochran, the chairman and the vice chairman of the
Appropriations Committee.
I also thank our able majority and minority staff who have worked
together to produce this legislation. Let me name them: Charles
Kieffer, Chip Walgren, Scott Nance, Drenan Dudley, Christa Thompson,
Rebecca Davies, Carol Cribbs, and Arex Avanni.
Madam President, I thank all Senators, and I urge support for the
conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I am pleased to join the
distinguished Senator from West Virginia in presenting the fiscal year
2010 appropriations conference report for the Department of Homeland
Security.
As my colleagues know, it is after October 1--the start of a new
fiscal year--and the Department of Homeland Security's programs and
activities are being funded under a continuing resolution because we
did not complete our work on time. I think this is unfortunate. The
House adopted its version of the bill on June 24 and the Senate adopted
it on July 9.
When I was mayor and Governor of Ohio, I would have lost my job if
the budget were not done in time or the appropriations not done on
time. I think everyone would agree that this is not the way to properly
run our operation. I know of no good explanation as to why we could not
have resolved our differences to allow this conference agreement to be
signed into law before this date.
Senator Byrd said the conference report recommends a total of $44.1
billion in appropriations to support programs and activities of the
Department of Homeland Security. Of this amount, $42.8 billion is for
discretionary spending, and this is roughly $254 million less than the
President's total discretionary request. I wish to make that clear,
that it is less than the President requested.
In addition, $1.4 billion is provided for the Coast Guard retired
pay--the only mandatory appropriations account in the conference
report--and $241.5 million is provided for Coast Guard overseas
contingency operations.
The conference report includes significant resources for border
security and enforcement of our immigration laws, for continued
improvements in security at our Nation's airports and modes of surface
transportation, for the Coast Guard operations and recapitalization,
for helping our citizens prepare for and recover from natural
disasters, and for equipping and training our Nation's first
responders. I think Senator Byrd did a beautiful job in terms of his
five reasons and the things we ought to be doing, and that is what we
have tried to do in this report, to respond to those five goals Senator
Byrd outlined.
As Senator Byrd has indicated, there is much in this conference
report to recommend. I am not going to list all of the funding
recommendations, but I do wish to note some. This is very important:
Full funding is provided for border security. This includes funds to
support 20,163 Border Patrol agents, 21,124 Customs and border
protection officers, and 33,400 detention beds. These are the beds we
use when we pick up people and we put them there and hold them until we
return them to where they came from. Also included is $800 million to
continue work on the virtual border fence and to improve radio
communications.
Starting in fiscal year 2005, significant increases have been
provided for border and immigration enforcement. Fewer people are
illegally crossing our borders. This can be seen in the decrease in
apprehensions of aliens along our borders from nearly 1.2 million in
fiscal year 2005 to nearly 724,000 in fiscal year 2008. More fencing,
roads, and personnel have allowed the Border Patrol to increase the
number of miles over which it has effective control from 253 miles in
October of 2005 to 729 miles in March of 2009.
Additional agents and detention beds have allowed U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement to increase total removals of aliens from
nearly 247,000 removals in fiscal year 2005 to approximately 347,000 in
fiscal year 2008. We are making significant progress in terms of our
border protection and going after these illegal aliens.
This fiscal year 2010 conference report provides nearly $16 billion
in appropriations for these activities. This will allow us to continue
making progress, but we still have a long way to go and at a great
expense. One of these days I am going to come to the Senate floor and
talk about how much money we have spent and how much money we are going
to have to continue to spend if we are going to do anything about the
problems of illegal aliens in this country.
While this conference report is significant for what it includes, it
excludes two important provisions added to this bill when it was
considered by this Senate, including a permanent extension of the E-
Verify program and the extension of E-Verify to current employees. I
would have preferred to have the conference agreement to include both
provisions, but my House colleagues were not so inclined. Even though
this conference agreement does not permanently authorize E-Verify
programs as opposed to the Senate bill, it does extend the program's
authorization for an additional 3 years, allowing its continued
development as a crucial tool for employers to ensure a legal
workforce. However, it does not include the Senate provision offered by
my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley,
[[Page 25116]]
which would have given employers the flexibility to voluntarily check
their entire workforce and not solely new hires.
The administration expressed concerns that the provision could tax
the capacity of E-Verify. Let me tell my colleagues, E-Verify has the
capacity to handle more than 60 million queries a year and it has
received less than 8.7 in fiscal year 2009. Capacity does not seem to
be a barrier of this program, and this is an issue I hope we are going
to revisit one of these days.
I wish to thank the chairman of the Senate subcommittee, my colleague
from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. It has been an honor for me to work
with Senator Byrd this year. This is my first year on Appropriations,
and who do I have as my chairman but the distinguished Senator from
West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I wish to thank Mr. Price, the
ranking member of the House committee, and Mr. Rogers for their
substantial contributions to this bill. It has taken many hours of hard
work by these Members and their staffs to reach the agreements which
are presented to the Senate today. While everything is not settled to
my liking, I believe this is a balanced set of recommendations which
reflects many of the Department's priorities and achieves a reasonable
degree of compromise in some of the more contentious issues.
I again wish to join Senator Byrd in commending our staff. Mr.
Kieffer has been wonderful to work with. The folks on my side, Carol
and Rebecca. I am a new member of the Appropriations Committee. I have
never seen staff work as conscientiously as we have had for the
Appropriations Committee. Senator Byrd, it is almost like magic they do
such a good job for us. So again, I wish to thank them for their good
work.
Madam President, I recommend this conference report to my colleagues
for their consideration, and I support it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I congratulate Chairman Byrd and Senator
Voinovich in getting this conference report to the Senate today. This
is a very good example of good work that comes from folks who work
together to get things done.
With good funding levels for our firefighter support programs and
funding for two emergency operations centers critical to my State, this
is a bill that does right by the folks to keep America safe every day.
There is one issue, however, that still gives me great concern; that
is, the funding in this bill for the proposed National Bio and Agro-
Defense Facility. The final conference report includes my amendment
requiring DHS to conduct a security and risk mitigation study before
getting any money for construction of the bio facility. It also
includes an additional requirement that the National Academy of
Sciences puts its independent eyes on the Department's study before
funds go out the door.
This is a good start, but it is not enough. I do not understand why
we are going to appropriate $30 million for a project we need not one
but two studies about whether this project can move forward safely.
Independent experts have real concerns about building the NBAF in the
heart of the beef belt where an accidental or intentional release of
foot-and-mouth disease could have disastrous consequences for America's
livestock industry, and that industry includes Montana where the
livestock industry is a $1.5 billion industry.
This facility will house some of the most dangerous agricultural
diseases around the world. We should not start doing this research on
the U.S. mainland and in the middle of tornado alley without taking
every possible precaution.
On a matter this serious, we ought to measure twice and cut once.
Regrettably, by giving the Department $30 million this year, we are not
heeding that old saying.
The GAO, the subcommittee, and independent experts acknowledge that
we do not know if this research can be done safely on the U.S.
mainland. We all agree that an accidental release of foot-and-mouth
disease or another dangerous disease from this facility would devastate
America's livestock industry. Yet we are providing the money to go
ahead with it anyway.
Why not just wait and do the studies this year and then the
Department can come back to us with their revised funding request next
year?
I understand this has to do with getting Kansas to sign a cost-
sharing agreement. But are we convinced Kansas will not put forward the
money next year if this facility is to be built there?
If this facility is built in Kansas, the United States will become
the only country, other than England and Canada, to do FMD research on
a mainland. Everyone else does it on an island.
England had an accidental release in 2007 which led to eight separate
outbreaks of FMD on farms surrounding their facility. Canada at least
does it in an urban area far from livestock production areas.
Congress's nonpartisan, independent auditor, the Government
Accountability Office, has sounded the alarm on this issue. They are
telling us that Homeland Security has not conducted or commissioned any
study to determine whether foot-and-mouth disease work can be done
safely on the mainland.
Proponents of this facility have said it is OK to do this research
because the new Kansas facility will have the most modern technology
and all the safety bells and whistles that Plum Island lacks. But the
GAO rightfully argues this view only encourages a false sense of
security.
The GAO says:
Even with a proper biosafety program, human error can never
be completely eliminated. Many experts told us that the human
component accounts for the majority of accidents in high-
contaminant laboratories. This risk persists, even in the
most modern facilities and with the latest technology.
I know I am not the only Senator who shares the GAO's concern. So I
look forward to working with many of my colleagues on this issue again
next year. We do need to pay attention to what these studies say, and
as a member of this subcommittee, I will be watching it very closely.
The Department is going to come here next spring with a $500 million
request for funding for this project. That is a lot of money. But the
true cost of doing this research in the middle of tornado alley could
be much higher. The cost of cleaning up after an FMD release--the
culling of entire herds of livestock, the loss of foreign agricultural
sales that will endure for years after a release, and the loss of
America's food security--will be measured in the tens of billions of
dollars. That is something America cannot afford, and we must not let
it happen.
Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a
quorum. I ask that the time be equally divided between both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
RECESS
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
stand in recess until the hour of 2:15 p.m. today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Thereupon the Senate, at 12:26 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m. and
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. Carper).
[[Page 25117]]
____________________
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010--CONFERENCE
REPORT--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I believe we are going to be considering
the Homeland Security conference report. I want to spend a few minutes
talking about that so that the American public might realize what we
are doing. This year's spending totals have averaged, on individual
appropriations bills, anywhere from a high of 24 percent to a low of
about .6 percent, on one bill that had received twice its annual
appropriation in the stimulus. We have of course a conference report
that is $42.7 billion. That is a 6.5, almost 7-percent increase over
last year, the same the year before, and a 23-percent increase the year
before that. There is no question, homeland security is an important
part.
The issue I want to raise with my colleagues and the American people
is, we had inflation of 1.5 percent last year. We do have one bill, one
bill that has come in at inflation or less. All the rest are averaging
around 10, 11, 12 percent increases. We ought to be concerned about
what the Congress is doing in terms of increasing the spending in light
of the fact that we have just finished a year in which we had a
published $1.4 trillion deficit. But those are Enron numbers. That is
Enron accounting because we didn't recognize all the money we borrowed
from trust funds that don't go to the public debt, that are internal
IOUs that our children nevertheless will still have to pay back.
The real reason I want to talk about this bill is because it purports
to have an amendment on competitive bidding. I will grant that the
amendment is better than no amendment, but the American people should
be outraged at what we have done on competitive bidding in this bill.
What we have said is we want competitive bidding--except for our
friends. If you are connected to a Senator through an earmark or if you
are connected through a grant process, what we have done is taken a
large number of grants and directed them specifically without
competitive bidding. What does that mean to the process? What does that
do to the integrity of the process? It says if you are well heeled and
well connected, then in fact you can have what you want on a
noncompetitive basis, because that is what the amendment in the bill
says. But if in fact you are not, then you will have to compete on the
basis of merit and price like everybody else in the country.
Once again we have earned our lack of endorsement by the American
public because of what we have said: ``Unless otherwise authorized by
statute without regard to the reference statute.'' Those are fancy
words for saying we want competitive bidding on everything except
earmarks and the congressional directive we have in this bill.
That means if you have a business and you have an earmark, you didn't
have to be the best business to get that, to supply the Federal
Government whatever it is. If you are a grant recipient and got
earmarked, you didn't have to be the one with the greatest need, No. 1,
or the most efficient way to generate the dollars through that grant.
What it does is it puts on its ear any semblance of fair play, No. 1;
and, No. 2, it takes away the initiative for everybody else who now is
going to get a competitive bid. What it is going to do is drive a
greater demand for earmarks in the future.
We ought to ask ourselves the following question: If this is taxpayer
money and our grandchildren's money--because 43 percent of this bill is
going to be borrowed--is it morally correct, is it intellectually
honest that we would say: If you are connected, if you have an ``in,''
you don't have to meet the same level of responsibility and
accountability as those who are well connected? I think that is a great
question for us to debate.
Unfortunately, a real competitive bidding amendment was not agreed to
in this bill that would put all of it at competitive bidding. Senators
have the right to say we ought to do something. But they don't
necessarily have the right to say we ought to do something and this
person ought to benefit from it. It is not ours to give away. When we
do things as we have done in this bill to protect those most well
heeled, those most well connected to the Congress, by saying everybody
else is going to play under one set of rules but if, in fact, you have
a friend or a connection or an earmark or a directed grant, you don't
have to play by those rules, not only is it unfair to everybody else
who does not have to play by those rules, it actually undermines the
value of what we do.
On the basis of that and the spending levels, I plan on opposing the
Homeland Security conference report. My hope is that we will get
better, that in fact we will not play games with the American public,
that we will not say our friends get to get treated differently than
anybody else in this country and that every dollar we spend we can
assure to the American taxpayer is going to go to the best firm to do
that based on a competitive bid so we actually get the best value for
the hard-earned dollars that are being spent.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote
for passage of the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill for the
Department of Homeland Security.
First, I want to thank my colleagues on the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member
Voinovich, as well as full Committee Chairman and Ranking Member Inouye
and Cochran for all the hard work and consideration they brought to
this bill.
The overall bill, which provides $42.776 billion in discretionary
funding for DHS in fiscal year 2010, is $151 million less than the
total provided in the Senate bill, but $159 million higher than the
House funding total, and seems to me to be a fair compromise.
The resources provided in the bill are sufficient to carry out the
Department's core missions of protecting the homeland against the
threat of terrorism, securing our borders, enforcing our immigration
laws, and preparing for and responding to terrorist attacks and natural
disasters.
While there are many programs and activities at DHS deserving of
funding above the level provided in this bill, we are in a time of
serious economic challenge, and obviously tough choices had to be--and
were--made in putting this legislation together.
This bill reflects the priorities of a department that has made great
strides in the last 6 years but still faces many hurdles in fulfilling
the mission Congress laid out for it in 2002. Senator Collins and I
have worked together since DHS was created--alternating as chairman and
ranking member of the primary authorizing committee for the
Department--to strengthen the Department's ability to carry out its
many national security assignments, to strengthen its management,
facilitate its integration, and to hold its leadership accountable to
an American public that has a right to be safe and secure within the
borders of our own Nation.
In May, I wrote to Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Voinovich setting
forth what I believed to be the most significant appropriations
priorities for the Department, and I am grateful that a number of my
recommendations have been incorporated into this bill. Let me briefly
discuss a few sections of this bill that I believe are particularly
important to our homeland security.
First, I am pleased the Appropriations Committee recognized that the
Department's management and operations accounts need adequate funding
if DHS is to succeed as it must. Secretary Napolitano has emphasized
the need to create ``One DHS'' where the Department's many components
are working closely together. To accomplish this, the offices for
policy, human capital, acquisition, and information technology need
additional resources, and all received significant increases in their
budgets. The additional investment in acquisition oversight is
particularly gratifying, as it will improve the Department's ability to
oversee the
[[Page 25118]]
$12 billion it spends each year on contracts with the private sector to
better ensure our tax dollars are not wasted on bloated or ineffective
programs.
Second, this bill, together with the funding provided in the fiscal
year 2009 supplemental, significantly increases resources for combating
violence on our southern border and includes the bulk of the $500
million increase in border security funding Senator Collins and I
successfully added to the Senate budget resolution in March.
The FBI has said that the Mexican drug cartels are the number one
organized crime threat in America today, replacing the Mafia. The kind
of targeted and grisly violence we are seeing in Mexico is
unprecedented. Thanks to this funding, DHS will be able to send almost
300 additional law enforcement officers to our ports of entry in order
to conduct southbound inspections and interdict the illegal flow of
cash and guns into Mexico that is fueling the cartels' ruthless attacks
against the Mexican Government.
The funding will also add hundreds of ICE investigators to work on
drug, currency, and firearms cases in the border region, and will
expand the Border Enforcement Security Task Force fusion centers that
ICE has established along the southwest border. This funding was badly
needed to help Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies take
down these sophisticated and dangerous drug and human smuggling
networks. The Mexican drug cartels represent a clear and present threat
to homeland security, and I remain fully committed to working with the
administration to support our Federal law enforcement agencies in this
crucial fight.
Third, this bill continues funding for the Homeland Security grant
programs that our first responders need to prepare for acts of
terrorism and natural disasters at the State, local, and tribal levels.
Funding for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which provides
basic preparedness funds to all States and is the largest of DHS's
grant programs, remains steady from last year at $950 million,
including $60 million for grants focused on border security,
essentially the full level authorized by Congress in the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. Funds for Urban
Area Security Initiative, UASI, grants, which provide resources to the
Nation's highest risk metropolitan areas, are increased by nearly $50
million over last year.
I am also pleased that funding for SAFER grants which assist local
fire departments with the cost of hiring new firefighters was doubled
to $420 million for fiscal year 2010. In this era of budget
constraints, this funding will help ensure that communities are able to
continue to staff their local firehouses.
The Appropriations Committee has also wisely restored a significant
portion of the funding cut from the President's budget for assistance
to firefighter grants. These grants fund essential equipment, vehicles
and training for firefighters. However, the $390 million for these
grants still represents a cut of nearly one-third below the fiscal year
2009 appropriation. I hope that next year the funding for this
important program will be brought fully up to its previous level.
Fourth, this bill wisely supports the administration's request for a
significant increase in funding for cybersecurity at DHS which has been
identified as one of our top national security priorities. The
Department needs resources to protect Federal civilian networks from
cyber-related threats and to work with the private sector to protect
their networks and infrastructures. The Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee is currently working to develop
legislation that strengthens the government's authorities with respect
to cybersecurity, so this funding decision is particularly important.
Fifth, this bill adds $25 million above last year's appropriation to
support coordination, management and regulation of high-risk chemical
facilities and brings DHS regulator staff to 246--an increase of 168
over the 2009 staffing level.
This bill makes other essential homeland security investments in port
security, transit security, science and technology, and biosecurity,
all of which are critical to the overall security of the Nation.
I believe that overall this is a strong and essential piece of
legislation. I thank the leadership and the members of the
Appropriations Committee for their work on this bill and strongly urge
my colleagues to support its passage.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a
report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items
I certify that the information required by rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate related to congressionally
directed spending items has been identified in the conference
report which accompanies H.R. 2892 and that the required
information has been available on a publicly accessible
congressional website at least 48 hours before a vote on the
pending bill.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has passed the
Department of Homeland Security appropriations conference report. This
legislation contains important funding for the Department of Homeland
Security to carry out its various responsibilities. I commend Chairman
Inouye and Subcommittee Chairman Byrd for their hard work on this
legislation, and also for their support of a vibrant immigration
program that fosters direct investment in U.S. job creation that is
extended through this legislation.
The conference report we will pass today contains a 3-year extension
for the EB-5 regional center program. This extension will bring badly
needed stability to this program. Foreign investors who look to the
regional center program must have the confidence that the Federal
Government supports and believes in this program. Stakeholders that
rely on financing through this program must have the predictability
that this 3-year extension will help provide. As the U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services expressed to the Senate Judiciary Committee
during a recent hearing about this program, the biggest impediment to
the EB-5 regional center program is its lack of permanence. I have long
believed in the potential of this program as an economic engine for
America's communities. Given the recent and rapid expansion in the
number of approved regional centers around the country, it is clear
that many Americans recognize this potential, as well.
In an effort to make this program an integral part of our immigration
system, I offered an amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations
bill on the Senate Floor to provide for its permanent authorization.
That amendment was overwhelmingly adopted. Unfortunately, the
conference committee did not retain that permanent authorization, and
once again, irrational immigration politics got in the way of good
policy. Instead of making permanent a program that has created
thousands of American jobs and brought more than $1 billion of capital
investment into our communities since 2006, the conference was
compelled to sacrifice this opportunity for no legitimate reason.
However, it is still heartening to know that over the next 3 years the
citizens who are working to better their communities through the
regional center program will be able to do so without the fear of
constant interruption and uncertainty.
I want to take a moment to commend all of the resourceful business
people who have turned to this program to finance key economic
development projects in their communities. Despite the hurdles that
have continually hampered the efforts I have led to renew the program,
the stakeholder community has not only continued to work hard on
improving local economies across the country, but has directly engaged
Members of Congress to ensure that this program does not wither away.
As a result of their efforts to retain a strong extension in the
conference report, I am confident that many more Members of Congress
have a better understanding of this
[[Page 25119]]
program's potential and importance in their own communities.
These stakeholders all deserve thanks for the jobs and capital
investment they are bringing to their communities. In Vermont, people
like Bill Stenger at Jay Peak Resort and Win Smith at Sugarbush Resort
have used the EB-5 program to keep Vermont's ski industry a vibrant and
foundational part of the Vermont economy. As a direct result of the EB-
5 regional center program and in a very difficult economic environment,
dozens of subcontractors in Northeastern Vermont are hard at work on a
project financed through the EB-5 Regional Center program. And in an
effort to build on these successes, the State of Vermont is actively
involved in working to expand the business sectors covered by Vermont's
regional center so that technology firms and other diverse Vermont
business enterprises can market their investment opportunities to a
global audience. My efforts will continue in support of the regional
center program. I look forward to helping Vermont and States across the
country realize the full potential of this program through a permanent
authorization.
I am also pleased that the conference retained an important measure
to correct a serious inequity in immigration law commonly known as the
widow penalty. Prior to the corrective amendment contained in this
legislation, a foreign national widow or widower of a U.S. citizen was
put into the untenable position of not only losing their spouse but
losing their lawful permanent residence and path to U.S. citizenship.
To underscore the nature of this injustice: In cases where a marriage
was entered in good faith and without any fraud or ill intent, if the
U.S. citizen spouse passed away during the period of conditional
residency, the immigration agency took the position that the widow or
widower no longer had standing to become a lawful permanent resident.
This is wrong, and for a society that places such great value on
family, a truly unfortunate position. The amendment in this
legislation, which I and other Senators worked hard to ensure was
retained in the conference report, will end this injustice.
The conference report also contains an amendment to extend a visa
program that allows individuals from around the world dedicated to
working on behalf of their religious faiths to come to the United
States to do just that. I am pleased that the efforts I and others made
to ensure this measure was retained have resulted in its adoption.
Finally, I commend the conference committee for rejecting an
amendment that would have done little more than waste taxpayer dollars
and cause further harm to the rights of property owners and the
environment along our southern border. The conference committee wisely
rejected an amendment that would have, in effect, required the
Department of Homeland Security to tear down and rebuild hundreds of
miles of barriers between the United States and Mexico that have
already been constructed, at enormous expense to taxpayers. The Secure
Fence Act, a piece of legislation I strongly opposed, directed the
Department of Homeland Security to build border fencing and other
barriers as a response to illegal border crossings. The Department
carried out this legislative command during the Bush administration and
constructed pedestrian fencing with vehicle barriers and other
infrastructure. The amendment that was rejected by the conference
committee would have compounded the negative effects that attended the
border fence's original construction, and wasted taxpayer dollars in
the process. I commend the conference for its wisdom in not accepting
this amendment.
Mr. President, I commend the Senate for enacting the Leahy-Cornyn
OPEN FOIA Act--a commonsense bill to promote more openness regarding
statutory exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA--as part
of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, H.R. 2892.
This FOIA reform measure builds upon the work that Senator Cornyn and I
began several years ago to reinvigorate and strengthen FOIA by enacting
the first major reforms to that law in more than a decade.
The Freedom of Information Act has served as perhaps the most
important Federal law to protect the public's right to know for more
than four decades. The OPEN FOIA Act will help to ensure that FOIA
remains a meaningful tool to help future generations of Americans
access government information.
The OPEN FOIA Act will make certain that when Congress provides for a
statutory exemption to FOIA in new legislation, Congress states its
intention to do so explicitly and clearly. In recent years, we have
witnessed a growing number of so-called ``FOIA (b)(3) exemptions'' in
proposed legislation--often in very ambiguous terms--to the detriment
of the American public's right to know.
During a recent FOIA oversight hearing held by the Judiciary
Committee, the president and CEO of the Associated Press, Tom Curley,
testified that legislative exemptions to FOIA ``constitute a very large
black hole in our open records law.'' The Sunshine in Government
Initiative, a coalition of media groups dedicated to improving
government transparency, has identified approximately 250 different
statutory exemptions to FOIA that are used by Federal agencies to deny
Americans' FOIA requests. This is an alarming statistic that should
concern all of us, regardless of party affiliation or ideology.
By enacting the OPEN FOIA Act, Congress has taken an important step
towards shining more light on the process of creating legislative
exemptions to FOIA, so that our government will be more open and
accountable to the American people. I thank Senators Lieberman, Graham
and Cornyn, and Representative Price, for working with me on this
measure. I also thank the distinguished chairmen and ranking members of
the Senate and House Appropriations Committees--Senators Inouye and
Cochran and Representatives Obey and Lewis--for their support of this
open government measure.
President Obama--who supported the OPEN FOIA Act when he was in the
Senate--has demonstrated his commitment to enacting this measure, as
have the many FOIA, open government and media organizations that have
tirelessly supported this measure since it was first introduced in
2005, including OpenTheGovernmnet.org, the Sunshine in Government
Initiative, the National Security Archive and the American Civil
Liberties Union.
I have said many times before--during both Democratic and Republican
administrations--that freedom of information is neither a Democratic
issue nor a Republican issue. It is an American issue. I commend the
Congress for taking this significant step to reinvigorate FOIA and I
urge the President to promptly sign this provision into law.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record, the Budget
Committee's official scoring of the conference report to accompany H.R.
2892, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for fiscal
year 2010.
The conference report provides $42.8 billion in discretionary budget
authority for fiscal year 2010, which will result in new outlays of
$25.5 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken
into account, discretionary outlays for the conference report will
total $46.6 billion.
The conference report includes $242 million in budget authority
designated as being for overseas deployments and other activities for
the Coast Guard. Pursuant to section 401(c)(4) of S. Con. Res. 13, the
2010 budget resolution, an adjustment to the 2010 discretionary
spending limits and the Appropriations Committee's 302(a) allocation
has been made for this amount in budget authority and for the outlays
flowing therefrom.
The conference report matches its section 302(b) allocation for
budget authority and is $2 million below its allocation for outlays.
The conference report includes provisions that make changes in
mandatory programs that result in an increase in direct spending in the
9 years following the 2010 budget year. These provisions are subject to
a point of order established by section 314 of S. Con. Res. 70,
[[Page 25120]]
the 2009 budget resolution. The conference report is not subject to any
other budget points of order.
I ask unanimous consent that the table displaying the Budget
Committee scoring of the conference report be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
H.R. 2892, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010
[Spending comparisons--Conference Report (in millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
Defense Purpose Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
Budget Authority................... 1,567 41,209 42,776
Outlays............................ 1,395 45,239 46,634
Senate 302(b) Allocation:
Budget Authority................... ......... ......... 42,776
Outlays............................ ......... ......... 46,636
Senate-Passed Bill:
Budget Authority................... 1,582 41,335 42,917
Outlays............................ 1,404 45,296 46,700
House-Passed Bill:
Budget Authority................... 1,553 41,064 42,617
Outlays............................ 1,390 44,931 46,321
President's Request:
Budget Authority................... 1,365 41,473 42,838
Outlays............................ 1,219 45,168 46,387
Conference Report Compared To:
Senate 302(b) Allocation:
Budget Authority................... ......... ......... 0
Outlays............................ ......... ......... -2
Senate-Passed Bill:
Budget Authority................... -15 -126 -141
Outlays............................ -9 -57 -66
House-Passed Bill:
Budget Authority................... 14 145 159
Outlays............................ 5 308 313
President's Request:
Budget Authority................... 202 -264 -62
Outlays............................ 176 71 247
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The table does not include 2010 outlays stemming from emergency
budget authority provided in the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act
(P.L. 111-32).
The conference report includes $242 million in budget authority
designated as being for overseas deployments and other activities for
the Coast Guard.
Air force Aerial Refueling Tanker
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today with my fellow cochair of the
Senate Tanker Caucus, Senator Conrad, to lend my support to the
expedited acquisition of the next aerial refueling tanker for the Air
Force. We were pleased to hear Secretary Gates announced on September
16 that he was giving oversight authority back to the Air Force for
this vital procurement program. This program will ultimately produce
179 new KC-X aerial refueling tankers through one of the largest
military procurement contracts in history, worth approximately $35
billion.
Mr. CONRAD. While it is important to acknowledge that the KC-135
replacement flight path was turbulent at times, we rise to commend the
Air Force for its plan to carry out the service's No. 1
recapitalization priority. The Air Force has presented a revamped KC-X
plan after a rigorous review of previous acquisition strategy. The new
plan belies the fact that the Air Force is committed to a fair, open,
and transparent competition. On September 25 the draft Request for
Proposal was released, restarting the process to ensure our men and
women in uniform have an aerial refueling tanker that will continue our
unmatched Global Reach anywhere on the planet. It goes without saying
now is the time to produce a timely, cost-effective, war-winning system
for the war fighter. The operations our nation is conducting today and
will conduct for the foreseeable future and require our airmen,
soldiers, sailors, and marines to operate in remote locations that need
to be supplied and defended without delay.
Mr. HATCH. The current KC-X proposal has been refined to 373 key
mandatory requirements that will allow this new tanker to ``Go to War''
on day 1. There are 93 additional areas that will enable offerors to
enhance their proposals. If the bids are within 1 percent of one
another, the 93 additional capabilities will be analyzed to break this
virtual tie. If a competitor has a score that wins by more than one
point then the award will go to that contractor. If the tally of
additional requirements score is less than a one point difference, the
contract will be awarded to the contractor with the lowest proposed
price. After reviewing this process, we believe it is very clear and
transparent. The contract award has been projected for May 2010.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are concerned that the plan is only
projected to purchase 15 tankers each year from the winning offeror. As
you remember, the last contract was structured to purchase 19 tankers
per year. It is imperative we find a way to increase the rate at which
we purchase this new tanker especially given the time we have lost. If
we stay on the current course, we will be relying on 80-year-old KC-
135s when the last new KC-X comes off the assembly line--an absolutely
unprecedented age for operational aircraft, especially such a critical
enabler that we rely on to ensure America's Global Reach. We must
accelerate this purchase.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are in great need of a new aerial
refueling tanker now. No one can dispute this fact; the President, the
Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Air Force have all said
so. President Eisenhower was our first President to see the current
refueling tanker in service and it has served through every contingency
for over almost 50 years. The venerable KC-135 is by far the oldest
airframe in our inventory. The generation of men and women that defend
our freedom deserve an aerial refueling tanker that capitalizes on the
innovations of today while providing the taxpayer the best value.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 7
minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ryan White Authorization
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to talk today about the Ryan
White authorization. The Ryan White authorization passed last night by,
really, unanimous approval. As many people know, the Ryan White
legislation is one of the most important pieces of legislation to fund
help for those people living with HIV and AIDS.
I want to comment on the importance of the bill, but essentially, in
today's world, remind people of where we were and how far we have come.
I want to talk about the importance of the bill. I could cite
statistics from my own State. I have a State with one of the largest
numbers of surviving AIDS patients, for which we are so happy and
grateful. I have over 34,000 Marylanders living today with HIV and
AIDS.
As I said, the passage was almost unanimous. The debate was
noncontroversial. It was the same way in
[[Page 25121]]
our Health, Education Committee. Our debate was quite civil. It was
even policy wonkish. We were focusing on the details of funding, how to
include more assistance for rural communities where there is a spike in
the number of AIDS cases. It was actually quite civil and collegial--
robust as it always is in the HELP Committee. But as I sat there and
listened to my colleagues--and it was somewhat dull, the usual--I
thought back to 1990 when it was not like that at all.
I say that today as we take up health reform. We are gripped by fear,
we are gripped by frenzy where all kinds of myths and misconceptions
are out there. The debate is prickly. It is tense. We don't listen to
each other. We are out there, hurtling, hurling accusations.
I want to go back to a day in 1990, a day in the HELP Committee
chaired by Senator Kennedy, when this young boy, Ryan White, came to
testify. Ryan White was diagnosed with AIDS at age 13. He came to
testify at the committee when we were trying to figure out what to do
with this new disease that was gripping the land, where people in our
urban communities were dying, adults who contracted it. Here was this
little boy who came, who was so frail, who was so sick, and he wrenched
our hearts that day as he talked about this new disease that he had
gotten. He had gotten it through a blood transfusion.
But what he also told us about was what he was going through. He
testified that day, mustering every bit of energy he had, speaking with
verve and pluck about his plight, he told us about what had happened to
him--how he was shunned in the class, how he was locked in a room, how
children were forbidden to play with him. He lived a life of isolation
and a life of desolation. He was treated like a pariah.
He wasn't the only one. Anyone who had AIDS in those days was greeted
as if they were the untouchables. I remember it well. If you had AIDS,
you were hated, you were vilified, you were viewed as a pariah. People
were afraid to get near you, afraid to use the water fountain. If you
heard someone in our office had AIDS, you didn't want to use the same
bathroom.
Firefighters and emergency people were afraid to touch people
bleeding at the site because they were concerned they could get it.
Funeral homes would not bury people who had AIDS. I remember a little
girl who died in my State who had AIDS, and only one funeral home in
the Baltimore area would bury her. This is the way it was then.
As that little boy spoke, we were gripped by tears and we were
gripped by shame, we were so embarrassed at what was happening in our
country. Both sides of the aisle were touched. The Senate stepped up
and they did it on a bipartisan basis. I was so proud that day when
Senator Ted Kennedy, whom we miss dearly, said: Tell me, young man,
what can we do for you?
And he said: Help the other kids. Help the other people who have
AIDS.
Ted said: I certainly will.
And Senator Orrin Hatch immediately stepped up--sitting next to
Kennedy--and said: I want to be involved. I want to work on that
legislation.
Ted Kennedy, Orrin Hatch, Chris Dodd, Tom Harkin, Barbara Mikulski,
Nancy Kassebaum--we all came together. We worked on a bipartisan basis
and we did move the Ryan White bill against the grain of many people in
this country and in the face of the fear and frenzy.
As Ryan White left with his mother that day, as he walked out in a
very halting way, he was gripped by a media frenzy. The noise went on.
They were pushing and shoving to try to get a picture of this poignant
little lad. Senator Kennedy jumped up, built like the linebacker he
once was in Harvard, and ran out and he said, ``Barb, come with me;
Chris, get over there; Orrin, grab that chair.'' We all ran out and Ted
Kennedy literally threw himself in front of Ryan White to protect him
from being run over by TV cameras.
Again, both sides of the aisle, we were there--Ted, calling this
out--Chris, you go there; Barb, open the door; Orrin, stick with me,
and Orrin stuck with him. They put their arms around him and got him
into a safe haven in one of our offices.
Ted Kennedy literally put himself on the line that day of fear and
frenzy, and Republicans were right there with him, helping him out to
get that young man to a safe room. Ted Kennedy protected that little
boy that day, literally and figuratively, and he had the support of the
committee.
So as we move ahead today, as we reauthorize the Ryan White program
for 4 more years, remembering that it is the largest source of Federal
funding for HIV/AIDS programs, I want us to remember how we worked
together, what it is like when we literally stand up for each other.
Ted Kennedy literally protected that child 19 years ago. He stood up
and protected the people who count on us to protect them every day. It
was a moving day. It was a lesson to be learned today--Ted Kennedy
leading the way, the ranking member by his side, all of us coming
together.
What I also remember that day was not only our bipartisanship and our
compassion and our civility with this little boy and with each other, I
remember the angry mob out there, worrying about people who had AIDS,
finger pointing. I guess the lesson of today is don't listen to the
mob. Don't be swayed by fear and frenzy. Let's get rid of
misconceptions and stop accusing each other. Let's start to work
together. Let's listen to each other.
Maybe 20 years from now when we look back on the debate of health
insurance reform, we will pass it and make it, and it will be so usual
and customary, and we will be proud of what we did as we are proud of
what we did today. Ryan White is no longer with us. But what he helped
inspire a nation to do is. I thank him and his family and all who
endured during that time.
Now I call upon us again. Let's return to civility, bipartisanship.
Let's stick to the facts. Let's stick with each other.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the
conference report to accompany the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations bill.
When this bill was originally before the Senate, I joined 83 other
Members of this body in supporting it.
But at this time I cannot support the conference report because it
includes language that was not included in the Senate-passed bill
relating to the detainees being held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval
Facility, or Gitmo.
This bill would prohibit the transfer, release or detention in the
United States of any of the detainees held at Gitmo as of June 24,
2009. However, it does allow detainees to be brought into the U.S. for
prosecution. I cannot support this. I have been very outspoken on this
issue and believe it is wrong to bring these detainees into our country
to try them in our criminal courts. These terrorists have committed
violations of the laws of war and should be held and prosecuted
according to the procedures Congress laid out in the past.
Prosecuting these individuals in our U.S. courts simply will not work
and there is too much at stake to grant the unprecedented benefit of
our legal system's complex procedural safeguards to foreign nationals
who were captured outside the United States during a time of war.
Allowing these terrorists to escape conviction, or worse yet, to be
freed into the U.S. by our courts, because of legal technicalities
would tarnish the reputation of our legal system as one that is fair
and just. Prohibiting the detainees from entering into the U.S. is one
small step in the right direction. However, this legislative loophole
is a step in the wrong direction.
In May, the Senate voted 90 to 6 to prohibit any of these hardened
terrorists from being brought to the United States. Despite this clear
objection, the administration transferred one detainee, Ahmed Ghailani,
to New York City in June. He is facing a trial in the Southern District
of New York for his role in the August 7, 1998 bombings of two U.S.
embassies in Africa. Some of my colleagues in the Senate have touted
this as an example of how we can
[[Page 25122]]
bring criminal charges against the Gitmo detainees and try them in our
courts. However, Ghailani was indicted on March 12, 2001, a full 6
months prior to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and after a full
investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The case against
Ghailani was built long before he was transferred to Gitmo in 2006. To
imply that other detainees, many of whom the FBI has not investigated
or collected evidence against, may be prosecuted similarly in U.S.
courts is naive. Worse yet, just recently, the Attorney General ordered
the U.S. attorney not to seek the death penalty in this case, despite
the fact that his participation in the bombings resulted in the death
of over 200 people and injured over 4,000. In contrast, six of the
charges brought against Ghailani in his military commission carried the
death penalty.
Now there are press reports that the administration is considering
transferring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or KSM to the United States. KSM is
the self-proclaimed, and quite unapologetic, mastermind of the 9/11
attacks. KSM admitted he was the planner of 9/11 and other planned, but
foiled attacks against the U.S. In his combatant status review board,
he admitted he swore allegiance to Osama bin Ladin, was a member of al-
Qaida, was the Military Operational Commander for all foreign al-Qaida
operations, and much more. These admissions are unlikely to be admitted
in a Federal court. Bringing KSM to a U.S. court will do nothing but
allow defense lawyers to expose our intelligence sources and methods
used in interrogating KSM to the world.
Time after time since President Obama's January 22, 2009 announcement
stating that he would close Gitmo within a year, I have seen hasty and
ill-advised comments and action taken with respect to the Gitmo
detainees. The detainees at Guantanamo are some of the most senior,
hardened, and dangerous al-Qaida figures we have captured. It is
imperative that the President satisfy the concerns of Congress and the
American public before we should fund the transfer of any of these
detainees to U.S. soil for any reason.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for his
comments. Having served on the Judiciary Committee and the Armed
Services Committee with Senator Chambliss, we had a number of hearings
on these issues. I agree with Senator Chambliss that there is no
practical alternative to the process we are using. It is right and just
to do so, to use the one, at least, we have been using at Guantanamo
Bay.
To create trials in Federal district court using American rules of
procedure such as Miranda and the exclusionary rule is not the kind of
thing that ought to be done in this case. He has given a lot of thought
to it, and I appreciate it. In essence, he is disappointed that the
conference committee altered language we passed by an overwhelming
majority in this Senate. That is exactly what I am going to talk about
today.
I am disappointed that those in the leadership in this Congress,
without discussion or debate, have decided to dramatically alter the
amendment I offered that was accepted unanimously to the Homeland
Security appropriations bill in this Congress.
On July 8, 2009, the Senate rejected, by a vote of 44 to 53--I think
at least 13 or more Democrats voted this way--a motion to table the E-
Verify amendment I offered to the Department of Homeland Security bill.
After the motion to table was defeated, the Senate then unanimously
accepted my amendment. The amendment made the program permanent, the E-
Verify Program, which allows businesses to run virtually an instant
computer check to see if the person who has applied before them is
legally able to work in the United States. The amendment I offered
would have made that E-Verify system permanent and it would have made
it mandatory for government contracts. Some States have mandatory
rules; businesses are voluntarily doing it. It would simply say: You
are not going to get a contract from the taxpayers of the United States
if you are not legally working in the United States. How simple is
that? But the version of the bill reported from conference is
dramatically different. It contains only a 3-year extension of the E-
Verify Program and does not include any of the Federal contractor
language. We passed a lot of stimulus money to try to create jobs for
Americans this year, and it should be for lawful people, not unlawful.
This is the third time this Congress and the leadership in this
Congress have either removed, changed, or blocked attempts to make this
successful program permanent, against the overwhelming will of the
American people, actually, and against the will of the Obama
administration--at least in their verbal statements--and the express
will of both the House and the Senate.
So this is how things happen. I think this is one of the reasons
people are angry with Congress. Some people say they are angry at
immigrants. I do not think that is accurate. I think they are angry at
Congress for failing to take commonsense steps to create a lawful
system of immigration and end the lawlessness that exists.
The mechanism is this: We pass it. Members of the Senate vote for it.
They go home and say: I voted to make E-Verify permanent. I voted to
make it apply to contractors. I am sorry it did not happen. Well, who
makes this happen? Who changes the language? It is done in secret in
conference in a nonopen way. They meet and just change it. They think
nobody is going to know and they can just get away with it. It is the
reason people are not happy with Congress.
In addition, the Democratic leadership on the conference committee--
and they are all appointed by the Speaker and by the majority leader.
So the majority of both Houses, the House and the Senate, are clearly
Democratic Members. I do not want to make this such a partisan thing,
but I guess it is an institutional thing of frustration that our
Democratic Members have voted for these reforms, for these good ideas,
but yet somehow it goes into conference and it gets eliminated, gets
undermined so it does not become law.
There were three other amendments stripped that dealt with
immigration issues that had overwhelming support: A DeMint amendment
that passed in the Senate called for completing the 700 miles of
double-layer fence called for by the Secure Fence Act that we passed
overwhelmingly some time ago, and that was taken out. A Grassley
amendment that would have allowed employers to reverify employees
through E-Verify was taken out. A Vitter amendment that would have
precluded the rescissions of the no-match rule was taken out.
So together with the recent actions of this administration--and they
have been sending mixed signals, but their actions sometimes speak
louder than words. They have backed off of the detention policy. Now I
see they are putting people illegally coming into our country in hotel
and motel rooms. They watered down the 287(g) Program which allows
local law enforcement to work with the Federal officials to help them
identify those who are illegally in the country in a way that makes
sense. It is a limited power, but it is very helpful. Those are some of
the things this administration has backed off on.
So I think the conclusion we reach is that the majority in control of
this Congress seems to be committed to blocking any congressional
action that actually seeks and is effective in enhancing law
enforcement. Some say: That is a harsh thing to say, Jeff. That is not
true. I will just repeat it. If you know what the system is about, you
know how the debate is going on in this Senate and in the House, you
would be aware of the fact that E-Verify is very important and that it
should apply to people who get government contracts. Why do they keep
taking it out?
Back in February, two amendments were unanimously accepted to the
House stimulus bill, the $800 billion bill that was supposed to create
jobs in America. Those amendments related to
[[Page 25123]]
the E-Verify Program. One was offered by Congressman Ken Calvert of
California for a 4-year extension of the E-Verify Program. It was
identical to the reauthorization language that passed the House on July
31, 2008, by a vote of 407 to 2. Another was offered by Congressman
Jack Kingston, and it prohibited funds made available under this $800
billion stimulus bill from being used to enter into contracts with
businesses that do not participate in this E-Verify system.
It is growing. Millions of checks are being done by this system. It
is no burden on businesses. So it would say, if you did not use that
system, you could not get this stimulus money to do things, build
things with.
The provisions of the bill were both unanimously accepted without a
vote by the House Appropriations Committee. Furthermore, the provision
that extended the program was also overwhelmingly approved by the House
last July by a vote of 407 to 2.
One of the main purposes of the stimulus bill was to put Americans
back to work. It was common sense--common sense--to include a simple
requirement that the people hired to fill the stimulus-created jobs be
lawfully in our country and lawfully able to work.
I tried to offer an amendment, at that time, that incorporated both
the House provisions in the Senate stimulus bill when the stimulus bill
was being considered in the Senate, but it was blocked on three
separate occasions by the Democratic leadership. I can only conclude
from that they did not want it. I knew, if we could get a vote, we
would have a bipartisan Democratic and Republican vote for it.
My amendment only incorporated the short 5-year extension, but I was
not even allowed to get a vote. As I predicted at that time, once the
bill went to conference, the conferees would strip the E-Verify
provisions from the final version of the economic stimulus package
without any open discussion or debate. That is exactly what they did. I
hate to say it, but the actions seem to send a clear signal that our
leadership wants to use taxpayers' money to employ people who are in
this country illegally.
That is a harsh thing to say. But if you do not want that to happen,
why don't we take some steps to do something about it? Why wouldn't we
require people who get government money--taxpayers' money that is
supposed to be designed to create American jobs--why wouldn't we want
to at least take this modest step to try to see that people illegally
here do not get those jobs?
Furthermore, in March, when I tried to offer an identical amendment
to the Omnibus appropriations bill, it was tabled by a vote of 50 to
47. This proves to me there are some powerful forces out there
somewhere still alive who want to block this important step.
It is important we permanently reauthorize this successful E-Verify
Program, which is currently set to expire when the current continuing
resolution ends. We should do it particularly now that we are in a time
of serious economic downturn and unemployment.
E-Verify is an online system operated jointly by Homeland Security
and the Social Security Administration. Participating employers can
check the work status of new hires online by comparing information from
an employee's I-9 form--that is their employment form--against the
Social Security and DHS databases. It is done like that. It takes just
a few minutes.
E-Verify is free to businesses and is the best means available for
determining the employment eligibility of new hires and the validity of
their Social Security numbers, instead of the so many bogus numbers
many of you have read about.
As of October 3 of this year--2009--over 157,000 employers,
businesses, are enrolled in this program. This represents over 600,000
hiring sites nationwide. Over 8.5 million inquiries were run through
the system in 2009 and over 90,000 have been run since October 1 of
this year--in 20 days.
The Homeland Security Secretary--President Obama's Secretary--Janet
Napolitano, has spoken highly of the E-Verify Program. She called the
program ``an integral part of our immigration enforcement system''--an
integral, essential part of our enforcement system. There is no doubt
about it, in my view. Attempts to make the program permanent have been
thwarted time and time again during this Congress.
According to Homeland Security, 96.1 percent of employees are cleared
to go to work immediately under this online system, and growth
continues at over 1,000 new employer users each week.
Of the remaining 3.9 percent of queries with an initial mismatch--so
there are 3.9 percent who are not cleared immediately--of those, only
.37 percent, about a third of 1 percent, were later confirmed to be
work authorized. So it looks like about 80, 90 percent of the people
who did not get immediate clearance--really, more than that--were not
authorized to work legally in America. Only .37 percent of those later
were shown to be held up improperly--or not ``improperly,'' just being
held up. Maybe they entered a wrong Social Security number by mistake.
Employers get an advantage. An employer that verifies work
authorization under E-Verify has established a rebuttable presumption
that the business has not knowingly hired an illegal alien.
Recently, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the
unemployment rate in the United States has jumped to 9.8 percent--
basically, double what it was a year or so ago. That is 15 million
unemployed. This is the highest unemployment rate in 25 years.
Immigration by illegal immigrants has had a serious and depressing
effect on the standard of living of lower skilled American workers.
That is a fact, in my view. The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform,
chaired by the late civil rights pioneer, Barbara Jordan--and they had
a big study of this--found that ``immigration of unskilled immigrants
comes at a cost to unskilled U.S. workers.''
The Center for Immigration Studies has estimated that such
immigration has reduced the wage of the average native-born worker in a
low-skilled occupation by 12 percent or almost $2,000 annually.
In addition, Harvard economist and author of perhaps the most
respected book on immigration--he goes into great detail of economic
studies and information that he analyzed--Professor George Borjas,
himself born in Cuba, has estimated that immigration in recent decades
has reduced the wages of native-born workers without a high school
degree by 8.2 percent.
E-Verify is working. In fact, the program is so successful that
Secretary Napolitano recently said:
The Administration strongly supports E-Verify as a
cornerstone of worksite enforcement and will work to
continually improve the program to ensure it is the best tool
available to prevent and deter the hiring of persons who are
not authorized to work in the United States.
That is a strong, clear, good statement the Secretary has given, and
it is common sense.
Recently confirmed Citizenship and Immigration Services Director
Alejandro Mayorkas said:
I believe E-Verify is an effective law enforcement tool.
In February of 2009, Doris Meissner, former head of immigration under
President Clinton, said:
Mandatory employer verification must be at the center of
legislation to combat illegal immigration . . . the E-Verify
system provides a valuable tool for employers who are trying
to comply with the law. E-Verify also provides an opportunity
to determine the best electronic means to implement
verification requirements. The Administration should support
reauthorization of E-Verify and expand the program. . . .
Alexander Aleinkoff--President Clinton's INS official and an Obama
administration Department of Homeland Security transition official--
calls it a ``myth'' that ``there is little or no competition between
undocumented workers and American workers.'' He is right about that.
They can say this is not true all day long, but anybody who observes
what is happening knows the large influx of low-skill workers pulls
down the wages of hard-working Americans who did not get a high school
diploma who are trying to take care of their families and survive in a
competitive world. It is a fact. We need to understand that.
[[Page 25124]]
Even the distinguished majority leader supports the program. He wrote
a letter in March of this year saying:
I strongly believe that every job in our country should go
only to those authorized to work in the United States. That
is why I strongly support programs like E-Verify that are
designed to ensure that employers only hire those who are
legally authorized to work in the United States, and believe
we need to strengthen enforcement against employers who
knowingly hire individuals who are not authorized to work. I
support reauthorization of the E-Verify program, as well as
immigration reform that is tough on lawbreakers, fair to
taxpayers and practical to implement.
This is one I hope we can all agree on. But I do not know how it came
out that this language was gutted out of the conference report, once
again.
Since 2006, 12 States have begun requiring employers to enter new
workers' names into the system, which checks databases, including
Arizona, which passed the law while our current Homeland Security
Secretary, Janet Napolitano, was Governor of Arizona. Colorado,
Georgia, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah have this system
where their employers that have contracts in government work--actually
any employers have to use the system before they are hired.
Secretary Napolitano has also said:
I'm a strong supporter of E-Verify. . . . You have to deal
with the demand side for illegal immigration, as well as the
supply side, and E-Verify is an important part of that.
In January of 2009, the Washington Post reported that Secretary
Napolitano said:
I believe in E-Verify. I believe it has to be an integral
part of our immigration enforcement system.
President Bush signed Executive Order 12989 last year. I think, in
many ways, he was slow to come to realize how important creating a
lawful system of immigration was. But he made some progress toward the
end and he made this statement and took this action. He said:
Contractors that adopt rigorous employment eligibility
confirmation policies are much less likely to face
immigration enforcement actions, because they are less likely
to employ unauthorized workers, and they are therefore
generally more efficient and dependable procurement sources
than contractors that do not employ the best available
measures to verify the work eligibility of their workforce. .
. . It is the policy of the executive branch to use an
electronic employment verification system because, among
other reasons, it provides the best available means to
confirm the identity and work eligibility of all employees
that join the federal workforce. Private employers that
choose to contract with the federal government should meet
the same standard.
So President Bush issued that Executive Order, that private employers
that choose to contract with the Federal Government should meet the
same standard. Basically, what happened was, President Obama delayed
it. They have since issued a policy that larger businesses should use
the system, for which I give them credit. So the Federal Government
should meet the same standard. He meant it should apply. The Obama
administration has made, as I understand it, an executive order that
requires larger businesses to use this system for the current time but
not smaller businesses, and it is not a part of law.
Last June, when Homeland Security designated E-Verify as the
electronic employment eligibility verification system that all Federal
contractors must use, Secretary Chertoff--the Secretary of Homeland
Security--said this:
A large part of our success in enforcing the nation's
immigration laws hinges on equipping employers with the tools
to determine quickly and effectively if a worker is legal or
illegal. . . . E-Verify is a proven tool that helps employers
immediately verify the legal working status of all new hires.
So some have argued it is too costly and too cumbersome. However, a
letter to the Wall Street Journal from Mark Powell, a human resources
executive with a Fortune 500 company, said it is free; it takes only a
few minutes and is less work than a car dealership would do checking a
credit score prior to selling a vehicle or taking a test drive.
Well, that is true. How else can we explain so many employers
voluntarily signing up? I think the short-term extensions only
discourage participation in the E-Verify Program and leave us with a
lack of assurance in the future we need.
With regard to the contention that there are some mismatches, as I
said, only .37 percent--less than 1 percent--of the people whose
numbers don't check out are found to be improperly checked out.
Truthfully, most of them got the right answer.
So I would conclude by saying a lot of progress has been made to make
the system even better than it was. Over 60 percent of foreign-born
citizens who have utilized this option and more than 90 percent of
those phone calls have led to a final ``work authorized''
determination. I think we are on the right track. I think we should
make this permanent. We absolutely should make it so that anyone who
obtains a contract or a job as a result of government taxpayer money
should be legally in the United States. If they are not, they shouldn't
get the job. It should be set aside for American taxpayers. I thank the
Chair.
Just before I conclude, once again, let me express frustration that
what was passed so overwhelmingly, somewhere behind closed doors--the
same place they are meeting right now to write a health care bill. We
don't know where they are or what they are talking about, but a group
is meeting to try to cobble together the two or three or four bills
that are pending out there with something they will bring to the floor,
and nobody has even seen it yet. We are having too much of that. I
think it is eroding public respect for the Congress, and I can
understand why the American people are angry with us.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). The Senator from
Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to join my distinguished colleague
from Alabama, as well as our colleague from South Carolina, who will
come to the floor soon to talk about this Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations conference report and specifically the major
provisions which had broad bipartisan support which were stripped out
of the conference report in the dead of night. I wish to thank my
colleague from Alabama for all his work on this issue in general,
particularly the E-Verify system. I strongly support the E-Verify
system. I strongly support expanding it aggressively. It is part of a
solution. It is not the whole solution; no one item is. But it is an
important part of the solution to get our hands around immigration
enforcement, particularly at the workplace. So I thank my colleague for
that work.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. VITTER. Absolutely, I will yield.
Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator has served in the House and the Senate and
knows how conference committees work. Isn't it true that the majority
of the Senate conferees would be appointed by the majority leader, and
a majority of the House conferees would be appointed by the Speaker?
Mr. VITTER. Absolutely.
Mr. SESSIONS. Isn't it a tradition that normally conferees appointed
by those leaders tend to follow their lead in how they vote in
conference?
Mr. VITTER. Absolutely.
Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator had an amendment that was stripped out, as
I did, dealing with the immigration issue. It seems to me odd that
amendments receiving such high votes in both the House and the Senate
would be stripped out of conference. Would you agree that is an odd
thing to happen?
Mr. VITTER. I absolutely agree with my colleague.
I would point out in that vein, the Sessions amendment got broad
support. When the Democratic leadership handling the bill on the floor
asked to table the amendment, that was rejected 53 to 44. In a similar
way, they attempted to table the amendment of our colleague from South
Carolina, and that motion was defeated 54 to 44. My amendment was
adopted by unanimous consent. Yet with that clear support from the
Senate floor, the leadership on the other side apparently went to
[[Page 25125]]
conference and took out those amendments in the dead of night. I find
that worrisome. I find it worrisome in terms of the process. I find it
worrisome in terms of immigration reform and where we are apparently
headed.
Again, as I said, these were three significant amendments put in this
bill on the Senate floor. All three have been stripped out of this
conference report.
Let me focus for a minute on my proposal. When the bill was on the
Senate floor, my amendment, which was Senate amendment No. 1375, was
passed by unanimous consent. So literally no one in the entire body,
Democratic or Republican, objected. Essentially, everyone agreed to put
this amendment on the bill. The amendment was to prohibit funding to
the Department of Homeland Security if they implemented any changes in
a final rule requiring employees to follow the rules of the Federal
Social Security no-match notices. This, as E-Verify, is an important
piece of the puzzle. It is an important piece of the solution.
In August of 2007, the Department of Homeland Security introduced its
no-match regulation. This clarified the responsibility of employers who
receive notice that their employees' names and Social Security numbers
don't match up with the records at Social Security.
So under the rule, employers receiving these notices who did not take
corrective action would be deemed to have constructive knowledge that
they are employing unauthorized aliens. So, in other words, the intent
and the way the rule worked was very simple and straightforward. If
records went in to the Department of Homeland Security, if a name and a
Social Security number didn't match according to Social Security
records, then the Federal Government would notify the employer and
would say: Time out; you have a problem. You need to do something about
it. If it is a mistake, we need to figure that out, but otherwise it
seems as though you are hiring an illegal. So stop and either clear up
the mistake or do not hire that person.
This rule provided employers with clear guidance on the appropriate
due diligence they should undertake if they received that sort of
letter from the Federal Government. So employers who received no-match
letters would know they have a problem: Either their record keeping
needs to be improved or they have hired illegal workers. The DHS no-
match rule gives companies that want to follow the law a clear path to
safety. Companies that prefer to ignore the problem or have chosen to
run their business with illegal labor cannot be forced to act
responsibly, so they do so at their peril under this rule. Since the
Social Security letter leaves a clear record for DHS investigators to
build a case against employers, it makes the entire system far more
workable.
My amendment simply said we are going to keep that new rule in place.
It is important for enforcement. It is important for workplace
enforcement. It is important to get our hands around the problem of
illegal immigration because of the common sense behind that concept. My
amendment was adopted on the Senate floor unanimously, by unanimous
consent.
As I said, Senator Sessions had an important amendment which he just
talked about to expand the E-Verify system. That amendment was actually
opposed by some, and there was a motion to table the amendment, but
that motion to table was defeated 53 to 44. Similarly, Senator DeMint
of South Carolina had an important immigration enforcement amendment.
He will be coming to the floor to talk about that this afternoon. His
amendment required the completion of at least 700 miles of reinforced
fencing along the southwest border by December 31, 2010. Again, his
amendment was opposed by some liberals on the Senate floor. They moved
to table that amendment but, again, by a significant vote that motion
to table was defeated 54 to 44.
So if these amendments are adopted by comfortable, if not unanimous,
margins in the Senate, why are they being stripped in the dead of night
in the conference committee report? Unfortunately, I think it is clear
this Congress, under the Democratic leadership, and this administration
want to take a very different approach to immigration, and they are not
serious about any of these enforcement measures.
I think that is a shame because these three amendments and other good
enforcement ideas I believe represent the common sense of the vast
majority of the American people. To me, this harkens back to the major
immigration reform debate we had in the summer of 2007 when a big so-
called comprehensive immigration reform bill came to the floor of the
Senate. It didn't have enough enforcement, in my opinion. It did have a
huge amnesty program instead. So by the end of the debate, the American
people spoke loudly and clearly. They said: No, we want enforcement. We
want to do everything we can on the enforcement side first. We don't
want a big amnesty.
That so-called comprehensive bill was defeated by a wide margin.
After that seminal event, so many on the Senate floor, including many
who had backed that bill, Senator McCain among them, said: OK, we heard
the American people. We heard you loudly and clearly. We need to start
with effective enforcement. We need to start with commonsense measures,
such as a certain amount of fencing, such as E-Verify, such as the
Social Security no-match rule. Yet when we put those commonsense
measures in this bill, what happened? In this Congress, led by
Democratic leadership, under this administration, it was just stripped
out of the conference committee report.
Sure, it got big votes on the Senate floor; sure, it has widespread
House support; sure, the Vitter amendment was adopted by unanimous
consent. We don't care. We are going to strip it out.
The message is loud and clear. The message is, we don't care what the
American people have said. We don't care what they said in the summer
of 2007. We don't care what they say over and over and over again about
these issues--no-match, E-Verify, fencing--we are just going to oppose
any of those commonsense enforcement measures.
I truly believe the second half of where the leadership in this
Congress and this administration is coming from is the same thing as
the second half of that immigration reform bill in 2007: a big amnesty
program with little to no enforcement, a big amnesty program.
We need to listen to the American people. We don't need to play games
and say we are supporting provisions and then have them stripped out of
conference reports. We need to be more straightforward, more honest in
what we are truly about in attacking this problem. Unfortunately, this
conference report is an example of exactly the opposite.
I urge my colleagues to pay attention to what is happening because so
many folks in this body are speaking out of both sides of their mouth.
They are saying: Oh, yes, fence, sure; E-Verify, absolutely; social
security no-match, sure. Then they get certain leaders of the
conference committee to do their dirty work and just strip those
provisions. They are ignoring the will of the American people. They are
rejecting commonsense enforcement, and according to many reports, the
Obama administration and its leaders in the Congress are going to
attempt another push for broad-based amnesty.
We need to listen to the American people and not play games. In
particular, we need to stop this game playing overall. Senator
Sessions, my distinguished colleague from Alabama, was right when he
said these sorts of antics--talking out of both sides of our mouths on
this issue, stripping so-called popular amendments from a conference
committee report--these antics are exactly what is eroding confidence
in Congress overall. This is exactly what the American people are so
frustrated and, in fact, so scared about with regard to many other
issues, such as health care.
I believe this is of real concern as we go into the health care
debate because, quite frankly, what does it matter what we adopt on the
Senate floor when the conference committee work is going to be handled,
perhaps, just like this Homeland Security conference committee was.
People can have little confidence based on our
[[Page 25126]]
votes on the Senate floor. The conference committee work can be
diametrically opposed to it on significant issue after significant
issue, just as it was on no match, on E-Verify, on fencing.
We need to stop eroding public confidence in that way. We need to do
what is, in fact, our first job in the Congress, House and Senate,
which is to listen to the American people and, yes, represent the
American people.
I am afraid this DHS conference report, with its significant
omissions in the area of Social Security no match, E-Verify, and
fencing, is a sign that this leadership in Congress and this
administration are not prepared to do any of that. I lament that.
I urge all of our colleagues to come back together and demand
progress on E-Verify, on no match, and on fencing, and to stop this
game playing as we move to other crucial issues, including health care.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. CARPER. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Carper and Mr. Kaufman pertaining to the
introduction of S. 1801 are printed in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. CARPER. I thank the Chair, and with that, I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
during the quorum call be equally divided between both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. 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. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I apologize for your having to listen to
me again this week, but I thank you for recognizing me, and actually I
want to talk about something pretty serious.
I think as Americans look in--and I guess in our relationships here--
cynicism is becoming so much a part of what we are doing. As a matter
of fact, trying to stop cynicism here in Washington is like trying to
stop water from flowing downhill. Every time the American people
succeed in forcing sunlight and transparency on the political process,
politicians find another corner to hide in. The latest trick is the
majority's practice of accepting popular amendments to legislation
while fully intending to strip those amendments out of the final bill
that we send to the President. There were at least four of these
amendments stripped from the conference report that is in front of us
today.
One of the amendments--authored by Senator Sessions--permanently
authorized the E-Verify Program and made it mandatory for all
government contractors. That is very important to the American people,
very important to employers, to be able to determine whether they are
hiring a worker who is here legally. That was thrown out.
Senator Vitter had an amendment which allowed the implementation of
what is called the ``no match'' rule, which essentially says that if a
name and a Social Security number don't match, that the employer is
immediately identified. That was thrown out.
Senator Grassley had an amendment to allow employers to voluntarily
verify the status of current employees. That was thrown out.
Then there was my amendment to require the Department of Homeland
Security to complete the 700-mile reinforced fence along the Southwest
border by the end of 2010. It passed on this Senate floor 54 to 44.
This amendment was stripped, along with all the others.
As always, Washington politicians respect the people's wrath when the
cameras are on us, but they do not respect the people's opinions when
the cameras are turned off. As everyone here is aware, the American
people are adamant about securing our southern border. It is a matter
of security, it is a matter of jobs, it is a matter of drug trafficking
and weapons trafficking. Thousands of Mexicans have been killed because
of our unwillingness to control our own border.
In 2006, overwhelming public opinion forced Congress to order the
construction of a 700-mile reinforced double fence by 2010. Both the
Bush administration and the Obama administration have dragged their
feet, and so far we only have 34 miles actually completed. The
Department of Homeland Security claims 661 miles are completed, but
that is not according to the law we passed because they count single-
layer fencing and vehicle barriers, which do nothing to stop pedestrian
traffic. My amendment would have reasserted a promise--a law--that
Congress has already passed. Leaders of both parties have repeatedly
tried to break this promise.
We are learning there is almost nothing that politicians won't do to
get out of promises they make in the daylight, especially if they can
pretend to keep the promises. This is staggering cynicism, and it is
undemocratic. It violates our whole principle of the rule of law. But
this problem goes well beyond our unkept promises to cure our southern
border. Earlier today, we considered the conference report on Energy
and Water--the Energy and Water spending bill. That report also
stripped out a popular amendment offered by Senator Coburn to require
all reports under the law to be made available to the public.
The majority is now so afraid of public scrutiny that they have to go
behind closed doors to complete amendments they earlier accepted to
guarantee transparency. This is now a pattern and a practice of the
least transparent Congress in American history. That should give all of
us pause, especially when we consider these same politicians are right
now behind closed doors planning the takeover of one-sixth of our
economy, if this health care bill succeeds.
They have promised the bill won't add to the deficit, promised it
won't force people off their health care plans, promised it won't pay
for abortions or cover illegal immigrants, and promised thousands of
other things. The problem is we don't know what is in the bill. In the
context of this back-room amendment stripping, these promises cannot be
delivered, and this process cannot be trusted.
I encourage my colleagues to recognize that we need to make good on
our promises. Both parties in this Congress have talked a lot about
ethics and transparency. When we accept a bill on the floor, with the
American people looking, but then strip it when the American people are
not looking, our whole process is denigrated. This bill in particular,
containing issues that deal with illegal immigration, which our country
is so engaged in--and particularly at a time when people are losing
their jobs, many times to workers who are not legal--is a very
sensitive issue to the American people.
For this amendment to be voted on and passed and then stripped out
makes no sense at all. I encourage my colleagues not to support this
conference report. It has stripped out the will of the American people.
I yield the floor.
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. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on this bill, on a
particular issue of interest to my State
[[Page 25127]]
and I think to the country on a new National Bio-Agriculture facility
to research new diseases and problems that can come in on animal
health. In this particular bill, Senator Roberts and I have been
working for some period of time to get funding for this facility to go
forward. This was a national competition that took place for the
location of the NBA facility. A number of States competed for it. It
was determined that Kansas would be the primary location for this to
occur. The initial funding of $32 million is in this conference report.
I am delighted that the National Bio-Agriculture facility, to be
located in Kansas, is getting its initial funding.
As one of the responsible acts of this body, the fullest amount of
the funding for this will not come until the Plum Island facility is
sold. When that is sold, then that money is to go to build this
facility that will research a number of different, difficult diseases
in the animal health industry--foot-and-mouth disease and a number of
other ones are to be researched. The facility has to be built safely so
the containment facility, its initial design, is a metal structure on
top of a concrete structure on top of another concrete structure in
which the animals and the pathogens will be contained.
To make sure this structure is safe, the facility design will be
reviewed by the Department of Homeland Security and the DHS review will
also be reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, so it is an
additional review on top of a review process. That may seem like
redundancy to a lot of people, but there has been a lot of concern
about moving FMD research into the mainland from Plum Island off of New
York.
I think it is prudent for us to do this research. I think it is
important for us to research cures in this area. I think it is also
prudent for us to make sure that the facility is well built and one
from which we can be certain these pathogens will not be released.
The passage of this final bill is a huge step in locating this NBA
facility in Kansas, providing additional funding for this. I believe
there is no better place than in Kansas to do this research. I am not
just saying that because it is my State--although that is a big part of
it--but 30 percent of the animal health industry globally is located
within 100 miles of Kansas City. It is a place where there is a lot of
this research taking place. The scientists are already there, the
companies are already developing these products to take care of animal
health problems. They are there and we can build on that success at a
national level.
I am delighted to see this moving forward in a responsible fashion.
This is the initial piece. The bigger piece comes after the sale of
Plum Island, which is appropriate. I am hopeful my colleagues will see
fit to doing that this next year.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, later today--in fact, as I understand, in
a very short time--the Senate will vote on the conference report to
accompany the fiscal year 2010 Department of Homeland Security
appropriations bill. This conference report spends approximately $42.7
billion, 6.6 percent above last year's bill. I am sure many American
households would love a 6-percent increase in their budget but cannot
afford it. The Federal Government can't afford it either.
Specifically, this conference report contains 181 congressionally
directed spending items totaling over $269 million. As far as I can
tell, none of these projects was requested by the administration,
authorized, or competitively bid in any way. No hearing was held to
judge whether these were national priorities worthy of scarce
taxpayers' dollars.
By the way, as I recall, when we first started with the Homeland
Security Appropriations bills, we had decided at that time there would
be no earmarks. So the next time we didn't do them. Then there are a
few more. Now there are 181 of them--181, totaling over $269 million. I
do not need to remind Americans--I might want to try to keep reminding
the appropriators--the Federal deficit now stands at $1.4 trillion. It
is an all-time high. Americans are losing their jobs and their homes at
record rates. What are we doing? We just keep on spending.
Let's take a look at some of the earmarks included in this conference
report: $4 million for the Fort Madison Bridge, in Fort Madison, WI.
How is that related to homeland security? There is $3.6 million for a
Coast Guard Operations Systems Center in West Virginia. Why would the
Coast Guard Operations Systems Center be located in a landlocked State?
There is $200,000 to retrofit a college radio station in Athens, OH.
Let me be clear here. This is to appropriate funds for homeland
security. Obviously high on somebody's list is $200,000 to retrofit a
college radio station. My, my, my.
There is $900,000 for the City of Whitefish Emergency Operations
Center in Whitefish, MT. The population is 5,849. That comes out to
$153.87 per resident which is paid for by my taxpayers and all American
taxpayers.
There is $250,000 to retrofit a senior center in Brigham City, UT.
The last time I checked, senior centers are important but they have
very little relation to homeland security. There is $125,000 to replace
a generator in La Grange Park, IL. I have to say, maybe there is
something we don't know here. Maybe there is a reason why we need to
retrofit a college radio station in Athens, OH; maybe there is a reason
we need to replace a generator in La Grange Park, IL; maybe there is a
reason why we have to spend $250,000 to retrofit a senior center in
Brigham City, UT in the name of homeland security; maybe there is a
reason to spend $130,000 to relocate the residents of 130 homes in
DeKalb, IL. But we will never know because we don't have any hearings,
we don't have any authorization. We just go ahead and spend the money--
6.6 percent over last year. The original intent was there were not
going to be any earmarks. Amazing.
In addition to the earmarks contained in the conference report,
Congress continues to fund programs that the President, as part of his
budget submission, had recommended terminating or reducing. This is the
President's budget submission. These are the requests of the President
that certain programs be terminated because they are unnecessary and
unwanted and redundant. Remember, this is in the face of a $1.43
trillion deficit. We are still funding them, no matter what the
President of the United States says and no matter what good sense says.
The first amendment I tried was to terminate a terrestrial-based,
long-range maritime radio navigation system called the LORAN-C. The
Bush and Clinton administrations sought to terminate the program. They
tried. The current administration states in its budget that, although
the program is not fully developed, it is already ``obsolete
technology.'' This is what the President says:
The Nation no longer needs this system because the
federally supported civilian global positioning system, GPS,
has replaced it with superior capabilities.
Is there anybody who doubts that GPS is a superior capability?
The elimination of this program, according to the
President, would achieve a savings of $36 million in 2010 and
$190 million over 5 years.
Those are not my words, those are the words of the administration. So
what have the appropriators done? They continued to fund it. When I
offered an amendment to eliminate that obsolete technology that the
Nation no longer needs, 36--count them--36 of my colleague also
supported it. The majority party in the Senate did not support the
administration's view that this program should be eliminated and this
conference report continues to fund the program into next year, rather
than cutting funding immediately--as we should have done a long time
ago.
My other attempt to support the President's effort to eliminate
wasteful government programs also failed. The administration proposed
in its 2010 budget to cut the Over-the-Road Bus Security Program
because the money was not awarded based on risk, as recommended by the
9/11 Commission, and the program has been assessed as not effective.
[[Page 25128]]
The appropriators have now gone against the recommendations of the 9/
11 Commission, they have gone against the recommendations of the
President of the United States, and we will continue to spend another
$6 million. I offered the amendment to eliminate the program. The
amendment was defeated by a vote of 47 to 51, so we will spend another
$6 million that the administration says we do not need and that clearly
is unnecessary to be funded.
During the Senate consideration of the bill, I filed a total of 28
amendments to strike earmarks and end funding for programs that the
President had sought to terminate. Not surprisingly, my efforts were
rebuffed each time by the members of the Appropriations Committee. The
American people are tired of this process, they are tired of watching
their hard-earned money go down the drain. Earlier this year, the
President pointedly stated, and I quote him:
We cannot sustain a system that bleeds billions of
taxpayers dollars on programs that have outlived their
usefulness, or exist solely because of the power of
politicians, lobbyists or interest groups. We simply cannot
afford it. . . . We will go through our Federal budget--page
by page, line by line--eliminating those programs we don't
need, and insisting those we do operate in a sensible and
cost-effective way.
This is the document. The President went through it line by line. So
we offered amendments to eliminate these programs. So of course the
appropriators won again. They not only voted against my attempts to
strike wasteful and unneeded spending, they also eliminated a provision
that was supported by 54 Members of the Senate to mandate the
completion of 700 miles of fence along the Southwest border by December
31, 2010. This elimination will only serve to weaken our efforts to
secure the border. We know that fencing alone is not a panacea to every
security issue on the border, but there is no doubt that increased
fencing bolsters Customs border patrol efforts to secure our border.
Additionally, the other body's leadership added language that
prohibits use of the funds in this act or any other act for the release
of detainees held at Guantanamo into the United States, its territories
and possessions. By extending this prohibition to U.S. territories and
possessions, the conference report further restricts the release of
detainees enacted into law in the supplemental appropriations act for
fiscal year 2009. The conference report also restricts transfers of
detainees from Guantanamo, limiting them to only transfers for the
purpose of prosecution or detention during legal proceedings, and
requires the President provide a plan to Congress 45 days prior to
transfer. These provisions allow detainees to be tried for acts that
amount to war crimes in Federal criminal courts and would authorize
bringing detainees into the United States for that purpose.
I will continue to believe that war crimes--and by that I include the
intentional attacks by civilians that resulted in the loss of nearly
3,000 lives on September 11, 2001--should be tried in a war crimes
tribunal created especially for that purpose. The Military Commission's
Act of 2009 is a result of extensive input and coordination with the
Obama administration. It should be the vehicle for the trial for the
horrendous war crimes committed against thousands of innocent American
civilians, rather than bringing detainees from Guantanamo to the United
States to face trial in a domestic Federal criminal court.
I am sure that many of my colleagues read with interest the views of
former Attorney General of the United States Michael Mukasey in the
Wall Street Journal on Monday, October 19, in which he opposes trial of
these detainees who are suspected of being responsible for the 9/11
attacks in Federal criminal court. He says:
The Obama administration has said it intends to try several
of the prisoners now detained at Guantanamo Bay in civilian
courts in this country. This would include Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks, and other detainees involved.
The Justice Department claims our courts are well suited to the task.
This is the former Attorney General of the United States who says:
Based on my experience trying such cases and what I saw as
Attorney General, they are not.
That is not to say civilian courts cannot ever handle terrorist
prosecutions, but rather their role in a war on terror--to use an
unfashionable phrase--should be as the term ``war'' would suggest, a
supporting and not a principal role.
I ask unanimous consent the article from the Wall Street Journal by
the former Attorney General of the United States saying, ``Civilian
Courts Are No Place To Try Terrorists,'' be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 19, 2009]
Civilian Courts Are No Place to Try Terrorists
(By Michael B. Mukasey)
The Obama administration has said it intends to try several
of the prisoners now detained at Guantanamo Bay in civilian
courts in this country. This would include Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks, and other detainees allegedly involved. The Justice
Department claims that our courts are well suited to the
task.
Based on my experience trying such cases, and what I saw as
attorney general, they aren't. That is not to say that
civilian courts cannot ever handle terrorist prosecutions,
but rather that their role in a war on terror--to use an
unfashionably harsh phrase--should be, as the term ``war''
would suggest, a supporting and not a principal role.
The challenges of a terrorism trial are overwhelming. To
maintain the security of the courthouse and the jail
facilities where defendants are housed, deputy U.S. marshals
must be recruited from other jurisdictions; jurors must be
selected anonymously and escorted to and from the courthouse
under armed guard; and judges who preside over such cases
often need protection as well. All such measures burden an
already overloaded justice system and interfere with the
handling of other cases, both criminal and civil.
Moreover, there is every reason to believe that the places
of both trial and confinement for such defendants would
become attractive targets for others intent on creating
mayhem, whether it be terrorists intent on inflicting
casualties on the local population, or lawyers intent on
filing waves of lawsuits over issues as diverse as whether
those captured in combat must be charged with crimes or
released, or the conditions of confinement for all prisoners,
whether convicted or not.
Even after conviction, the issue is not whether a maximum-
security prison can hold these defendants; of course it can.
But their presence even inside the walls, as proselytizers if
nothing else, is itself a danger. The recent arrest of U.S.
citizen Michael Finton, a convert to Islam proselytized in
prison and charged with planning to blow up a building in
Springfield, Ill., is only the latest example of that
problem.
Moreover, the rules for conducting criminal trials in
federal courts have been fashioned to prosecute conventional
crimes by conventional criminals. Defendants are granted
access to information relating to their case that might be
useful in meeting the charges and shaping a defense, without
regard to the wider impact such information might have. That
can provide a cornucopia of valuable information to
terrorists, both those in custody and those at large.
Thus, in the multidefendant terrorism prosecution of Sheik
Omar Abdel Rahman and others that I presided over in 1995 in
federal district court in Manhattan, the government was
required to disclose, as it is routinely in conspiracy cases,
the identity of all known co-conspirators, regardless of
whether they are charged as defendants. One of those co-
conspirators, relatively obscure in 1995, was Osama bin
Laden. It was later learned that soon after the government's
disclosure the list of unindicted co-conspirators had made
its way to bin Laden in Khartoum, Sudan, where he then
resided. He was able to learn not only that the government
was aware of him, but also who else the government was aware
of.
It is not simply the disclosure of information under
discovery rules that can be useful to terrorists. The
testimony in a public trial, particularly under the probing
of appropriately diligent defense counsel, can elicit
evidence about means and methods of evidence collection that
have nothing to do with the underlying issues in the case,
but which can be used to press government witnesses to either
disclose information they would prefer to keep confidential
or make it appear that they are concealing facts. The
alternative is to lengthen criminal trials beyond what is
tolerable by vetting topics in closed sessions before they
can be presented in open ones.
In June, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the
transfer of Ahmed Ghailani to this country from Guantanamo.
Mr. Ghailani
[[Page 25129]]
was indicted in connection with the 1998 bombing of U.S.
Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He was captured in 2004,
after others had already been tried here for that bombing.
Mr. Ghailani was to be tried before a military commission
for that and other war crimes committed afterward, but when
the Obama administration elected to close Guantanamo, the
existing indictment against Mr. Ghailani in New York
apparently seemed to offer an attractive alternative. It may
be as well that prosecuting Mr. Ghailani in an already
pending case in New York was seen as an opportunity to
illustrate how readily those at Guantanamo might be
prosecuted in civilian courts. After all, as Mr. Holder said
in his June announcement, four defendants were ``successfully
prosecuted'' in that case.
It is certainly true that four defendants already were
tried and sentenced in that case. But the proceedings were
far from exemplary. The jury declined to impose the death
penalty, which requires unanimity, when one juror disclosed
at the end of the trial that he could not impose the death
penalty--even though he had sworn previously that he could.
Despite his disclosure, the juror was permitted to serve and
render a verdict.
Mr. Holder failed to mention it, but there was also a fifth
defendant in the case, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim. He never
participated in the trial. Why? Because, before it began, in
a foiled attempt to escape a maximum security prison, he
sharpened a plastic comb into a weapon and drove it through
the eye and into the brain of Louis Pepe, a 42-year-old
Bureau of Prisons guard. Mr. Pepe was blinded in one eye and
rendered nearly unable to speak.
Salim was prosecuted separately for that crime and found
guilty of attempted murder. There are many words one might
use to describe how these events unfolded; ``successfully''
is not among them.
The very length of Mr. Ghailani's detention prior to being
brought here for prosecution presents difficult issues. The
Speedy Trial Act requires that those charged be tried within
a relatively short time after they are charged or captured,
whichever comes last. Even if the pending charge against Mr.
Ghailani is not dismissed for violation of that statute, he
may well seek access to what the government knows of his
activities after the embassy bombings, even if those
activities are not charged in the pending indictment. Such
disclosures could seriously compromise sources and methods of
intelligence gathering.
Finally, the government (for undisclosed reasons) has
chosen not to seek the death penalty against Mr. Ghailani,
even though that penalty was sought, albeit unsuccessfully,
against those who stood trial earlier. The embassy bombings
killed more than 200 people.
Although the jury in the earlier case declined to sentence
the defendants to death, that determination does not bind a
future jury. However, when the government determines not to
seek the death penalty against a defendant charged with
complicity in the murder of hundreds, that potentially
distorts every future capital case the government prosecutes.
Put simply, once the government decides not to seek the death
penalty against a defendant charged with mass murder, how can
it justify seeking the death penalty against anyone charged
with murder--however atrocious--on a smaller scale?
Even a successful prosecution of Mr. Ghailani, with none of
the possible obstacles described earlier, would offer no
example of how the cases against other Guantanamo detainees
can be handled. The embassy bombing case was investigated for
prosecution in a court, with all of the safeguards in
handling evidence and securing witnesses that attend such a
prosecution. By contrast, the charges against other detainees
have not been so investigated.
It was anticipated that if those detainees were to be tried
at all, it would be before a military commission where the
touchstone for admissibility of evidence was simply relevance
and apparent reliability. Thus, the circumstances of their
capture on the battlefield could be described by affidavit if
necessary, without bringing to court the particular soldier
or unit that effected the capture, so long as the affidavit
and surrounding circumstances appeared reliable. No such
procedure would be permitted in an ordinary civilian court.
Moreover, it appears likely that certain charges could not
be presented in a civilian court because the proof that would
have to be offered could, if publicly disclosed, compromise
sources and methods of intelligence gathering. The military
commissions regimen established for use at Guantanamo was
designed with such considerations in mind. It provided a way
of handling classified information so as to make it available
to a defendant's counsel while preserving confidentiality.
The courtroom facility at Guantanamo was constructed, at a
cost of millions of dollars, specifically to accommodate the
handling of classified information and the heightened
security needs of a trial of such defendants.
Nevertheless, critics of Guantanamo seem to believe that if
we put our vaunted civilian justice system on display in
these cases, then we will reap benefits in the coin of world
opinion, and perhaps even in that part of the world that
wishes us ill. Of course, we did just that after the first
World Trade Center bombing, after the plot to blow up
airliners over the Pacific, and after the embassy bombings in
Kenya and Tanzania.
In return, we got the 9/11 attacks and the murder of nearly
3,000 innocents. True, this won us a great deal of goodwill
abroad--people around the globe lined up for blocks outside
our embassies to sign the condolence books. That is the kind
of goodwill we can do without.
Mr. McCAIN. Finally, I hope we will have the opportunity to come back
to this debate during the floor consideration of the Commerce-Justice-
State appropriations bill in the context of the Graham amendment on
this issue, which I am proud to cosponsor along with Senator Lieberman.
I am concerned, however, because I understand the administration will
soon announce its decision on prosecuting the 9/11 detainees, and
indications are the administration will seek such prosecutions in
Federal criminal courts. Congress should have the opportunity to speak
on this issue before the administration embarks on a course with which
I and many law and national security experts strongly disagree.
I am also pleased this conference report does contain a provision
that will allow the Secretary of Defense to prohibit the disclosure of
detainee photographs under the Freedom of Information Act if he
certifies that release of the photos would endanger U.S. citizens,
members of the Armed Forces, or U.S. Government employees deployed
outside the United States.
I do not have to, nor should I have to, remind my colleagues about
the seriousness of the fiscal crisis our Nation is facing. There is no
better way to prove we are serious about getting our country back on
the right path than by ending the wasteful practice of earmarking funds
in appropriations bills, especially a bill as important as this one
that provides for funding of our critical homeland security programs.
Our current economic situation and our vital national security
concerns require that now more than ever we prioritize our Federal
spending. But this conference report does not do that. We cannot
continue to spend taxpayer dollars in such an irresponsible manner. So,
obviously, I am unable to support this legislation. I encourage my
colleagues to vote against it, and if it is passed, I urge the
President of the United States to send a message that this is going to
stop and veto this bill and every other bill that is larded down with
earmarked porkbarrel projects. It is time for a change, a real change.
Finally, there are some angry people out there. They call them tea
parties. They come to the townhall meetings in huge numbers. They
write. They call. They e-mail. They Twitter. They tell us they are sick
and tired of this. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the junior Senator from South Carolina
earlier raised concerns about dropping his amendment concerning the
fence on the southwest border. He asserted that the decision to drop
the language was made behind closed doors. To be clear, the conference
met in public session on October 7 during the full light of day.
As to the DeMint amendment, I fully support the goal of the amendment
that was offered by the Senator from South Carolina. I am one of the
strongest proponents in the Senate of securing our southwest border.
That is why I supported legislation in 2006 to build the fence. I have
led the effort to increase border security and immigration enforcement
efforts.
However, the amendment that was offered by the able Senator from
South Carolina is too prescriptive and too costly. Instead, in
conference I worked to provide real resources to secure our borders.
The conference agreement before the Senate today sustains the
bipartisan congressional effort begun by the Byrd amendment to the
fiscal year 2005 supplemental and continued in the fiscal year 2006-
2009 appropriations acts to provide substantial increases in border
security and immigration enforcement.
The number of Border Patrol agents has increased from 11,264 to a
level of
[[Page 25130]]
20,019 agents, by the end of this year. Under this agreement, the
conferees added over $21 million above the request to hire an
additional 144 agents. There will be 20,163 agents onboard at the end
of fiscal year 2010.
Similarly, the number of detention beds has increased in the same
time period from 18,500 beds to 33,400 beds. The agreement fully funds
33,400 detention beds and includes statutory language to maintain that
level of bed space throughout the fiscal year.
The agreement also adds $25 million to the President's request of
$112 million to expand the capacity of the E-Verify Program and
increases its compliance rate.
The miles of fencing that have been constructed have increased from
119 miles in 2006 to more than 629 miles. The number of miles of the
southwest border that are under ``effective control,'' as determined by
the Border Patrol, has grown from 241 miles to almost 700 miles this
year. That is an increase of almost 80 miles since the end of the last
fiscal year.
More than 655 miles of border fence will be complete in early 2010.
The agreement provides $800 million or $25 million above 2009 for the
deployment of additional sensors, cameras, and other technology on the
southwest border. Since beginning major border fence and security
construction along the southwest border in fiscal year 2007, when
combined with the $800 million in this bill and the $100 million
provided in the Recovery Act, nearly $4.1 billion--spelled with a
``b''--nearly $4.1 billion has been appropriated for this purpose. That
$4.1 billion is a lot of money, a lot of money. That is $4.10 for every
minute since Jesus Christ was born the way I figure it.
However, it is estimated it could cost $8.5 billion to construct the
additional fencing required by the Senator's amendment. That is money
we do not have. The conference report strongly supports all aspects,
all aspects of border security and immigration enforcement, and I urge
my colleagues to support it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on the
Democratic side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to have 5 additional minutes, for
a total of 8 minutes allocated for us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. I rise today to speak in support of a provision in this
bill and thank the chairman of this committee, Senator Robert C. Byrd
of West Virginia, for his fine work not only on this bill but for his
amazing contribution to America and to this institution of the Senate.
I rise today to speak in support of a provision in the bill which
allows detainees held at Guantanamo to be transferred to the United
States to be prosecuted and held responsible for their crime. The
President has been clear. It is a priority of this administration to
bring to justice those responsible for 9/11 and other terrorists who
have attacked our country.
The conference report which we are considering would allow those
people responsible for acts of terrorism to be brought here to be tried
for their crimes. Unfortunately, some people on the other side of the
aisle have spoken today and have a different view.
Earlier today, my colleagues, Senators Chambliss and Sessions, argued
that we should not transfer suspected terrorists from Guantanamo to the
United States to be prosecuted for their crimes.
Senator Chambliss said, ``Prosecuting these individuals in our United
States courts simply will not work.''
Senator Sessions said, ``There is no practical alternative'' to
prosecuting detainees in military commissions at Guantanamo Bay.
Those statements are very clear but they are also wrong. Look at the
record. For 7 long years the Bush administration failed to convict any
of the terrorists planning the 9/11 attacks. And for 7 long years only
three individuals were convicted by military commissions at Guantanamo.
In contrast, look at the record of our criminal justice system when it
came to trying terrorists accountable for their crimes. Richard Sabel
and James Benjamin, two former Federal prosecutors with extensive
experience, published a detailed study of the prosecutions of
terrorists in the courts of the United States of America. Here is what
they found: From 9/11 until June 2009, 195 terrorists were convicted
and sentenced for their crimes in our courts.
When the Senator on the other side says, ``Prosecuting these
individuals in our United States courts simply will not work,'' he
ignores 195 successful prosecutions.
According to the Justice Department, since January 1, 2009, more than
30 terrorists have been successfully prosecuted or sentenced in Federal
courts. It continues to this day.
When you compare the record at Guantanamo, where Senators from the
other side of the aisle say all these cases should be tried, it is
clear the only way to deal with this is through our court system--not
exclusively, but it should be an option that is available to the
Department of Justice.
Recently, the administration transferred Ahmed Ghailani to the United
States to be prosecuted for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of our
Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 people, including 12
Americans.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been critical of
the administration's decision to bring this man to justice in America's
courts. For example, Eric Cantor, who is a Member of the House on the
Republican side, said:
We have no judicial precedents for the conviction of
someone like this.
The truth is, there are many precedents for the conviction of
terrorists in U.S. courts: Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993
World Trade Center bombing; Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called Blind
Sheikh; Richard Reid, the ``Shoe Bomber;'' Zacarias Moussaoui; Ted
Kaczynski, the Unabomber; and Terry Nichols, the Oklahoma City
coconspirator.
In fact, there is a precedent for convicting terrorists who were
involved in the bombing of the United States Embassies in Tanzania and
Kenya, the same attack Ahmed Ghailani was indicted for. In 2001, four
men were sentenced to life without parole at the Federal courthouse in
lower Manhattan, the same court in which Mr. Ghailani will be tried.
I will tell you point blank: If they on the other side of the aisle
are trying to create some fear that we cannot bring a terrorist to the
United States of America, hold them successfully, try them in our
courts, convict them and incarcerate them, history says otherwise.
Over 350 convicted terrorists have been tried in our courts and are
being held in our prisons today successfully--held every single day. Is
America less safe because of it? No. We are safer because would-be
terrorists are off the streets, convicted in our courts, serving time
in prison--exactly where they belong.
To argue we should eliminate this administration's right to try a
terrorist in a U.S. court is to deny to our government a tool they need
to fight terrorism. We also know that not a single person has ever
escaped from maximum security in the Federal prisons of America.
Somehow, to create the notion that the people tried in our courts are
somehow going to be released in America--President Obama has made it
clear, that will never happen. He is not endorsing that, never has. And
to suggest that is to suggest something that has never been endorsed by
the administration. Furthermore, we know they can be held successfully
in our courts.
This bill does the right thing. It gives the President the option,
when the Department of Justice believes it is the most likely place to
try, successfully, those accused of terrorism--to bring them into our
court system, to detain them in the United States for that purpose.
There is nothing in this bill which would give the President--or
anyone, if he wanted it--the authority to release a Guantanamo detainee
in America. This is something that has been created, unfortunately, by
a lot of talk
[[Page 25131]]
show hosts who do not read the bill and do not understand the law and
certainly do not understand what Guantanamo does to us today.
What does it cost for us to hold a terrorist at Guantanamo today? Mr.
President, $435,000 a year. That is what it costs--dramatically more
than the cost of incarcerating in America's prisons.
I want to make it clear that I endorse the position not only of the
administration but also of GEN Colin Powell; Republican Senators John
McCain and Lindsey Graham; former Republican Secretaries of State James
Baker, Henry Kissinger, and Condoleezza Rice; Defense Secretary Robert
Gates; ADM Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and
GEN David Petraeus, who have all said that closing Guantanamo will make
America a safer place.
There are some on the other side of the aisle who have not accepted
that. I do not believe they understand the threat which the
continuation of Guantanamo as an imprisonment facility challenges us to
acknowledge in this day and age when we face global terrorism.
Guantanamo must be closed because it has become a recruiting tool for
al-Qaida and other terrorists. That is not just my opinion; it is the
opinion of significant leaders of this country, such as former GEN
Colin Powell.
I think we should endorse the language in this conference report. We
should move forward with the adoption of this conference report, give
the President another tool to fight terrorism.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as we complete the debate today on the
fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, I again thank
the very able Senator from Ohio, George Voinovich, the ranking member,
for his many contributions to this bipartisan legislation.
I thank all Senators. This conference report provides the Department
of Homeland Security with the resources it needs to succeed in its
critical missions. I urge support for the conference report.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of our
subcommittee, Senator Byrd, for the outstanding job he has done in
finally putting together this conference report so it can be considered
by the Senate.
I also acknowledge the tremendous help we have gotten from our staff
on this piece of legislation. I am sorry that Carol Cribbs cannot be
here today. Carol worked very hard on this legislation. She is at home
after taking a big fall and cutting her face, and I want to mention her
name and let her know we miss her and we appreciate the good job she
has done for us. Rebecca Davies has worked very hard on this
legislation, and I appreciate it. She was bringing in a neophyte. This
is my first opportunity to be on the Appropriations Committee.
There have been several issues raised here by some of my colleagues
on our side of the aisle that are things that should be taken into
consideration. The Senator from Arizona continues to make the case in
terms of earmarks, and I am sure he will continue to do that, and we do
respect what he has to say about that issue. But I believe the way this
legislation is put together carefully justifies people on my side of
the aisle supporting this legislation, in spite of some of the things
the Senator from Arizona talked about.
In addition to the provisions that deal with Guantanamo Bay, I wish
to point out that the language in this conference report is the same
language that appeared in the June Defense supplemental that was passed
in 2009, which continues to be the law under the continuing resolution.
Fundamentally, what we do is put that same language here in this
conference report.
If somebody reads the conference report, on page 38, they can see, in
spite of the fine words of the Senator from Illinois, there is a large
barrier the President has to go over before he could let anyone here
into this country. And if he does let them here, as Senator Durbin has
said, they would be here for prosecution. But there are seven hurdles
that have to be met by the President. Once he does that, then 45 days
thereafter he could bring someone in for prosecution. So I think anyone
who is concerned about bringing a bunch of the Gitmo people here in the
United States for any other reason but prosecution should be comforted
by the fact of this language. Also, I point out, there is language in
the Senate Defense appropriations bill that also deals with this
subject.
So for all intents and purposes, I think we have done a fairly good
job. Frankly, I wish we had adopted this conference report a month and
a half ago. But we did not. I urge my colleagues to support the
conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, unless someone is seeking recognition--and
I do not believe they are--I ask unanimous consent that all time be
yielded back, and the Senate vote on adoption of the conference report,
with no points of order in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on the adoption of the conference report.
Mr. DURBIN. 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 North Carolina (Mrs.
Hagan) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 19, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 323 Leg.]
YEAS--79
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
LeMieux
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--19
Barrasso
Bayh
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Corker
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
McCain
Risch
Sessions
Wicker
NOT VOTING--2
Hagan
Kerry
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, while I voted in support of the fiscal
year 2010 Homeland Security appropriations bill, I do want to take this
opportunity to express my frustrations with the fact that many good
provisions were taken out of the final bill by the House-Senate
conference committee. The provisions I want to talk about were intended
to improve our ability to enforce immigration law in the interior and
to secure the border to protect the homeland.
First, I want to talk about the amendment I pushed for during Senate
consideration of the appropriations bill. It would have given
businesses the tools to ensure that they have a legal
[[Page 25132]]
workforce. My amendment would have allowed employers to voluntarily
check their existing workforce and make sure their workers are legally
in this country to work. It said that if an employer chooses to verify
the status of all their workers--not just new hires--then they should
be allowed to do so. And, it had protections in place. If an employer
were to elect to check all workers, they would have to notify the
Secretary of Homeland Security that they plan to verify their existing
workforce. The employer would then have 10 days to check all workers.
This short time period would prevent employers from targeting certain
workers by claiming that they are ``still working on'' verifying the
remainder of their workforce. And, my amendment would have required the
employer to check all individuals if they plan to check their existing
workforce. If they check one, they check them all.
Employers want to abide by the law and hire people that are legally
in this country. Right now, E-Verify only allows them to check
prospective employees. But, we should be allowing employers to access
this free, online database system to check all their workers.
Second, while I am grateful that the committee recognizes the need to
keep E-Verify operational and that the bill includes a three year
reauthorization of the program, I am disappointed that the conference
committee stripped an amendment to permanently reauthorize E-Verify.
The amendment authored by Senator Sessions was passed with bipartisan
support. The administration and the majority leadership claim they
fully back the E-Verify program, but their actions don't show it. Our
businesses need to know that this program will be around for the long-
term, and that they can rely on the Federal Government to make sure
that the workers they hire are legally in this country.
The third amendment stripped by the conference committee would have
increased our ability to secure the border by putting funds into
fencing to reduce illegal pedestrian border crossings. The DeMint
provision would have required 700 miles of reinforced pedestrian
fencing to be built along the southern border by December 31, 2010.
Finally, an amendment to allow the Department of Homeland Security to
go forward with the ``no match'' rule was stripped. This amendment by
Senator Vitter would have blocked the Obama administration from gutting
the ``no-match'' rule put in place in 2008 to notify employers when
their employees are using a Social Security number that does not match
their name. These ``no match'' letters help employers who want to
follow the law and make sure they are employing legally authorized
individuals.
I voted for this bill on the Senate floor because homeland security
is not something we should play politics with. Defending our country is
our No. 1 constitutional priority. Taxpayers expect us to get these
bills passed and we have that responsibility. I voted for this bill
today because it includes funding for essential border security and
interior security efforts. However, there are a number of problems with
this bill despite my vote for it. I am concerned that the House and
Senate conference committee did a disservice to the American people by
taking out language preventing illegal aliens from gaining work in this
country. The conference committee, had they kept the provisions I
talked about, would have helped many Americans who are looking for work
and struggling to make ends meet. The provisions would have also held
employers accountable for their hiring practices. It's my hope that
this body will work harder to beef up our immigration enforcement
efforts, and ensure that Americans are given a priority over illegal
aliens during this time of high unemployment.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business, with
Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KAUFMAN. 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.
____________________
NAKED SHORT SELLING
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise to applaud the SEC's Enforcement
Division for recently bringing two actions for insider trading against
Wall Street actors. While our judicial system must run its course, I am
nonetheless pleased that the investigators and prosecutors are working
together to target Wall Street wrongdoing.
In white-collar crime, securities fraud, and insider trading,
enforcement is critical to deterrence. In turn, deterrence is critical
to maintaining the integrity of our capital markets.
The importance of these cases extends beyond deterring and punishing
criminal conduct. By identifying, prosecuting, and punishing alleged
criminals on Wall Street, we are restoring the public's faith in our
financial markets and the rule of law.
So while the Enforcement Division is sending a strong signal about
insider trading, it still has not brought any enforcement actions
against naked short sellers. This is despite the fact that naked short
selling is widely acknowledged by many on Wall Street to have helped
manipulate downward the prices of Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns in
their final days. Their resulting failure served as a catalyst for the
ensuing financial crisis that affected millions of Americans.
I am pleased the SEC has flashed a red light in front of insider
trading. But until it brings a case or makes the naked short selling
that took place last year an investigative priority, the Commission is
leaving a green light in front of naked short sellers. When you have a
red light on one road and a green light on another road, everyone knows
where the cars are going to go.
This concern is not mine alone. In the words of the Dow Jones Market
Watch, in a recent article entitled ``SEC Loses Taste for Short Selling
Fight'':
More than a year after short sellers allegedly sucked the
broader market lower by concentrating negative bets in
troubled financial firms, the Nation's securities regulators
appear to be backing off curbing the practice.
In a piece on the naked short-selling debate, Forbes magazine noted:
We have become a nation that ponders everything without
resolution.
This is critical because the SEC's current rule against naked short
selling--a reasonable belief standard that the underlying stock would
be available if it is needed--is widely viewed as unenforceable. The
market has recently been showing promise in moving upward, but if it
goes south--and I am sorry to say eventually it will again--the bear
raiders who destroyed our economy a year ago and made millions in the
process will strike again.
If you know you can sell 5,000 umbrellas on a rainy day in New York,
you are going to be out on the street with 5,000 umbrellas the next
time it rains. The next time one of our TARP banks or other financial
institutions looks vulnerable, naked short sellers will seize the
opportunity to profit again, and this time it could cost the taxpayers
directly. The SEC will have no ability to stop them or punish them
after the fact.
Given what is at stake, why have we not had action? Frankly, it is a
story emblematic of problems on Wall Street. The story starts in July
2007, when the SEC decided to remove the uptick rule which forces short
sellers to wait until a stock ticks up at least once before being
allowed to sell without putting anything effective in its place.
When I was at Wharton back in the midsixties, the uptick rule was an
article of faith. But a couple years ago, the 70-year-old uptick rule
became another casualty of deregulation, an impediment to market
liquidity, they said.
[[Page 25133]]
A little over a year later, two of the Nation's biggest banks--Bear
Stearns and Lehman Brothers--had collapsed. Lehman's failure alone,
with $613 billion in debt, was far and away the largest bankruptcy in
U.S. history. Both banks were victims of their own risky behavior and
their own poor judgment. Their thinking was clouded by an aura of
invincibility--willingly taking highly leveraged positions in what
turned out to be toxic assets.
But while Bear and Lehman certainly are responsible for their
actions, naked short selling played a crucial role in accelerating
their fate.
I wish to make an important distinction. Short selling is a well-
established market practice. It can enhance market efficiency and price
discovery. I, myself, have sold stock short on many occasions, but I
always had to borrow the stock first before I could sell into the
market.
Naked short selling is another matter altogether. It occurs when
someone sells a stock they do not own and have not borrowed. Naked
short selling creates two risks in the marketplace. The seller may not
be able to deliver the necessary shares on delivery date and bad actors
can manipulate stocks downward, repeatedly selling something they do
not own.
Naked short selling, without first borrowing or obtaining a so-called
hard locate of the shares, essentially increases the number of shares
in the market, which tends to lower the value of the stock.
It is exactly as if I made three copies of my car's title and then
sold the title to three different people. By the time I sold my third
title, it would likely be impossible to deliver the car to the third
buyer and its value would also have declined.
When Bear Stearns and Lehman started to crumble, many believed
manipulative naked short sellers, using a series of large and frequent
short sales known as bear raids, helped drive both firms into the
ground. Bear Stearns' stock dropped from $57 to $3 in 3 days. Let me
repeat. Bear Stearns' stock dropped from $57 to $3 in just 3 days.
When Lehman collapsed, an astonishing 32.8 million shares in the
company had been sold short and not delivered on time.
The SEC has proven incapable of both preventing market manipulation
from happening and punishing those responsible for it. We cannot allow
this to continue.
Since March, a bipartisan group of Senators and I have been calling
on the Commission to reinstate some form of the uptick rule and put a
rule in place that the SEC Enforcement Division could use to stop naked
short sellers dead in their tracks.
At a recent SEC roundtable, major problems with the current
regulatory structure were exposed. Even panelists heavily stacked in
favor of industry admitted that compliance with the requirement is
widely ignored. Commissioner Elisse Walter acknowledged, prosecuting
naked short sellers on the reasonable belief standard is a ``very
difficult case to bring.''
Because the ``reasonable belief'' standard is unenforceable, abusive
short sellers are essentially free to engage in criminal activities
without fear of facing criminal prosecution.
The SEC's silence speaks volumes. They have given no indication that
there will ever be action. Nothing--from the SEC's strategic plan to
various speeches by SEC executives--acknowledges that this is a
priority. The SEC has taken action on insider trading; it should devote
the same intensity of purpose to stopping abusive naked short selling.
I suspect the problem is that our financial institutions, which can
now trade stocks with previously unimaginable speed and frequency,
simply are unwilling to support any regulation that will slow down
their profit- maximizing programs. High-frequency traders balk at the
suggestion that they wait in line and get their ticket punched--by
first obtaining a ``hard locate'' of the stock--before selling short.
If that is the case, then we are letting technological developments on
Wall Street dictate our regulatory and enforcement destiny rather than
vice versa. That philosophy is simply unacceptable.
Clearly, the cost of inaction in this area is too great to ignore.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join Senators Isakson, Tester,
Specter, Chambliss, and me as cosponsors of S. 605, which requires the
SEC to move quickly to address naked short selling by reinstating the
substance of the prior uptick rule and requiring traders to obtain a
contractual hard locate before selling short. We need to send a strong
message to the SEC that the Congress will not tolerate inaction on this
critical issue.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona, the
Republican whip.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the goal shared by all of us in the Senate is
to make health care more affordable for Americans. Some ask why there
hasn't been more support for medical liability reform--a popular, cost-
free measure that would unquestionably yield significant savings for
patients and doctors. The most honest answer to that question came from
former Vermont Governor and Democratic National Party Chairman Howard
Dean, who said at an August townhall meeting in Virginia that medical
liability reform has not been included in any of the Democrats' bills
because they don't want to take on the trial lawyers.
Protecting trial lawyers should not be the goal of health care
reform. Their multimillion-dollar ``jackpot justice'' lawsuits drive up
the cost of health care for everyone and are a big reason America's
health care premiums have soared. Why? To help guard themselves from
ruinous lawsuits, physicians must purchase expensive medical liability
insurance, often at a cost of $200,000 a year or more for some
specialists such as obstetricians and anesthesiologists.
Because doctors pay for this insurance, patients do too. Hudson
Institute economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth estimates that 10 cents of
every dollar paid for health care goes toward the cost of doctors'
medical liability insurance. Dr. Stuart Weinstein, the former president
of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, has written about the
extra cost of delivering a baby because of the high cost of these
premiums. If a doctor delivers 100 babies a year and pays $200,000 for
medical liability insurance, then ``$2,000 of the delivery cost for
each baby goes to pay the cost of the medical liability premium,'' Dr.
Weinstein wrote. So the costs of this insurance, passed on to patients,
are real.
An even bigger cost related to the threat of lawsuits is doctors' use
of defensive medicine. The looming specter of lawsuits makes most
doctors feel they have no choice but to take extra or defensive
precaution when treating patients. A 2005 survey published in the
Journal of the American Medical Association found that 92 percent of
doctors said they had made unnecessary referrals or ordered unnecessary
tests and procedures solely to shield themselves from medical liability
litigation.
To say the costs of defensive medicine are high is an understatement.
Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute, has found
that defensive medicine costs $214 billion per year. A new study by
PricewaterhouseCoopers reveals similar findings, pegging the annual
cost at $239 billion. So you have the approximate amount here--$214
billion and $239 billion. In any event, defensive medicine imposes a
huge cost on the American public.
Medical liability reform would work to bring down health care costs
for patients and doctors. Among the ways to do it are capping
noneconomic damage awards and attorney's fees and implementation of
stricter criteria for expert witnesses who are testifying in these
medical liability lawsuits. Trial lawyers frequently use their own
experts to criticize the defendant doctor's practice. Well, the experts
should have no relationship with or financial gain from the plaintiff's
lawyer, and they should have real expertise in the area of medicine at
issue.
[[Page 25134]]
Some States, including my home State of Arizona, have already
implemented medical liability reform measures with positive results.
Dr. James Carland, who is president and CEO of MICA, which is
Arizona's largest medical liability insurer, wrote a letter to me
recently to describe some of the results he has seen from medical
liability laws implemented in Arizona, specifically from two statutes--
one that reformed expert witness standards and another that imposed a
requirement to inform the defendant, before trial, of expert witness
testimony and to preview the substance of that testimony. Dr. Carland
wrote that the enactment of these two statutes has ``reduced meritless
medical malpractice suits'' in Arizona. Indeed, after their enactment,
medical liability suits dropped by about 30 percent. That drop has been
accompanied by a drop in medical liability premiums. Since 2006, MICA
has reduced premiums and returned about $90 million to its members in
the form of policyholder dividends.
Another State that has had success with medical liability reform is
Texas, which passed a series of measures in 2003, including limits on
noneconomic damages and a higher burden-of-proof requirement for
emergency room negligence. The number of doctors practicing in Texas
has now skyrocketed, while costs have plummeted. It has been widely
reported that since those reforms were implemented, medical licenses in
Texas have increased by 18 percent and 7,000 new doctors have moved
into the State.
To reduce costs for both physicians and patients, Senator Cornyn and
I have introduced legislation that would achieve medical liability
reform by combining what has worked best in our two States, Texas and
Arizona. We have taken the Texas stacked cap model for noneconomic
damages and coupled it with expert witness statutes proven to limit the
filing of meritless lawsuits.
Republicans offered these kinds of liability reform amendments during
the Finance Committee markup, but all of them were ruled out of order
by the chairman of the committee. One of these amendments, recently
scored by the Congressional Budget Office, would have saved the Federal
Government $54 billion in health care costs over the next 10 years. My
colleague from Nevada, Senator Ensign, asked the Director of the CBO if
we could expect a similar approximate reduction in cost in the private
sector, since about half of all medical costs are paid for by
government and the other half in the private sector. Dr. Elmendorf, the
Director of the CBO, agreed that we could expect approximately the same
additional amount of savings in the private sector. That would be well
over $100 billion.
Medical liability reform enjoys heavy support among our bosses--the
American people. According to a new Manhattan Institute paper, 83
percent of Americans want to see it in any health care bill passed by
the Congress. Despite this support and the concrete evidence that it
would lower health care costs for doctors, patients, and the
government, none of the health care bills being written by
congressional Democrats tackle medical liability reform. It makes no
sense that in debates about bringing down cost, this commonsense
measure is ignored by the majority party. If we are serious about
making health care more affordable, we must have medical liability
reform. We will work for the American people, not the trial lawyers.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARDIN. 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.
The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. CARDIN. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Cardin pertaining to the introduction of S. 1816
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
FISCAL POLICY
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, in recent weeks, and especially in more
recent days, we have had a lot of discussions on the floor of the
Senate by Members about the Federal budget deficit and about fiscal
policy. It is a serious issue in my judgment, one to which we have to
pay a lot of attention. But some of the discussion on the floor of the
Senate has been wrapped in partisan wrapping. The suggestion is the
fingers are all pointing to the new President--new because he has been
in office only 10 months. Somehow this very deep fiscal policy hole,
these very large and growing Federal budget deficits, should be laid at
his feet.
The fact is, in my judgment, there is plenty of responsibility to go
around on all parts. I am going to talk a little about that. This
administration knows it. They have some responsibility. This Congress
certainly has major responsibility. The past administration has
significant responsibility.
The American people are a lot less interested in who wants to own up
to that responsibility than they are about who is going to try to do
something to fix our deficit problems. We cannot have deficits that are
growing far out into the future. We cannot continue to deliver a level
of government the American people are unable or unwilling to pay for
without very serious consequences to the American way of life. I want
to talk just a bit about that.
First and foremost, the deficits are growing and have been very
serious. It is not unusual that in the middle of the deepest recession
since the Great Depression we would have growing Federal budget
deficits. Why? Because more people are unemployed, out of work. More
people need the kind of social services and the stabilizing payments
that we do. When people are in trouble and we are in a recession, that
increases the spending.
It is also the case that the amount of revenue we expected this year
is down about $400 billion because people are making less money,
corporations are making less money, less is coming in in tax revenue.
So it is not unusual, in the middle of the most significant economic
trouble since the 1930s that we have higher spending, less revenue, and
therefore deficits that are ratcheting up.
Deficits just by themselves would not necessarily be something that
we would object to if the deficits purchase something of great value
that was necessary at this moment. Ask this question and I expect the
answer is self-evident. What if someone said: You need to spend $1
trillion that you do not have, $1 trillion of deficits right now, but
if you do that, if you spend that $1 trillion, you will cure cancer. Do
you think anyone would say: No, that is not a smart thing to do. Of
course we would do that, because it would promote dramatic dividends
for a long time.
But regrettably that is not what this deficit is about. This is not
about having done something of significant merit. This is largely a
structural deficit in which we have an expenditure base that is
growing, and a revenue base that has not kept up, and now it has been
aggravated, especially in a very deep recession. When I see the folks
on the other side of this aisle come to the Senate to talk about
generational theft, and to point fingers at the administration, let me
be quick to point out, there is a long history to how we got to where
we are, a very long history that does not start at 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue in January of this year. Let me revisit a little bit of that
history, if I might. I am not doing
[[Page 25135]]
it to suggest that one side is all right and the other side is all
wrong. I am doing it because there are people who come to the floor of
the Senate seeming to act as if they were exploring the surface of Mars
while all of this was going on. In fact, they were not. Many of them
were here in this Chamber.
When President Clinton left office in the year 2000, we had a $236
billion budget surplus. That was called the ``unified surplus.'' The
actual ``on-budget surplus'' which does not count the Social Security
revenues--and I do not think you should count Social Security
revenues--was $86 billion. So when President Clinton left office that
year, for the first time in decades we had a real budget surplus, and
the expectation was that the on-budget surplus was going to grow to
more than $3 trillion in the coming 10 years. That was the expectation.
And as all of us know, President Bush came to town. And George W. Bush
said: My first priority is to do very large tax cuts for the American
people.
I stood here on the floor of this Senate and said: You know what.
Let's be a little conservative about this. What if something should
happen and we do not have these surpluses? These are only estimates.
They are not in our hands. They are only estimates. Why don't we be a
bit careful?
The President said: No, we are not going to do that. And most of my
colleagues--by the way, the majority of my colleagues--said: No, we are
not going to do that. We are going to enact a piece of legislation that
will substantially cut taxes, the majority of which went to upper
income people in this country.
The benefits to the upper income people in this country--somewhere
around 5 percent of the taxpayers--will total almost $1 trillion over
the 10 years. The households in the top 1 percent, with incomes over
$450,000 in 2008, will on average get a $489,000 tax break over ten
years. Think of that. You say: Those of you who are fortunate to earn
nearly half a million dollars in this 10-year period, we are going to
give you close to $500,000, half a million dollars in tax breaks.
Should that have been a priority? I don't think so. I did not support
that. But it was for the President and the majority of the Congress. So
the Congress cut the revenue very substantially to benefit the highest
income Americans. Then what happened? Well, what happened was we
discovered very quickly we were in a recession. In 2001, when President
George W. Bush took over, at the end of March, we discovered we had a
struggling economy. Then on 9/11 of that year we were attacked by
terrorists, and very quickly we were in a war in Afghanistan, and soon
thereafter in a war in Iraq.
The President said: Despite the fact that we now are in recession,
and had a terrorist attack, and two wars, we are not going to pay for
the cost of these wars. We are going to send emergency supplemental
requests that are not paid for, and we expect you to support our
soldiers in the field.
So nearly $1 trillion was spent on the two wars in the last 9 years.
And not a penny of it was paid for. Right onto the debt. Then in the
year 2008, our economy fell off a cliff in October. And not
surprisingly, having built up a substantial amount of deficits over
this period of time fighting two wars, having had a recession, without
paying for any of it, having built up these unbelievable deficits, when
we fell off the cliff last October into a very significant recession,
very deep hole, the Federal budget deficit skyrocketed.
Let me put up a chart of Federal budget deficits. I do this because
we are on an unsustainable path. The President knows that. In fact,
today the Wall Street Journal talks about the President's plan to
tackle the Federal budget deficit. The President understands and I
understand, in the middle of a deep recession, as we have got our foot
on the accelerator to try to get this economy moving again, you cannot
decide to take a lot of money out of the economy. So you could not at
this moment decide: You know what. We are just going to collapse all of
this red ink immediately. It would be devastating and throw this
country into a deep economic tailspin. I understand that.
But here is what we face. We face growing deficits fighting wars.
When the President took over, had he done nothing in fiscal year 2009,
we would have had a budget deficit, it is estimated, of about $1.3
trillion.
Last fall it was the Troubled Asset Relief Fund, $700 billion. Then
when he took over, this President wanted an economic recovery fund. I
supported that because I believed it was better to pump some money into
the economy rather than risk the economy going into a much deeper
economic hole.
But all of that, in my judgment, has put us on an unsustainable path.
You see, out in 10 years, this is not sustainable. The President knows
that. I have talked to the President personally about it. As I
indicated, a story today talks about the President's determination, as
the economy strengthens in the coming months, next year to turn to this
issue and deal with it and solve it. We do not have a choice.
But what brings me to the floor is this discussion by some of our
colleagues to say: Aha. Now we have got these big budget deficits. That
belongs to the person in the White House. That is President Obama's
fiscal policy. It is not. It just is not. This has a long history. It
started when this country fought a war without paying for a penny of
it, while at the same time enacting massive tax breaks primarily for
the richest Americans.
By the way, it is the first time, I believe, in the history of this
country that that has happened. And then steering this country into a
circumstance where the previous administration hired regulators who
were content to be willfully blind and say: You know what. I would like
a job. I would like a salary. But count on me to be willfully blind. I
will not regulate a thing.
As a result, we had unbelievable things happening in this country.
Greed. Unbelievable things. I have given speech after speech about what
happened with the subprime mortgage scandal, the Wall Street credit
default swaps, CDOs, you name it.
The result was this economy was taken right into the ditch by a bunch
of shysters who were making a lot of money. A lot of them left their
firms with a lot of money and stuck this country with a big bill, and
now we see today they are the ones getting the big bonuses.
By the way, the investment banks that are supposed to be lending
money are not lending money. They are trading in securities, making
money for themselves. Meanwhile, we have got a lot of small and medium
businesses out there that are in desperate need of credit. It still has
not all stopped. But the point is, to suggest somehow that this has all
happened on the watch of a new President in his first 10 months is
ridiculous. We all have a stake in this, and we all have responsibility
for it. We are all going to have to start working on it together.
This morning in a meeting I quoted Ogden Nash, who had a little four-
line poem about a guy who drinks and his wife who nagged him about it:
She scolds because he drinks, she thinks. He drinks because she scolds,
he thinks. Neither will admit what is really true, he is a drunk and
she is a shrew.
Responsibility on both sides. Responsibility on both sides here for
fiscal policy. We all have a stake in this. We all have a
responsibility. The question is not having people come to the floor and
point fingers at a new President who has been in office for just 10
months. The question is, who is going to come to the floor of the
Senate and decide together--together--to try to pull this economy up
and out of this desperate condition?
I think we are finally starting to see some improvement here. I
understand that we do need to steer toward a fiscal policy that
reconciles our revenues and expenditures. Yes, to do that we are going
to have to cut some spending. We are. I understand that. I am prepared
to do that. However, I do not think we have to do it right this moment
while we are still trying to crawl out of an economic hole. But we need
to do that.
We also need some additional revenue. I would say to some of my
friends
[[Page 25136]]
here in the Senate who continue to vote against commonsense proposals
to get the revenue we need: Help us. When we see U.S. companies that
want all the benefits America has to offer them so they can run their
income through the Cayman Islands and avoid paying taxes to this
government, help us recover those funds.
I have shown the photograph on the floor of the Senate about the
Ugland House. I am guessing I have shown it at least a dozen times.
When I first showed the picture of this white house in the Grand Cayman
Islands on Church Street, a four-story little house, I said it is home
to 12,748 corporations. Oh, they are not all there. It is just a lawyer
who created a legal address for them at the Ugland House so they can
avoid paying taxes.
When I first talked about that, it was 12,748 corporations. I am told
now there are 18,857 entities that call that white stucco house in the
Grand Cayman Islands home. Many of these companies have set up
mailboxes in a tax haven country to avoid paying their fair share of
taxes.
What about a bank such as Wachovia Bank that buys a sewer system in
Germany from a German city? Is it because a bank in America should own
a sewer system that they could pick up and bring back home? It is a
complex sale-leaseback transaction in which an American bank buys a
German city's sewer system, leases it back, and then they get to
depreciate it on their American income taxes and save a couple of
hundred million dollars in U.S. income taxes. The Wachovia Bank did
that.
I have spoken of other corporations that have done exactly the same
thing. We are going to have to cut spending, but we are going to have
to increase some revenue. How about some help from all of our
colleagues who say that sort of thing should stop. If you want
everything that America has to offer you, how about paying your fair
share of taxes? Most people do. They do not have a choice. They get a
W-2, a W-4 form, get a wage, work hard and are exhausted at the end of
the day. They have got a job. By the way, in April of each year, they
understand they owe something. Yes, to build roads, to build schools,
provide for defense, to make sure there are police on the beat,
firefighters spending the night in a fire house. They owe something
because the cost of government requires all of us to pay something. But
some are paying nothing and some of them are the largest enterprises in
the country, finding ways to slip through the cracks.
So we need to do a lot of things to fix these Federal budget
deficits, a lot of things. It is going to require some courage and we
need to start relatively soon.
I wanted to quote Franklin Delano Roosevelt in one of his fireside
chats, because there is such a description sometimes of selfishness in
our country today, only by some, not the majority. But here is what
Franklin Delano Roosevelt said about our country during war:
He said:
Not all of us can have the privilege of fighting our
enemies in distant parts of the world. Not all of us can have
the privilege of working in a munitions factory or a ship
yard, or on the farms or in the oil fields or mines,
producing weapons or raw materials that are needed by our
armed forces. But there is one front and one battle where
everyone in the United States--every man, woman, and child--
is in action. . . . That front is here at home, in our daily
lives, and in our daily tasks. Here at home everyone will
have the privilege of making whatever self-denial is
necessary, not only to supply our fighting men [or women],
but to keep the economic structure of our country fortified
and secure . . .
He is talking about common purpose, the need for our country to come
together, to work together. Our history is a long history of supporting
the men and women who wear a military uniform. When the Civil War
erupted, Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861 to try to raise money
for soldiers. The War Revenue Act of 1899 raised funds to pay for the
Spanish-American War. The entry into World War I increased the need for
revenue, and Congress responded by raising the funds for that war. Even
before the United States entered the Second World War, defense spending
and the need for money to support the allies led to passage of two tax
laws in 1940. In the Vietnam war, there was a surcharge to help pay for
it.
I don't come suggesting there is a great appetite to raise revenues.
I understand that. I am saying those who come and talk about fiscal
policy being a very serious problem are absolutely right. It is one of
the most significant problems we face. We are on an unsustainable
course. The President knows that. So does the Congress. The President
has told me, as he said today in the Wall Street Journal, that he takes
this seriously, and it will be at the top of his agenda as we turn this
calendar year. I take him at his word. I believe he means that and
knows that because we have talked about it. We are going to need help
to try to fix this fiscal policy. We cannot continue to see increasing
deficits far out into the future. It will weaken the country.
Ultimately, it will cause a run on the dollar, with unbelievable
consequences for the economy.
This is not rocket science. We understand the consequences of these
issues. You go to war and you provide tax cuts for the wealthiest
citizens? I don't think so. That doesn't make any sense. Ultimately,
you will pay for that with consequences, and we have begun to see it.
What I want for our country is to address these issues.
A couple issues that are significant are Social Security and
Medicare. We can deal with those issues. We can deal with success. Why
does Social Security and Medicare cost us more? It is called success.
People are living longer and better lives so it costs us more in Social
Security and Medicare. But a country that can't handle success is a
country that can't handle difficult problems, let alone the easy ones.
I believe we can do that. I believe we can address the big issues of
Social Security and Medicare in a thoughtful way. Then we can also
decide that budget deficits such as these are unsustainable and have to
be dealt with. This is the President's priority. It is our priority. It
ought to be a Republican priority and a Democratic priority. Instead of
pointing fingers at each other, let's decide to link arms and see if we
can find a way to bring fiscal policy under some control.
First and foremost, let's lift the economy out of this hole. I
believe we are beginning to see progress there. This was not some
natural disaster. This was not a hurricane or tornado or flood that
visited America. This was a very serious problem at a time in which
regulators did not regulate. They decided not to watch. This country
was stolen blind by a bunch of folks who made a lot of money doing it.
Now we have to begin to repair and pick up the pieces. That requires
financial reform in order to restore confidence in the economy going
forward. It also requires, in this Chamber, a fiscal policy that
relates to fiscal discipline, to say: We understand we have to deal
with spending, and there are some areas where spending is out of
control. We have to deal with revenues. There are some areas where
additional revenues are needed and some areas where most of the
American people pay up while others get by time after time, deciding to
have all the benefits America is willing to offer but to pay none of
the requirements to be an American citizen. Part of those requirements
is for that which we do together to build a great country.
We had a discussion with Warren Buffett some while ago. I have known
Warren Buffett for a long while. He is a very wealthy man. I have great
admiration for him. He is the first or second most richest man in the
world. He has no pretenses at all. He doesn't look like it. One of the
most interesting things he did was take a survey in his office with 40
employees. Voluntarily, his employees described for him what they paid
in income taxes and payroll taxes. The combined tax burden of all the
employees in the office showed he actually paid the lowest percentage.
The world's richest man paid the lowest percentage. His income all came
from capital gains, which pays the lowest rate of 15 percent. I believe
he said his receptionist pays a higher rate than he does. He said to
us: That is wrong. You all ought to fix it.
[[Page 25137]]
Good for him. He is a role model in many ways for being able to speak
up on these issues. But one of the things he was asked was: What do you
think will happen to the economy in the next 6 months? His response was
interesting. He said: I don't have the foggiest idea. I don't know what
is going to happen in the next 6 months. I don't know what is going to
happen in the next 16 months. But I know what is going to happen 6
years from now. Within the next 6 years, you will have an America that
is growing and vibrant and healthy, expanding jobs, lifting the middle
class. Why do I know that? Because that is what America does. It has
always done that. It has created incentives for the hard-working nature
of the American people.
Yes, we go through difficult times and troughs and trouble, but this
country always picks itself up. I am convinced, while I don't know what
is going to go on 6 months from now, I am absolutely convinced that 6
years from now this country will be right back on track and doing just
fine, probably well before that.
I have his same faith in the future. I am convinced there isn't
anything we can't do. In terms of inventing, we don't have to invent
something to find a way to fix what I have described, a fiscal policy
that needs fixing. We can do that. That only requires common sense.
The next time one of my colleagues comes out and says: We are in a
deep economic hole, and we have all these deficit issues, we would like
to point to a President who has been in office less than 10 months as
the root cause of the problem, the fact is, this President knows there
is a fiscal policy problem. But this problem has been building for a
long time. The bubbling up of this fiscal policy dilemma has been with
us a long time, and some of the same people who come to point their
fingers have a significant hand in creating it.
I will talk about Afghanistan in the next day or two. But those who
come to the floor and say: Let's send 40,000 more troops to
Afghanistan, set aside for a moment the merits of that. I am not
talking about the merits. But let me say, we are told that sending
1,000 troops abroad for a year costs $1 billion. So the proposition is,
if you are coming to say that, you are saying: Let's spend another $40
billion in the coming year. I ask those who do that to tell us how we
will spend the $40 billion and how they propose we raise the funding.
Because I think it is time, long past time that we decide to fund some
of these things. Sending soldiers into the winds of war and deciding we
are going to put whatever it costs on top of the deficit is hardly a
courageous act.
This country deserves better from all of us, from me, from the
President, from both sides in this Congress. All of us have to work
together to put this back on track. I am convinced we will. I am
convinced we will, in part, with the leadership of this President and,
in part, because there are a lot of people of good will in this
Congress who understand that this is a serious problem and we need to
fix it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The majority whip.
____________________
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS EXTENSION
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, another day has passed in the Senate and
another opportunity has been wasted to extend unemployment insurance
benefits across America. Let's make the record clear. The Democrats
have asked the Republicans to move to this item of business and to pass
the extension of unemployment insurance benefits to the hundreds of
thousands of Americans out of work. They have refused time and time
again. They have had a long series of reasons, none of them valid from
my point of view. Many of them think they want to argue a lot of other
issues. They want to argue the issue of immigration. They want to argue
issues totally unrelated to unemployment. They don't seem to understand
there are real people out there calling my office every day--and most
Senators--explaining they are out of work and desperate.
Let me read an e-mail I received recently from one of my constituents
in Gurnee, IL:
Dear Sir: I have worked my entire life from the age of 12
to 56 years old. I have never seen it this bad. Even during
the Reagan recession, you could find something. All the
emergency unemployment has expired. All everyone can talk
about is health care. I realize it's important but I refuse
to believe no one notices when we run out of help. When AIG
and the banks needed money, the Congress was pretty quick to
respond, and generous. So much so that the TARP fund still
has more than enough money to do the job. But when it comes
to the common man, we get help one piece at a time.
Unemployment compensation is not welfare. We are working
people. We are not invisible. But by the attention we get,
that's how I feel. I know you're a busy man, but if you can,
please say something about helping the unemployed. Emergency
funding expired 2 weeks ago. We need help yesterday.
A lot of letters come into our office this way, e-mails. People are
desperate. Last Friday, when I was in Chicago, I sat down with a group
of about 20 unemployed people and let them tell their stories--invited
the press in to let them hear the stories. Many people have a mistaken
notion of who the unemployed are. Some Republicans argue they are folks
who are not trying hard enough to find a job. Some argue that life on
unemployment is so nice they don't even try to find other work. I wish
a few of those Republican Senators would go home to their States and
meet with the unemployed people whose benefits they are denying with
this procedural obstacle. They could sit down and learn, as I did, that
some of these folks have been working for more than a year to find a
job. Republicans might acknowledge there are six people looking for
every job out there. They might acknowledge that many of these people
have lost their health care and health protection insurance during the
period of their unemployment. They might hear some stories of families
struggling to get by who have very little money and are exhausting what
little savings they have left.
That is the reality of unemployment. Yet when we turn to the
Republicans and say: Can we do the ordinary thing we do around here on
a bipartisan basis and extend unemployment benefits in what is the
worst recession we have faced since America's Great Depression, they
say no. No, we don't want to get to that now. Maybe later. We have some
other ideas.
For the people who are suffering under unemployment, that is not good
enough. Republicans are ignoring the obvious. There are people all
across America who are struggling to find work without success.
For example, 400,000 American families have run out of their
unemployment insurance benefits already, including 20,000 in my State
who lost benefits at the end of September. Another 200,000 families
across the country could lose their lifeline to unemployment benefits
this month if Republicans continue to stall and stop us from extending
unemployment insurance.
What are the Republicans waiting for? Mr. President, 1.3 million
Americans will lose this temporary assistance by the end of the year if
Congress does not pass this simple extension of benefits, and 50,000 of
those families are in my home State. The unemployment check certainly
doesn't replace the wages people have lost, but it may give them enough
to get by.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Recovery
Act's unemployment insurance provisions have kept 800,000 Americans out
of poverty so far this year. So if Republicans want to see unemployed
people fall into the ranks of poverty, I can tell you what it means. It
means that what is available to them is even less. What they will lose
will be disastrous for them and their families. They will be the people
you will find at the food banks, the soup lines. They will be similar
to the one in my hometown heading out for township assistance which is,
I am afraid, the bottom of the barrel for most people when you have run
out of ideas on how to put some food on the table. That is what is
going to happen if we don't extend unemployment insurance benefits.
Never in the history of the Nation's unemployment insurance program
have
[[Page 25138]]
more workers been unemployed for such a long period. Half of all
jobless workers can't find a job within 6 months after they started
receiving unemployment benefits. That is the highest percentage of
prolonged unemployment in the history of the unemployment program. When
we come to the floor and ask Republicans to join us in a bipartisan way
to extend the safety net to unemployed people and they say no, they
have to understand they are causing hardship and suffering for some of
the people who are the least fortunate around us today.
The Democratic bill Republicans continue to block, even today, for
unemployment insurance benefit extension would extend insurance for an
additional 14 weeks for jobless workers in all 50 States, red States,
blue States, purple States, Democratic States, Republican States,
North, South, East and West, without any preference. If there are
unemployed people, they would get the benefit. There is an additional 6
weeks of insurance for jobless workers in States with unemployment
above 8.5 percent, which, unfortunately, today includes my State.
It is time to act. Are we going to finish this week with the
Republicans stopping us from extending unemployment benefits? And if we
do, how would we explain this to this man who wrote me and asked me
about whether I know that unemployment compensation is not welfare, it
is a fund that workers pay into while they are working. As he said:
We are working people. We are not invisible, but by the
attention we get that is how I feel.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, that is the reality of the Republican
approach to the issues we face. But it is not the only issue. There are
other issues that relate to health care where the Republican position
is impossible for me to defend or even understand.
Let me give you one specific example of a family in Joliet, IL. I
will use their names because they have given me permission. Their story
is so compelling, I want the Congressional Record to reflect it, and
those who follow this debate to hear it.
A few weeks ago, a small business owner from Joliet, IL, called my
office to say:
Please keep fighting for affordable health care and a
public option. Don't back down.
That was the message.
The man's name is Dave Poll. He and his wife Claire own the Sir
Speedy Printing business in Joliet. The Polls opened their business in
1980, in the middle of a bitter recession--almost 30 years ago. For
years, they bought health insurance for their employees and themselves
under a small group policy, but they had to drop that coverage 4 years
ago after their premiums nearly doubled over just 3 or 4 years.
Then the recession hit, and they had to let their employees go. Now
it is just Dave and Claire running their little printing business. Dave
is 59 years old. His wife Claire, who works there with him, is 57. They
have two grown sons and a daughter in college.
The week before Dave Poll called my office, his wife Claire had
blacked out for a few seconds while waiting on a customer. She had been
diagnosed with high blood pressure before, so they did not want to take
any chances and Dave insisted she call her doctor. The doctor said she
had to go to the hospital.
After 2 hours in the emergency room, and less than 10 minutes with a
doctor--less than 10 minutes--the Polls left the hospital with test
results that did not show anything and about $2,000 in medical bills.
Mr. President, 10 minutes, $2,000.
Dave said:
A lot of people have it a lot worse. Please keep fighting
for all of us.
Two weeks later, Dave Poll called my office again. Claire had felt
bone-tired at work one day, so she went back to the hospital. Tests
showed this time that she had advanced cancer, and it has already
spread throughout her body.
A few days after her diagnosis, Claire spent 3 days in the hospital
to have a port implanted and to receive her first dose of chemo. Just
for those 3 days in the hospital--3 days now--her bill was $84,000--
$84,000. Additional chemo treatments are going to cost her $25,000 a
month.
Remember, the Polls--these small business owners--have no health
insurance. They have no idea how they are going to pay these bills. In
the first 6 months of this year, the Polls took out of their business a
combined salary--in 6 months--of $15,000.
That is how quickly families can be on the verge of bankruptcy in
America, because of our broken health insurance system. One week you
are getting by, hoping the medicines you need are on Wal-Mart's list of
$4-a-month prescriptions, and praying that you do not have a serious
illness or accident. Two weeks later, you can be diagnosed with an
illness that will not only cost you your health but everything you have
ever accumulated in your life.
Could Claire Poll's cancer have been found sooner if they had not had
to drop their health insurance? We will never know the answer to that.
But we know this: 45,000 Americans each year--122 people every single
day--die prematurely because they are uninsured. More Americans die
every month because they do not have insurance than we lost in the
tragedy of 9/11.
We know health care costs are a major factor in two-thirds of all
bankruptcies in America today. And of those people filing for
bankruptcy because of medical bills, three-fourths of them had health
insurance, but it was not any good. It did not help them when they
needed it or it was rescinded at the last minute when the health
insurance company saw you were sick and dropped the coverage. It
happens too often in this country today.
We know we cannot afford not to make this change. Health care
spending in America doubles every 10 years. We are spending $2.7
trillion a year on health care now. In 10 years, if we stay on this
same path, America will be spending $5.4 trillion on health care, and
the average premium for a family health insurance policy will be in the
range of $25,000 to $30,000 a year.
Health care spending will crowd out investments in education, green
energy, and many other national priorities, and it will ruin more and
more families financially. According to a new study by the Kaiser
Family Foundation, if premiums continue to rise as quickly as they have
over the last 5 years, the cost of the average family health policy
will increase from $13,375 a year today to over $24,000 10 years from
now.
How many families can afford to take $24,000 out of their annual
paycheck that they face now? How many families could even consider
paying $25,000 a month for chemotherapy? Almost none of us.
When Dave Poll called my office the second time, he said:
Now we may become some of those people who lose their home
and business because of health care costs.
Think about that. Dave and Claire: 29 years in their business, they
gave their whole life to it, and now, because they did not have health
insurance, they could lose everything--not just their business but
their home as well--as Dave struggles to give Claire the care she needs
to stay alive.
No family should have to go through what they have been through. No
family should be forced into bankruptcy because of illness. Every other
country in the world--every other advanced country in the world--
provides basic health care for their citizens. These countries spend
less than we do on health care and they ensure everybody. And on many
important measures of health--from infant mortality to life expectancy
at age 60--many of these countries, spending a lot less, get much
better results.
Several years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major
effort to rank the health systems of 191 countries in the world. France
and Italy were the top two. The United States was not even in the top
10, not even in the top 20. We rank 37th in the world. We are No. 1 in
health care spending, No. 37 in health care outcomes. That is what our
current health care system gives us.
The health care and insurance companies spend millions of dollars to
[[Page 25139]]
scare people into thinking that universal, affordable health coverage
for all Americans will mean less coverage and less choice for Americans
who already have health insurance. That is just a scare tactic. Look at
all the other countries in the world that spend less than we do, cover
everybody, and get better health results.
America--the wealthiest, most creative society on Earth--can solve
this problem. It is not just a matter of science and economics, it is a
test of our moral character, and it is a test of whether our democracy
still works.
The profits of America's health insurance companies have increased
428 percent over the last 10 years. They do not need any more help from
Congress. I wonder why my colleagues on the Republican side of the
aisle have no alternative to this current system that has treated this
poor family in Joliet, IL, so poorly. They do not have any proposal
they bring before us which would address the issue of the cost,
security, and stability of health insurance that every family and every
business wants.
I have yet to hear the first Republican Senator come to the floor and
call for health insurance reform saying that we have to end this
practice of denying coverage for preexisting conditions or when
families get sick or when kids reach the age of 23.
Don't they hear the same things we hear? Don't they receive the same
kinds of e-mails and telephone calls we do? I am sure they do. But if
they do, why aren't they joining us in this effort? Only one Republican
Senator, Olympia Snowe of Maine, has had the political courage to step
forward and join us in this effort--1 out of 40.
You would think there would be other Republican Senators open to this
idea, understanding the current system is indefensible. Some of them
come to the floor and it sounds as if they are reading right from the
playbook of the health insurance companies. Oh, they talk about all the
problems if we had a so-called public option--a public option. And it
is just that: an option.
Well, if you do the math--and this is rough math, but pretty close--
we have about 300 million people in America. Currently, about 40
million of these people are under Medicaid, the health insurance for
the poorest people and disabled people in our country. Another 45
million are under Medicare, the health insurance for people over the
age of 65. We have another large group of those Americans who have
served our country covered by the veterans' health care system--one of
the best in our Nation. Eight million people--and I am one of them--are
part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. It is a program
for Federal employees and Members of Congress and their staff. Then
several million are under a plan of children's health insurance--a
government-administered plan to provide that poor kids in families who
are struggling have health insurance across America.
So more than one out of three Americans today has some form of
government health insurance. The health insurance companies, the
private companies, tell us this will ruin the system, if we had an
option that was available such as Medicare for every family in America.
I think they are wrong. One of the most sensible things we could do
would be to extend Medicare's reach. What if, in the next 5 years, we
said we are going to start saying people at the age of 60 can start
paying premiums to be part of Medicare--in a separate pool, but
Medicare benefits--that they pay those premiums and they will have
coverage. Well, it would mean some people would have a fighting chance
then, as they reach the age of 60, to have basic health insurance
coverage before Medicare. I would extend it even lower. I would extend
it to the age of 50, and the Poll family would have been covered. They
would have been able to buy basic Medicare protection for Dave and
Claire that might have diagnosed this situation at an earlier point or
reduced the cost. But it certainly would give them the peace of mind
that they have access to the best care in America and will not lose
their business and their home in the process.
I wait for the Republicans at some point in this debate to stop
saying no and start stepping forward with some idea, some proposal,
something that moves us on the path toward making this country an even
healthier country, a country where the injustices of the current health
care system are not part of our future and part of our country, but
part of the past. That is the way it should be.
In the next couple weeks, we are going to start the debate on health
care reform here in the Senate. It has been a long time coming. This
idea first came up under President Teddy Roosevelt a century ago.
President Harry Truman suggested universal health care 60 years ago.
President Lyndon Johnson tried his best to move it forward 40 years
ago. Fifteen years ago, President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton tried to
move us in this direction. They never--none of them--reached the point
we are going to reach now, where comprehensive health care reform will
be on the floor of the Senate, to be actively and openly debated.
This is our chance. This is our historic opportunity. We cannot miss
it. For the Poll family in Joliet, IL, we wish them the best and hope
Claire gets well and feels well very soon. We hope they do not lose
their family's savings, their home, and their business in the course of
looking for the same basic treatment we would expect for anybody in
this country.
This may be one of the few places on Earth--one of the few advanced
countries on Earth--where you can literally be driven into poverty
because of your illness. That is what has happened to this family, who
paid their dues and kept their business open for 29 years. We could do
better. I hope our Republican friends will stop saying no and join us
in this opportune moment of making history for this Nation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
____________________
AFGHAN ELECTION RUNOFF
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise to welcome today's announcement of
a runoff election in Afghanistan, to be held on November 7. This second
round is absolutely critical, and I commend the Electoral Complaints
Commission for successfully investigating reports of fraud surrounding
the August 20 vote. The ECC fulfilled its mandate, and I applaud the
Afghan people for demonstrating patience and resilience throughout this
very difficult process.
I also want to recognize the efforts of the chairman of our Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, Senator John Kerry, and Ambassador
Eikenberry in Afghanistan to secure greater transparency and encourage
a second round.
When I was in Afghanistan in April, there was great promise that the
election would usher in a new era of hope for the Afghan people. But
when I returned to the region in September, it was clear this hope had
been dashed by allegations of election fraud. Each story of corruption
further undermines the confidence of the Afghan people in their
government, which has hemorrhaged endlessly since the August vote.
Today's news of a runoff gives hope to the Afghan people that their
voices and political aspirations will finally be heard.
On October 8, I gave a statement on the eighth anniversary of the
war. In it, I highlighted governance as an essential component of our
counterinsurgency strategy, particularly because our goal is to build
support for the Afghan Government among the Afghan people. This battle
for the hearts and minds is not between the Afghans and Americans; it
is between the Afghan Government and the Taliban, a Taliban which has
been bolstered by the allegations of fraud from the August vote.
Counterinsurgency cannot succeed in Afghanistan without a credible
government. It is my hope that a credible Afghan partner can emerge
from a second round of elections. Whether the winner is President
Karzai or Dr. Abdullah, it is critical that the next Afghan Government
take steps to root out corruption, improve security, and provide
essential services to the Afghan people.
Just as the United States supports a transparent, fair election, we
also support a transparent and effective Afghan Government that serves
the interests
[[Page 25140]]
of its people. It will be necessary to ensure that the mistakes made in
August are not repeated in a second round. This is why the role of
monitors should be strengthened to protect the integrity of the vote.
Afghan and international forces should also be present in
sufficiently strong numbers to provide security and ensure that Afghan
citizens can safely cast their votes. It is my hope that this second
round will provide an opportunity to rectify problems encountered in
August and, most importantly, help to build faith in government among
the Afghan people.
As President Obama takes the time he needs to thoroughly consider all
of our options in Afghanistan, issues of governance will inform this
process because our policy is more than just about combat troop levels;
it must include the promotion of effective governance, training of
Afghan security forces, and economic development.
The Afghan people deserve a better and brighter future, and I hope
this runoff election will bring them one step closer to their goal.
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. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
STREAMLINE ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE CONVERSIONS ACT
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, last summer in my hometown of Tulsa, OK,
when gasoline prices were near $4 a gallon, a person driving a
compressed natural gas-powered car was able to fuel up for just 90
cents a gallon. This was when gasoline was at $4 a gallon. That was a
savings of $3 a gallon. Consequently, I was the first in Congress to
introduce a comprehensive bill to promote the use of natural gas as a
realistic alternative for the many Americans who were looking for price
relief, which is about everybody. The bill I introduced was called the
Drive America on Natural Gas Act.
A year later, I am encouraged to see that several Members on Capitol
Hill have introduced similar bills promoting the use of natural gas and
propane as transportation fuel. Last summer, I joined with Senator
Pryor to once again introduce a comprehensive bill to promote these
fuels for America's drivers. Additionally, majority leader Harry Reid
recently announced his firm support for natural gas vehicles and hopes
to bring a standalone bill to the floor in the near future. I welcome
the majority leader's support and encourage him to make this a priority
for floor consideration.
One of the major components of my Drive America on Natural Gas Act
addressed a desperate need to overhaul the EPA emissions certification
process which effectively prohibits the ability of nearly all car
owners the option to legally convert cars to bifuel operation. Bifuel
is a car that can run on natural gas and via the flip of a switch go to
gasoline. Now, why? With certification and emissions testing expenses
ranging between $50,000 and $150,000 per conversion system type, the
costs are prohibitive for the aftermarket conversion system
manufacturers to produce these systems for more than just a handful of
different vehicle models each year. These heavy costs are ultimately
borne by the consumer. Due to the rigidity and the cost constraints of
these regulations, the EPA has issued less than 300 certificates over
the past 8 years--that is 300 certificates over the past 8 years.
This is a solution to the high price and the fluctuating price of
automobile gas. Now, oftentimes the vehicle models eligible for
conversion are only sold for a short period of time since the
certification lasts less than a year before a conversion system
manufacturer must decide it will rectify that particular system.
Today, I am pleased to join Senator Wicker, Congressman Dan Boren
from my State of Oklahoma, and Congressman Heath Shuler to introduce
bipartisan, bicameral legislation to simplify and streamline the EPA
emission certification process for aftermarket conversion systems.
The Streamline Alternative Fuel Vehicle Conversions Act makes
critical changes in five key ways so that vehicle conversions can
become a commonplace option for all Americans:
First, our bill eliminates the need for subsequent yearly
recertification systems that have already been certified. I might add
that the EPA is a friend in this effort. They want these changes to
take place as much as we do, but they are not able to do this right
now. Under the current law, you have to get recertified, so we
eliminate that problem.
Secondly, the legislation directs the EPA to establish criteria that
would cover several different yet similar makes and models under a
single certification conformity.
Here is the problem. We have an organization in Tulsa that has a
conversion system where they can actually change the fuel and refuel
and they can change conversions into automobiles. The problem is, the
way the law is today you have to get paid for this conversion each
time. It might be the same engine that has already been converted
before, but if it is in a different model, you have to convert it
again. This is something we are going to be changing.
The third thing we change is to instruct the EPA to allow the
submissions of previously tested data if a vehicle or the conversion
system has not changed in a way which would affect compliance--very
similar to the last problem, but nonetheless it is in the current law.
The fourth thing we would do is direct the EPA to promulgate
regulations to help conversion system manufacturers comply with
potentially different onboard diagnostics--which is called OBD--
requirements and compatibility. Since 1996, these onboard diagnostics
systems have been required in all light-duty cars and trucks to monitor
engine and emission components.
Finally, we clarify the treatment of vehicles which are beyond their
useful life as defined by the EPA. These older vehicles, typically
those that are at least 10 years old and have at least 125,000 miles,
are by default regulated under the Clean Air Act's tampering provision,
causing regulatory uncertainty. Our legislation would allow the
conversion of these vehicles as long as the conversion system
manufacturer for the converter is able to demonstrate that the
emissions would not degrade due to conversion.
Over the past several months, this legislation has been through
numerous drafting reiterations with the assistance of the Natural Gas
Vehicles of America, the National Propane Gas Association, and the
Environmental Protection Agency. As I said before, they have been very
helpful to us. I especially thank the EPA for their input and
assistance in helping us craft a bill which will aid the agency in
their efforts to streamline their compliance. They actually want to
streamline. This is not normally the case.
I am also encouraged by EPA's internal efforts to reform the process,
and I am pleased that our bill will complement and enhance their
actions.
By simplifying this compliance process, the Streamline Alternative
Fuel Vehicle Conversion Act will not only incentivize conversion system
manufacturers to offer more systems for additional vehicle makes and
models but will eventually reduce the cost of these conversion systems
for interested car owners, perhaps by hundreds or even thousands of
dollars.
Ultimately, the legislation will allow Americans to choose whether
propane- or natural-gas powered vehicles are right for their own
individual and business needs while simultaneously preserving the
country's stringent emission standards.
The promise of natural gas and propane as mainstream transportation
fuels is achievable today--not 20 years from now or 25 years from now
but today. It is something no one should be against. Stop and think
about it. I know the price of gas is down to $3. In my State of
Oklahoma, it is down to around $2 a gallon. But today's price
[[Page 25141]]
for natural gas, a comparable gallon would be 90 cents, and that is one
that would be stabilized. When we stop and think about the reserves
that are out there in natural gas, what we can do and what is available
for us today, it can only get better.
Hopefully, this bill will pass. I am very proud of the bipartisan
support, the bicameral support. I encourage our colleagues to get
involved in this very logical response to the high price of motor fuel.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, are we now in a period of morning business?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes, we are.
____________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010--CONFERENCE
REPORT
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R.
2647, the Department of Defense Authorization Act.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The report will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
2647), to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2010,
and for other purposes, having met, have agreed that the
House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the
Senate and agree to the same with an amendment and the Senate
agree to the same, signed by a majority of the conferees on
the part of both Houses.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of October 7, 2009.)
cloture motion
Mr. REID. I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the
motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Conference
Report to accompany H.R. 2647, the Department of Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
Harry Reid, Ben Nelson, Benjamin L. Cardin, Byron L.
Dorgan, Robert Menendez, Richard J. Durbin, Charles E.
Schumer, Tom Harkin, Evan Bayh, Patrick J. Leahy, Jack
Reed, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Roland W. Burris, Edward E.
Kaufman, Paul G. Kirk, Jr., Barbara Boxer, Sheldon
Whitehouse, Carl Levin.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum be
waived.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, with respect to the conference report
accompanying H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010, I certify that the information required by rule XLIV
of the Standing Rules of the Senate related to congressionally directed
spending items has been identified in the joint statement of managers
accompanying the conference report and that the required information
has been available on a publicly accessible congressional Web site for
more than 48 hours.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF WILLIAM K. SESSIONS III TO BE CHAIR OF THE UNITED STATES
SENTENCING COMMISSION
Mr. REID. I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
executive session to consider Calendar No. 132, the nomination of
William Sessions, to be chairman of the United States Sentencing
Commission.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Nomination of William K. Sessions III, of Vermont, to be
Chair of the United States Sentencing Commission.
cloture motion
Mr. REID. I now send a cloture motion to the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the
motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of
William K. Sessions, III, of Vermont, to be Chair of the
United States Sentencing Commission.
Patrick J. Leahy, Thomas R. Carper, Byron L. Dorgan, Tom
Udall, Benjamin L. Cardin, Roland W. Burris, Al
Franken, Tom Harkin, Jon Tester, Charles E. Schumer,
Mark Begich, Frank R. Lautenberg, Daniel K. Akaka,
Sherrod Brown, Bernard Sanders, Richard J. Durbin, Jack
Reed.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum be waived
and the Senate now resume legislative session.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will resume legislative
session.
____________________
(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
VOTE EXPLANATION
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the
vote on the conference report to accompany Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2010, H.R. 2892. If I were able to attend today's
session, I would have voted yes on the conference report.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
REMEMBERING CAROL TOMLINSON-KEASEY
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in
honoring the memory of Dr. Carol Tomlinson-Keasey, a committed educator
and administrator and the founding chancellor of University of
California, Merced. Dr. Tomlinson-Keasey passed away on October 10th
from complications related to breast cancer. She was 66 years old.
Dr. Carol Tomlinson-Keasey was born in Washington, DC, on October 15,
1942. The daughter of an Army officer, she moved around frequently
before graduating from a high school in France. Dr. Tomlinson-Keasey
received a bachelor's degree in political science from Penn State
University, a master's in psychology from Iowa State University, and a
Ph.D. in developmental psychology from University of California,
Berkeley.
In 1977, Dr. Tomlinson-Keasey became an associate professor of
psychology at the University of California, Riverside. During her 15-
year tenure at UC Riverside, she earned faculty and administrative
appointments. In 1992, Dr. Tomlinson was named vice provost and
professor at University of California, Davis. She was appointed dean of
UC Davis College of Letters and Science in 1994 and vice provost for
academic planning and personnel in 1995 before lending her considerable
talents to the University of California Office of the President in
1997.
Beginning in 1998, Dr. Tomlinson-Keasey assumed a leadership role in
the planning and building of University of California, Merced, the
first new University of California campus in 40 years. A gifted
administrator, Dr. Tomlinson-Keasey fully immersed herself
[[Page 25142]]
in every aspect of the enormous task of starting a major public
university. Whether it was selecting the eventual site of the campus,
the recruitment of administrators and faculty members or even choosing
the school mascot, Dr. Tomlinson-Keasey worked tirelessly to see that
the dream of a University of California campus in the San Joaquin
Valley became a reality. In 1999, Dr. Tomlinson-Keasey became the first
female founding chancellor of a University of California campus.
UC Merced has been a model of growth and progress since its inception
in 2005. Today, the burgeoning campus is a living testament to Dr.
Tomlinson-Keasey's hard work, vision, and dedication. Dr. Tomlinson-
Keasey has left behind a legacy that has resulted in greater
opportunities for future generations of California students, especially
those students who are the first in their families to attend college
and come from underrepresented ethnic or racial minority groups in the
Central Valley. Her family and friends should take great pride and
comfort in knowing Dr. Tomlinson-Keasey's accomplishments will continue
to positively impact many people in the future.
Dr. Tomlinson-Keasey is survived by her husband Blake Keasey;
children, Amber and Kai; three brothers, Alen, Gene and John Tomlinson;
and four grandchildren.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE SERVICE CORPS OF RETIRED EXECUTIVES
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I recognize a dedicated group
of volunteers for their service to small business owners in Texas. The
Service Corps of Retired Executives, also known simply as SCORE, is a
nonprofit organization that connects new entrepreneurs with seasoned
business executives for expert advice and consultation.
Creating a new business enterprise can be challenging, and perhaps
the most advantageous way for new entrepreneurs to seek advice is
asking successful executives who have firsthand experience. SCORE
provides a forum for entrepreneurs to engage experienced leaders in
both one-on-one settings and group environments. SCORE offers
complementary counseling services covering important topics such as
business management, financing, marketing, and taxes, among many
others.
SCORE was created on October 5, 1964, as a mission of the Small
Business Administration, SBA. Since that time, the organization has
evolved into a stand-alone nonprofit group, steadily increased its
volunteer base, and embraced the Internet as a tool for outreach. SCORE
is approaching a significant milestone this year--45 years of service
to small business owners. It is worth noting that SCORE recently
documented another achievement by providing services to its 8 millionth
client.
Today SCORE offices can be found in 48 States and the District of
Columbia. In 2008, 11,200 SCORE volunteers provided approximately 1.3
million hours of service saving business owners an estimated $167
million. In Texas, 378 SCORE volunteers provided over 63,000 hours of
complimentary counseling. SCORE's remarkable success continues to be
recognized by the Federal Government, and today the SBA maintains a
partnership with SCORE to help entrepreneurs turn their visions into
reality.
I commend SCORE volunteers in Texas for sharing their time and
expertise with the next generation of business owners. In so doing,
SCORE volunteers are helping a new generation build their own American
dream.
____________________
REMEMBERING JEANNETTE GRUBB
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I was deeply saddened to learn that
my dear friend and mentor for the past 63 years, Jeannette Grubb,
passed away on Friday, October 9, 2009, at the age of 106 years old.
I last saw Jean on September 12, 2009, at the rededication ceremony
at Shortridge High School, and I, as well as many others, enjoyed a
wonderful visit with her. As always, Jean, herself a 1920 Shortridge
High School graduate, was ever enthusiastic about Shortridge and
recalled memories of her time as a Shortridge student, teacher and
advisor. She was a special person, a woman of faith, whose concern for
others was apparent.
Jean was well-educated and prepared for the important
responsibilities of teaching. As a graduate of Indiana University, she
earned her bachelor of arts, and later her master's in journalism from
the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University. I am
grateful that in 1944, Jean was asked to give up teaching mathematics
to become the director of publications for Shortridge, a post she held
until her retirement in 1970. Jean inspired us to be better students,
and focused on creative and excellent writing skills.
Jean is one of the most memorable teachers in my life. When I was a
Thursday columnist for the Shortridge High School Daily Echo, she
served as the faculty adviser of the publication that she also served
on as a Shortridge student.
As a high school student, the opportunity to publish a column, and to
know that at least a few of my classmates read what I had written,
provided an unparalleled privilege. On one occasion, an unflattering
column which I authored about the unhealthy habits of the basketball
team was read by the Indianapolis School Board--whose members only
received copies of the Thursday edition of the school paper. This
incident caused a temporary shutdown of the Echo's headquarters and a
sudden trip for me to the principal's office to hear the consequences
that unbridled journalism could have on the school, Jean, and me.
During this traumatic experience, Jean was my heroine, and the
freedom of the press prevailed.
Furthermore, Jean has always been an active member of the Shortridge
High School alumni community. As publications adviser, she organized
the 50th anniversary celebration of the Echo. She also has worked to
gather names and contact information for the Shortridge High School
Alumni Association so that each of us can stay closely in touch with
our friends and classmates. Following her retirement, Jean worked with
the Indiana Historical Society to compile a complete history of our
alma mater.
In 2005, Jean deservedly received the Lifetime Achievement Award from
the Indiana High School Press Association for her tireless commitment
to journalistic excellence among young people, and her unwavering
support of the alumni and history of Shortridge High School. On this
occasion, I included remarks about Jean in the Congressional Record to
honor her achievement.
Throughout my pubic service, I have enjoyed frequent communications
with Jean. She was always optimistic and supportive.
She was loved and appreciated. Her friendship and compassion will be
greatly missed by her many students and friends whose lives she
influenced through her exemplary dedication to teaching.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO RAJIV KUMAR
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, today I congratulate Rajiv
Kumar, a medical student at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown
University, for receiving the Community Health Leaders Award from the
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Mr. Kumar received this prestigious
award for his efforts to reduce obesity among Rhode Island residents.
In 2005, he established Shape Up RI--a statewide exercise and weight
loss challenge. Since then, over 35,000 Rhode Islanders have
participated in the program including my staff and me, and I can
personally attest to its fun and effectiveness. I had the pleasure of
meeting with Mr. Kumar earlier this month to discuss the great work he
has done to encourage personal responsibility in an engaging and
innovative new format, and I look forward to the continued growth and
success of Shape Up RI.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Mr. Williams, one of his secretaries.
[[Page 25143]]
____________________
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 Committee on Armed Services.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
____________________
REPORT ON THE CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY DECLARED IN
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13413 WITH RESPECT TO BLOCKING THE PROPERTY OF PERSONS
CONTRIBUTING TO THE CONFLICT TAKING PLACE IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF
THE CONGO--PM 35
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message
from the President of the United States, together with accompanying
reports and papers; which was referred to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs:
To the Congress of the United States:
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d))
provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless,
prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President
publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a
notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the
anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the
Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the
national emergency with respect to the situation in or in relation to
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the related measures blocking
the property of certain persons contributing to the conflict in that
country, are to continue in effect beyond October 27, 2009.
The situation in or in relation to the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, which has been marked by widespread violence and atrocities that
continue to threaten regional stability, continues to pose an unusual
and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States.
For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the
national emergency to deal with that threat and the related measures
blocking the property of certain persons contributing to the conflict
in that country.
Barack Obama.
The White House, October 20, 2009.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
Enrolled Bill Signed
At 3:13 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker
has signed the following enrolled bill:
H.R. 3183. An act making appropriations for energy and
water development and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.
The enrolled bill was subsequently signed by the President pro
tempore (Mr. Byrd).
____________________
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. BROWN:
S. 1800. A bill to amend the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 to provide
compensation for certain persons injured in the course of
employment at the Feed Materials Production Center (commonly
referred to as ``Fernald'') or the Piqua Organic Moderated
Reactor in Ohio; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. CARPER (for himself and Mr. Kaufman):
S. 1801. A bill to establish the First State National
Historical Park in the State of Delaware, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. BURRIS:
S. 1802. A bill to require a study of the feasibility of
establishing the United States Civil Rights Trail System, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
By Mr. MERKLEY (for himself and Mr. Corker):
S. 1803. A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to
authorize reviews by the Comptroller General of the United
States of emergency credit facilities established by the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or any
Federal Reserve bank, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
By Mr. KYL:
S. 1804. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty
on pyridaben technical; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. KYL:
S. 1805. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
fenarimol technical; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. KYL:
S. 1806. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Phosmet
Technical; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. KYL:
S. 1807. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty
on hexythiazox technical; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 1808. A bill to control Federal spending now; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. WICKER (for himself and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 1809. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to promote the
certification of aftermarket conversion systems and thereby
encourage the increased use of alternative fueled vehicles;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Brownback, and Mr.
Udall of Colorado):
S. 1810. A bill to direct the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to publish physical activity guidelines for the
general public, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. LEVIN:
S. 1811. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
chime rod assemblies; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. LEVIN:
S. 1812. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on DMDPA;
to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. LEVIN:
S. 1813. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty
on DPA; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. LEVIN:
S. 1814. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on urea,
polymer with formaldehyde and 2-methylpropanal; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. LEVIN:
S. 1815. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
clock movements; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Carper,
and Mr. Kaufman):
S. 1816. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to improve and reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay
Program; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. BROWN:
S. 1817. A bill to temporarily raise the limits on certain
loans under the Small Business Act and the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 1818. A bill to amend the Morris K. Udall Scholarship
and Excellence in National Environmental and Native American
Public Policy Act of 1992 to honor the legacy of Stewart L.
Udall, and for other purposes; considered and passed.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 250
At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Franken) was added as a cosponsor of S. 250, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a higher education opportunity
credit in place of existing education tax incentives.
S. 252
At the request of Mr. Akaka, the name of the Senator from Texas (Mrs.
Hutchison) was added as a cosponsor of S. 252, a bill to amend title
38, United States Code, to enhance the capacity of the Department of
Veterans Affairs to recruit and retain nurses and other critical
health-care professionals, to improve the provision of health care for
veterans, and for other purposes.
S. 663
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, the name of the Senator
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) was added as a cosponsor of S. 663, a bill
to amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to establish the Merchant Mariner Equity Compensation
Fund to provide benefits to certain individuals who served in the
United States merchant marine (including the Army Transport Service
[[Page 25144]]
and the Naval Transport Service) during World War II.
S. 700
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Ms. Mikulski) 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. 729
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 729, a bill to amend the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to
permit States to determine State residency for higher education
purposes and to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment of
status of certain alien students who are long-term United States
residents and who entered the United States as children, and for other
purposes.
S. 908
At the request of Mr. Bayh, the name of the Senator from Florida (Mr.
LeMieux) 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. 1055
At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Coburn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1055, a bill to grant the
congressional gold medal, collectively, to the 100th Infantry Battalion
and the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, United States Army, in
recognition of their dedicated service during World War II.
S. 1065
At the request of Mr. Brownback, the name of the Senator from
Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1065, a bill to
authorize State and local governments to direct divestiture from, and
prevent investment in, companies with investments of $20,000, 000 or
more in Iran's energy sector, and for other purposes.
S. 1076
At the request of Mr. Menendez, the names of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown) were
added as cosponsors of S. 1076, a bill to improve the accuracy of fur
product labeling, and for other purposes.
S. 1153
At the request of Mr. Schumer, the names of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders) and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) were added
as cosponsors of S. 1153, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend the exclusion from gross income for employer-provided
health coverage for employees' spouses and dependent children to
coverage provided to other eligible designated beneficiaries of
employees.
S. 1155
At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin
(Mr. Feingold) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1155, a bill to amend
title 38, United States Code, to establish the position of Director of
Physician Assistant Services within the office of the Under Secretary
of Veterans Affairs for Health.
S. 1158
At the request of Ms. Stabenow, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1158, a bill to
authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct
activities to rapidly advance treatments for spinal muscular atrophy,
neuromuscular disease, and other pediatric diseases, and for other
purposes.
S. 1340
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the names of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Franken) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1340, a bill to establish a minimum funding level for
programs under the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 for fiscal years 2010
to 2014 that ensures a reasonable growth in victim programs without
jeopardizing the long-term sustainability of the Crime Victims Fund.
S. 1343
At the request of Mr. Brown, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Franken) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1343, a bill to amend the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to improve and expand
direct certification procedures for the national school lunch and
school breakfast programs, and for other purposes.
S. 1360
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1360, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income
amounts received on account of claims based on certain unlawful
discrimination and to allow income averaging for backpay and frontpay
awards received on account of such claims, and for other purposes.
S. 1624
At the request of Mr. Whitehouse, the name of the Senator from
Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1624, a bill to
amend title 11 of the United States Code, to provide protection for
medical debt homeowners, to restore bankruptcy protections for
individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill,
injured, or disabled family members, and to exempt from means testing
debtors whose financial problems were caused by serious medical
problems, and for other purposes.
S. RES. 312
At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin
(Mr. Feingold) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 312, a resolution
expressing the sense of the Senate on empowering and strengthening the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
AMENDMENT NO. 2669
At the request of Mr. Graham, the name of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Webb) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 2669 proposed to
H.R. 2847, a bill making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce
and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 2693
At the request of Mrs. Lincoln, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 2693
intended to be proposed to S. 1776, a bill to amend title XVIII of the
Social Security Act to provide for the update under the Medicare
physician fee schedule for years beginning with 2010 and to sunset the
application of the sustainable growth rate formula, and for other
purposes.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CARPER (for himself and Mr. Kaufman):
S. 1801. A bill to establish the First State National Historical Park
in the State of Delaware, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am delighted to be joined this afternoon
by my colleague, Senator Kaufman, from Delaware. Today, he and I are
going to do something I don't think has ever been done in the Senate in
the 200 years since this institution has been together. We will be
introducing legislation which will establish the First State National
Historic Park within the State of Delaware.
There are, as we all know, 50 States, and 49 States have national
parks. In all, there are 58 national parks. There are something like
more than 300 units of national parks. The first State to ratify the
Constitution--that would be Delaware--was the entire United States of
America for 1 week beginning December 7, 1787, and it still has no
national park--not that we don't have historical and cultural heritage
that is noteworthy in Delaware.
Think back roughly 400 years ago when the first settlements in this
country from Europe were that of the Dutch in what is now Lewes, DE.
And 372 years ago, the Swedes and Finns sailed across the Atlantic
Ocean up the
[[Page 25145]]
Delaware Bay and the Delaware River, took a left turn on the river they
decided to name after the child queen of Sweden, Christina, and
established the colony of New Sweden and what is now known as
Wilmington, DE.
To the south in Dover, DE, at the Golden Fleece Tavern for roughly 3
days in December 1787, 25 or so men holed up in the Golden Fleece
Tavern drinking what I describe as hot chocolate in order to decide
whether the State of Delaware was going to be the first State to ratify
the Constitution.
A few miles south of there is the childhood home of John Dickinson,
who worked with folks in Connecticut at the Constitutional Convention
to come up with a grand compromise which says every State will have two
U.S. Senators and we will apportion the seats in the House of
Representatives in accordance with the population of the States.
From one end of the State of Delaware to the other, there are any
number of things that are important to our Nation's heritage and I
think certainly to the people of Delaware. Yet we have no national park
commemorating any of that at all. Roughly 8 years ago, shortly after I
came to the Senate, we went to work to see whether we could change that
situation. A lot of good people in my State submitted ideas, from one
end of the State to the other, what they thought might be reasonable,
acceptable, appropriate items or places to designate as our national
park. We created a wonderful citizens group about 3 or 4 years ago.
They went the length and breadth of the State, led by professor
emeritus Jim Solis of the University of Delaware. They came back with a
wonderful group of ideas they collected from people from all over the
State.
They said: This is what we think the national park should be--a
unique concept. If you can imagine four bicycle wheels, each has a hub,
and from the hubs emanate the spokes. The vision of our working group
was to have four hubs--one in northern Delaware, Wilmington; one maybe
in Delaware City; another in Kent County, the central part of our
State; and another in Lewes, DE, the southern part of our State. From
each of those hubs--think of the spokes emanating--is a variety of
attractions to which people could come. Each hub would be a hub
established with some presence by the National Park Service.
These were the ideas we submitted to the National Park Service
roughly 3 years ago. The National Park Service went to work on it. To
their credit, they came to our State. They covered our State and met
with all kinds of people from one end of Delaware to the other and came
up with another idea. They said: We like what you came up with, but
here is what the National Park Service would like you to do. It is
this: Create a national park that focuses on Delaware from the early
settlement of the Dutch, the Swedes and the Finns and the English--a
national park theme to run from that period of time until first
statehood, December 7, 1787, roughly 130, 140 years.
The idea is to place in old New Castle, colonial New Castle, about 10
miles south of Wilmington, DE, on the Delaware River, a national park
site that would be colocated and located in an existing structure that
is suitable for that purpose. That spot will be populated by park
rangers, who will be there to serve as interpreters and help welcome
people to the site and help inform them, share with them other ideas
and places to visit.
We are excited about what the National Park Service has decided. Is
it everything we had hoped for? No, it is not. Is it a whole lot better
than being the only State in the country without a national park? It
sure is a lot better than that.
I express great thanks to all the men and women in my State who for
almost 8 years worked on this concept, created and gathered good ideas
and suggested those to the Park Service. I thank the Delaware Division
of Parks and Recreation, the Delaware Division of Historical and
Cultural Affairs, the National Park Service, former Secretary of the
Interior Dirk Kempthorne; and certainly our current Secretary of the
Interior, Ken Salazar, for their steadfast support for this initiative.
About half a dozen or so years ago, my family and I--my boys are now
19 and 21, but when they were younger, we liked to travel in the
summers and visit national parks. We visited national parks from
Pennsylvania, the second State in the Union, to Illinois, the Lincoln
sites. We went to Alaska, to Denali, the great one, a huge national
park that is two to three times the size of Delaware. We loved to visit
national parks. This summer, our boys took a cross-country tour to the
west coast for a summer job for one of our boys. They drove all the way
across the northern part of our country and got to spend time in the
Badlands, Mount Rushmore and Yellowstone and other sites along the way.
National parks were described as--I think it was Wallace Stegner who
said our national parks are America's best ideas. Ken Burns, the
documentary filmmaker whose series on national parks was on National
Public Television--beautifully done, beautifully videographed, and the
story told of our national parks and how the first national park began
about 140 years ago. Here we are 140 years later. They are a national
treasure. People come from all over the world.
When we went on the national park Web site 6 years ago to look for a
place to go as a family, do you know what we ended up with? Nothing.
There was a lot of stuff to visit from Alabama to Wyoming, A to W, but
when we got to Delaware, nothing.
We have a lot in our State of which we are proud. We have a lot in
our State of which our country can be proud. We want not only people in
Delaware to know but people throughout the country and the world. When
they are looking for a good place to visit for some culture and history
and, frankly, for a good time, we want them to know that Delaware--
little Delaware--is on the map. We are ready. The doors are open. The
``welcome'' mat is out. We are ready to receive them.
I want to say a big thanks to everyone who got us to this point. We
are delighted to introduce the legislation that will designate and
establish the first national park in the State of Delaware.
Fortunately, I am not introducing the bill by myself. I am joined by my
colleague, Senator Kaufman, and in the House by Congressman Mike
Castle. This will be a bipartisan, bicameral initiative.
I yield to Senator Kaufman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, this has been a great journey for me,
before I came to the Senate, watching my present senior Senator, Tom
Carper, then junior Senator--I am proud to say one of my greatest
accomplishments as a Senator was to promote Tom Carper from junior
Senator to senior Senator--to watch him work on this bill for a
national park for Delaware for 8 years.
I think if you were trying to do a case study on what it takes to
make an accomplishment in the Senate, his efforts would be an excellent
case study. He has been working for 8 years to bring a national park to
Delaware. It is the only State in the Nation that does not have a
national park, and yet it has so many wonderful things to see. I think
people who visit Delaware will know that.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of a bill that really my senior Senator
has worked so hard on. He already explained much of the history of how
we came to this point, so I want to simply say again that I appreciate
how he has worked with the National Park Service to design a national
historical park for Delaware.
Earlier this year, when we were discussing the Travel Promotion Act,
I discussed many of Delaware's attractions, from the colonial history
dating back to before it became the first State to ratify the
Constitution, to the beautiful beaches. We have a wealth of
opportunities for tourism. However, until this bill is signed into law,
we will not have a national park.
No one needs to be told about the value of national parks, the way
they
[[Page 25146]]
offer recreational opportunities, support local businesses, and protect
natural and cultural heritage. What is perhaps most important about
them, however, is the way they define and preserve our relationship
with possibility. They speak of a quintessential American world view
that everyone has a right to share in what is greatest and magnificent
in our world, in this case our national parks.
Since the creation of Yellowstone and Yosemite over a century ago,
millions of Americans have had their eyes opened by breathtaking vistas
and the rich history of our wonderful country. The park in Delaware
will play an important role in preserving our colonial history.
Remember, Delaware was a crossroads for early Dutch, English, and
Swedish settlers. Our State has a rich endowment of colonial landmarks.
Bringing these together the way Senator Carper has proposed in a
national historical park, this bill will allow all Americans to
appreciate our history leading up to the signing of the Constitution.
That is why I am glad to join with my senior Senator, Tom Carper, in
cosponsoring this bill. It is high time Delaware has a national park,
and I believe this bill will create one that preserves Delaware's rich
pre-Constitution history for generations to come.
I thank my senior Senator for what he is doing, not just for me, not
just for the people of Delaware, but for the country. This will be a
great place for people to come from all over the country and all over
the world to see the glorious history that is in Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, in conclusion, I say a special thanks to
Senator Kaufman. I thank members of our staff who worked on this bill--
not just us--literally for years in Delaware and here as well.
I want to thank my colleagues who earlier voted with us to authorize
a study, and to the National Park Service to fund that study, which
came back to us with the recommendations of the National Park Service
literally earlier this year.
I also want to say that in this proposal we give a nod to the fact
that these are trying fiscal times in which we live, and we don't have
the ability to spend boatloads of money for a national park anywhere,
including the First State. The proposal that we have before us is one
that recognizes that and is, I think, responsible, and fiscally
responsible, too.
So with all that having been said, we are delighted to say that while
this is not the end, this may be the beginning of the end, we hope, of
the journey that will lead us to a national park, and we are delighted
to stand here together to get us on the last part of that journey.
______
By Mr. MERKLEY (for himself and Mr. Corker):
S. 1803. A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to authorize
reviews by the Comptroller General of the United States of emergency
credit facilities established by the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System or any Federal Reserve bank, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee and
I come together to introduce the Federal Reserve Accountability Act.
Over the course of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has taken
extraordinary actions to stabilize our financial system. In doing so,
it has departed significantly from its traditional relationship with
markets. It is essential, therefore, that we bring greater openness and
transparency to the Federal Reserve.
We are introducing the Federal Reserve Accountability Act because we
believe that it strikes the right balance in making the Federal
Reserve's new emergency lending activities subject to a robust
financial audit by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, without
disturbing the Federal Reserve's monetary policy independence or its
role as emergency lender of last resort. The Federal Reserve
Accountability Act would require the GAO to audit the accounting,
financial reporting, and internal controls of all Federal Reserve
emergency credit programs that are not already subject to audit. To
protect against the risk that disclosure of the participation of
particular institutions could disrupt markets, the GAO would be
required to redact the names of specific institutions. Names would,
however, be made available 1 year after each emergency program is no
longer used. For additional transparency and public accessibility, the
legislation would also require that the Federal Reserve place these GAO
audits along with additional audit materials under a new ``Audit''
section on its website.
The many emergency lending programs created over the past year have
certainly helped bring the financial markets back from the brink of
collapse. But it is now time to set up a process for each lending
facility to be fully audited by the GAO and reaffirm our commitment to
openness and transparency whenever taxpayer dollars are used.
I am hopeful that we can move quickly to enact this important
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 1808. A bill to control Federal spending now; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, fiscal responsibility is a Wisconsin
tradition and it has been a major priority of mine throughout my years
in the Senate. In 1992 when I first ran for the job I hold now, I put
together an 82-point plan to save hundreds of billions of dollars in
wasteful, inefficient or unneeded government spending. Back then, the
country was facing huge budget deficits and Americans were
understandably concerned about the debt we were piling up. Fortunately,
we took some strong steps in the 1990s to clean up that fiscal mess--
including passing some of the reforms I championed in my 82-point
plan--and we were able to get the country back on the right track.
Unfortunately, we face a similar crisis today. In fact, in many ways
it is worse because the deficits are even bigger while the economy is
in such bad shape. The reckless fiscal policies of the past eight
years, combined with the current recession those policies helped
create, have dug a deep hole, and we need to start filling it in. Some
may argue that we can't cut government spending now because that would
make the recession we are in even worse. I don't agree--while we
shouldn't be slashing, say, unemployment insurance or education
funding, we should absolutely be targeting the waste and fat in the
federal budget. That's the message I am consistently hearing as I
travel around Wisconsin. My constituents are rightly concerned about
the burden that their children and grandchildren will be forced to
shoulder.
That is why I am introducing the Control Spending Now Act. This bill
consists of dozens of different initiatives that would collectively
reduce the deficit by over $\1/2\ trillion over 10 years. It includes
procedural reforms that would make it easier to eliminate funding for
pet projects slipped into larger spending bills, as well as cuts to
spending that isn't working or needed, from $4 billion for C-17
aircraft the Department of Defense didn't ask for and doesn't want to
$30 million for a program that sends a radio and TV signal to Cuba that
nobody gets. The bill also would save $244 billion by rescinding
unobligated TARP payments and returning them to the Treasury--I opposed
the Wall Street bail-out from the start, and it's high time we brought
it to an end.
The ideas I am proposing are not all new--for example, I have been
fighting to end earmark abuses and give the president a line-item veto
for some time. And not all the ideas were thought up by me--there are a
lot of good proposals out there, and I have tried to bring them
together in one comprehensive bill. I have included legislation drafted
by Senators Byron Dorgan and Jeff Bingaman that would save the Federal
Government and consumers money by bringing down prescription drug
prices, as well as biennial budgeting reforms that former Senator Pete
Domenici championed, and that Senator Johnny Isakson is
[[Page 25147]]
now seeking to advance. I also included provisions crafted by Senators
Kit Bond, Jay Rockefeller and Dianne Feinstein and included in the
Senate-passed intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 2010 that
would help eliminate wasteful spending in the intelligence budget. I am
grateful to my colleagues for the work they are doing to return the
country to the path of fiscal responsibility.
Not everyone will agree with every one of my proposals--in fact, for
every proposal, there is probably one or more entrenched group
committed to preserving the status quo. But the status quo isn't good
enough--we need to make tough spending choices, which is why I am
proposing this legislation, and why I will continue working to control
spending now.
______
By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Carper, and Mr.
Kaufman):
S. 1816. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
improve and reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Chesapeake
Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act. I am joined in this effort
by original cosponsors, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Carper, and Mr. Kaufman.
Together we are committed to giving our states and municipalities the
tools they need to finally restore water quality in the Chesapeake
Watershed and return this national treasure to its rightful position as
one of the world's most important ecological regions.
Yesterday morning I stood on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, near
Annapolis, Maryland, to outline the provisions of this legislation. I
was joined by Martin O'Malley, Governor of Maryland and a tireless
champion of the bay. Standing with him was Preston Bryant, Virginia's
Secretary of Natural Resources, representing Governor Tim Kaine. Both
states, which embrace the entirety of the Chesapeake Bay, were there to
lend their support to this legislative effort. Two of my colleagues
from the other body, Congressman Elijah Cummings and Congressman Chris
Van Hollen, also joined us, noting that they intend to introduce a
companion bill in the House of Representatives today. A powerful
coalition of more than 100 local watershed organizations was there,
too, to lend its support. And finally, we were joined by Mr. Luke
Brubaker, a dairy and poultry farmer from Pennsylvania who is already
demonstrating how local actions can result in real water quality
benefits.
Today we take a major step forward in writing the next chapter in the
history of one of America's most cherished and celebrated bodies of
water--the Chesapeake Bay. The original English colony in Jamestown was
settled on its shores. George Washington built his home overlooking one
its great rivers. The War of 1812 was fought on its waters, and
generations of Americans came to live off its bounty of oysters and
blue crabs and rockfish. Harriet Tubman led a life of slavery and
heroic freedom among its vast marshes, and James Michener wrote a saga
celebrating its majesty.
Today, 17 million people live in its watershed. Its tributaries are
home to three state capitals as well as America's center of government.
The bay has been called a ``National Treasure'' by American Presidents
ranging from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama. The United Nation's Ramsar
Convention recognizes the bay as an ecological region of global
significance. In Maryland it is the economic, environmental, cultural
and historic heart of the state.
But, the bay and its watershed are in trouble.
By every scientific measure, the ecological health of the Chesapeake
Bay is poor. The Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are unhealthy
primarily because of excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment entering
the water.
These pollutants threaten not just the legacy we have inherited but
also our future. The multi-million seafood industry is suffering from
chronically small harvests. That is not all. Recreational fishermen,
duck hunters, sail boat and power boat operators, bird watchers and
others bring tens of millions of dollars into our economies annually.
Business leaders and realtors tell us that healthy rivers and a healthy
bay add immeasurably to their ability to attract a quality workforce
and add value to homes.
At least one estimate suggests that the Bay's economic value to the
region tops $1 trillion. The challenge before us is great, but so is
the opportunity.
The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act gives the
states strong new tools to restore the Bay and for the first time sets
a firm deadline of 2025 for all restoration efforts to be in place.
The internal and final deadlines for action coincide with the
Chesapeake Executive Council's timeline for Chesapeake restoration.
Unlike earlier, missed deadlines, this one will become a legally
binding part of the Clean Water Act.
The bill also significantly expands federal grants. The Chesapeake
Restoration bill authorizes a new $1.5 billion grants program to
control urban/suburban polluted stormwater, the only pollution sector
that is still growing. Grants to the states, small watershed
organizations, and for comprehensive monitoring programs are all newly
created or expanded in the legislation. At least 10 percent of State
implementation grants are set aside for Delaware, New York, and West
Virginia. These headwater States have never been guaranteed any access
to these funds in the past.
At least 20 percent of the implementation grants will go for
technical assistance to farmers and foresters to help them access Farm
Bill funds and implement conservation practices. The bill also requires
the Environmental Protection Agency to build on the positive
experiences of Virginia and Pennsylvania by establishing the framework
for an innovative interstate trading program. As Mr. Brubaker recounted
for us yesterday, farmers can partner with those who need to reduce the
amount of nitrogen and phosphorus that they are releasing into the Bay.
These groups can meet their legal obligation to reduce pollution by
giving farmers the extra financial support they need to implement
additional conservation practices on their agricultural lands. It is a
classic win-win situation, and by 2012 it will be available throughout
the six state watershed.
The bill codifies President Obama's Chesapeake Bay Executive Order,
which requires annual Federal Action Plans across all federal
departments to restore the Bay.
The basics of this bill are very simple, as most good ideas are.
Scientists are telling us what the maximum amounts of pollution that
the Bay can withstand and still be healthy. The Chesapeake Clean Water
and Ecosystem Restoration Act sets a hard cap on pollution, and then we
give the states until 2025 to reduce their proportional share of the
pollution load. The states have maximum flexibility to reach these
goals, but it still won't be easy. In the 25 years since the Chesapeake
Bay program started, the number of people living in the watershed has
exploded.
The population of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed has grown from 12
million when the Program started to over 17 million residents today.
That is a 40 percent increase. And it is not just more people producing
more pollution. The amounts of impervious surfaces, the hardened
landscapes that funnel polluted water into our streams and rivers and
eventually the Bay, have increased by about 100 percent over the same
time frame. We are losing an astounding 100 acres of forest lands every
day in the Bay watershed. Simply put, there are millions more of us,
and the size of our impact on the Bay watershed has grown twice as fast
as our population rate. Without the Bay Program, the health of the
Chesapeake would undoubtedly be worse than it is.
As I have said before, barely holding our own is not good enough. So
merely fine tuning the Bay Program will not be good enough either.
Fortunately, Federal, State and local governments, in cooperation with
community organizations are standing up around our region to help renew
the region's precious water resources.
[[Page 25148]]
We are focused on three major sources of water pollution: Runoff from
agricultural lands, effluent from wastewater treatment plants, and
polluted stormwater runoff from the developed lands in our cities,
towns and suburbs.
Last year we passed a Farm Bill that today is providing Chesapeake
farmers with unprecedented financial support in putting conservation
programs into practice. Two years ago we provided our farmers with
about $8 million in conservation funding. In the past year, that figure
went up to $23 million. This year it is growing to $43 million and next
year it reaches $72 million--nearly a ten-fold increase in just 3
years.
Eight years of chronic under-funding for wastewater treatment plants
changed dramatically in January. President Obama and the new Congress
have teamed up to provide a 350 percent increase in Federal funding
this year to up-grade and repair sewage treatment plants. The EPA
funding bill that is now nearing final action will sustain that record
investment into 2010. We need to make a major investment in our cities
and towns, too, to combat the growing problem we have with polluted
stormwater. That is why this bill authorizes $1.5 billion to provide
the federal funds needed to really attack this problem.
All of us, States and cities, farmers and foresters, sewage treatment
plant operators and new home builders, ardent environmentalists and
average residents, want to do our part to have clean water flowing
through our streams and rivers. All of us want a healthy Bay.
The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act gives all of
the Bay States a clear and fully enforceable goal to clean up our
waters and restore our Bay by 2025. The bill also gives us the
resources to get the job done and the tools to do so in a way that is
flexible and cost effective.
The Chesapeake Bay is the heart of our region. It is where we work,
play, farm, and enjoy the beauty and abundance of the natural resources
that surround us. But as anyone who has experienced the shortage of
blue crabs and oysters or read about ``dead zones'' in the water knows,
the Bay continues to be in trouble. We've made great strides in the
last few decades through the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program. But we
remain far from attaining the goals necessary to restore the Bay to a
healthy state, one that can sustain native fish and wildlife and
maintain the viability of our farmland and regional economy for the
near- and long-term future.
Accomplishing these goals starts with the local implementation of the
most innovative, sustainable, and cost-effective strategies for
restoring and protecting water quality and vital habitats within the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. Everywhere I go there is a strong desire to
see local streams returned to good health and the Chesapeake Bay
restored to its former glory. People are ready to take action to
control pollution, restore water quality and see the living resources
of the Bay return in abundance.
The Chesapeake is a region steeped in history. Today, we add our own
contribution to that storied past. With the Chesapeake Clean Water and
Ecosystem Restoration Act, we are proposing the most sweeping
legislative effort in the history of the Clean Water Act. With the firm
commitments and cooperation from the communities across the 64,000
square mile watershed, we will restore the health, productivity and
beauty of the Chesapeake Bay for generations to come.
Today marks the beginning of that legislative effort. It will not be
easy, and we will need all of our best efforts if we are to be
successful. But we cannot and will not come up short.
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. 1816
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 ``Chesapeake Clean Water and
Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the Chesapeake Bay and the tributary waters of the
Chesapeake Bay are natural resources of outstanding
ecological, economic, and cultural importance to the United
States;
(2) for more than 20 years, the Federal Government and the
States of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, the Chesapeake Bay
Commission, and various local government, scientific, and
citizen advisory boards have worked through the Chesapeake
Bay Program of the Environmental Protection Agency to develop
an unparalleled body of scientific information and
cooperative partnerships to advance the Chesapeake Bay
restoration effort;
(3) despite significant efforts by Federal, State, and
local governments and other interested parties, water
pollution in the Chesapeake Bay prevents the attainment of
existing State water quality standards and the ecological
goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.);
(4) the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership has developed a
rich body of environmental data based on an extensive network
of monitors, which provide a critical measure of success in
attainment of the goals of the restoration effort;
(5) the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership has also
developed some of the world's foremost water quality and
ecosystem computer models, which are invaluable planning
tools for resource managers;
(6) the major pollutants affecting the water quality of the
Chesapeake Bay and related tidal waters are nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sediment;
(7) the largest developed land use in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, and the largest single-sector source of nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sediment pollution, is agriculture;
(8) conservation practices have resulted in significant
reductions in pollution loads from the agricultural sector;
(9) to speed continued progress in the agricultural sector,
the Federal Government and State governments have initiated a
number of agricultural conservation programs, including the
Chesapeake Bay watershed initiative under section 1240Q of
the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-4);
(10) atmospheric deposition of nitrogen oxides and ammonia
on the Chesapeake Bay watershed contributes as much as \1/3\
of the nitrogen pollution in the Chesapeake Bay;
(11) for years, a steady stream of technology development
and increasingly stringent permit requirements have resulted
in a steady decline in the nitrogen and phosphorus pollution
derived from wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed;
(12) suburban and urban development is the fastest growing
land use sector in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and
stormwater runoff from that sector is the only major source
of pollution in the watershed that is increasing;
(13) during the period beginning in 1990 and ending in
2000, impervious cover, the hardened surfaces through which
water cannot penetrate, increased by nearly 250,000 acres,
about 41 percent, or the size of 5 Districts of Columba;
(14) during that period, the watershed population of the
Chesapeake Bay grew by just 8 percent;
(15) the population of the watershed is estimated to be
growing by about 157,000 people per year;
(16) continuing at that rate, the population will increase
to nearly 20,000,000 by 2030;
(17) about 58 percent of the watershed of the Chesapeake
Bay is undeveloped and mostly forested, but as many as 100
hundred acres of forest are lost to development each day;
(18) States, local governments, developers, and nonprofit
organizations have developed numerous low-impact development
techniques since the late 1990s, which use natural area
protection, infiltration, and pervious surfaces to reduce
stormwater runoff and associated sediment and nutrient
pollution;
(19) many of those techniques are less expensive than
traditional pollution stormwater control management
techniques;
(20) the decline of key aquatic habitats and species has
resulted in a loss of the important water quality benefits
that the habitats and species traditionally provided;
(21) native oysters, the numbers of which have declined
precipitously in the Chesapeake Bay in significant part
because of diseases brought into the watershed by nonnative
oysters, are natural filters that once effectively filtered a
volume of water equivalent to that of the entire Chesapeake
Bay in a matter of days;
(22) although less well-understood, menhaden, a species of
fish found in the Chesapeake Bay, also provide important
filtering capacity as well as a number of other key ecosystem
functions;
(23) wetlands are a vital part of any major ecosystem;
(24) studies have demonstrated that nontidal wetland near
the Chesapeake Bay removed as much as 89 percent of the
nitrogen and 80 percent of the phosphorus that entered the
wetland through upland runoff, groundwater, and
precipitation;
(25) riparian forests remove as much as 90 percent of
nitrogen and phosphorus that would otherwise enter the water;
[[Page 25149]]
(26) the loss of forests and wetlands in the Chesapeake Bay
has resulted in diminished water quality, among other
effects;
(27) in certain locations in the Chesapeake Bay, nutria, a
nonnative species, has caused extensive destruction of key
wetlands; and
(28) in spite of the achievements of the Chesapeake Bay
Program partnership and increasing knowledge about ecosystem
functions, the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay will require
significantly stronger tools to manage pollution levels and
other impediments to water quality.
SEC. 3. CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM.
Section 117 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1267) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 117. CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Administrative cost.--The term `administrative cost'
means the cost of salaries and fringe benefits incurred in
administering a grant under this section.
``(2) Asian oyster.--The term `Asian oyster' means the
species Crassostrea ariakensis.
``(3) Baseline.--The term `baseline' means the basic
standard or level used for measuring (as applicable)--
``(A) the nutrient control requirements credit sellers must
achieve before becoming eligible to generate saleable
nutrient credits; or
``(B) the nutrient load reductions required of individual
sources to meet water quality standards or goals under a TMDL
or watershed implementation plan.
``(4) Basin commissions.--The term `basin commissions'
means--
``(A) the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
established under the interstate compact consented to and
approved by Congress under the Joint Resolution of July 11,
1940 (54 Stat. 748, chapter 579) and Public Law 91-407 (84
Stat. 856); and
``(B) the Susquehanna River Basin Commission established
under the interstate compact consented to and approved by
Congress under Public Law 91-575 (84 Stat. 1509) and Public
Law 99-468 (100 Stat. 1193).
``(5) Chesapeake bay agreement.--The term `Chesapeake Bay
Agreement' means the formal, voluntary agreements executed to
achieve the goal of restoring and protecting the Chesapeake
Bay ecosystem and the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem and signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council.
``(6) Chesapeake bay ecosystem.--The term `Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem' means the ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
``(7) Chesapeake bay program.--The term `Chesapeake Bay
Program' means the program directed by the Chesapeake
Executive Council in accordance with the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement.
``(8) Chesapeake bay state.--The term `Chesapeake Bay
State' means any of--
``(A) the States of Delaware, Maryland, New York,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia; or
``(B) the District of Columbia.
``(9) Chesapeake bay watershed.--The term `Chesapeake Bay
watershed' means the Chesapeake Bay and the area consisting
of 19 tributary basins within the Chesapeake Bay States
through which precipitation drains into the Chesapeake Bay.
``(10) Chesapeake executive council.--The term `Chesapeake
Executive Council' means the signatories to the Chesapeake
Bay Agreement.
``(11) Cleaning agent.--The term `cleaning agent' means a
laundry detergent, dishwashing compound, household cleaner,
metal cleaner, degreasing compound, commercial cleaner,
industrial cleaner, phosphate compound, or other substance
that is intended to be used for cleaning purposes.
``(12) Director.--The term `director' means the Director of
the Chesapeake Bay Program Office of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
``(13) Local government.--The term `local government' means
any county, city, or other general purpose political
subdivision of a State with jurisdiction over land use.
``(14) Menhaden.--The term `menhaden' means members of
stocks or populations of the species Brevoortia tyrannus.
``(15) Nutria.--The term `nutria' means the species
Myocaster coypus.
``(16) Point-of-regulation.--The term `point-of-regulation'
means any entity that--
``(A) is subject to a limitation on pollution or other
regulation under this Act; and
``(B) has sufficient technical capacity and legal authority
to meet the obligations of the entity under this Act.
``(17) Signatory jurisdiction.--The term `signatory
jurisdiction' means a jurisdiction of a signatory to the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
``(18) TMDL.--
``(A) In general.--The term `TMDL' means the total maximum
daily load that the Administrator establishes or approves for
nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loading to the waters in
the Chesapeake Bay mainstem and tidal tributaries identified
on the list of a Chesapeake Bay State under section 303(d).
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `TMDL' may include nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sediment allocations in temporal units of
greater than daily duration if applicable allocations--
``(i) are demonstrated to achieve water quality standards;
and
``(ii) do not lead to exceedances of other applicable water
quality standards for local receiving waters.
``(19) Tributary basin.--The term `tributary basin' means
an area of land or body of water that--
``(A) drains into any of the 19 Chesapeake Bay tributaries
or tributary segments; and
``(B) is managed through watershed implementation plans
under this Act.
``(b) Continuation of Chesapeake Bay Program.--
``(1) In general.--In cooperation with the Chesapeake
Executive Council (and as a member of the Council), the
Administrator shall continue the Chesapeake Bay Program.
``(2) Program office.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall maintain in the
Environmental Protection Agency a Chesapeake Bay Program
Office.
``(B) Function.--The Chesapeake Bay Program Office shall
provide support to the Chesapeake Executive Council by--
``(i) implementing and coordinating science, research,
modeling, support services, monitoring, data collection, and
other activities that support the Chesapeake Bay Program;
``(ii) developing and making available, through
publications, technical assistance, and other appropriate
means, information pertaining to the environmental quality
and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
``(iii) in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, and
local authorities, assisting the signatories to the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement in developing and implementing
specific action plans to carry out the responsibilities of
the signatories to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement;
``(iv) coordinating the actions of the Environmental
Protection Agency with the actions of the appropriate
officials of other Federal agencies and State and local
authorities in developing strategies to--
``(I) improve the water quality and living resources in the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; and
``(II) obtain the support of the appropriate officials of
the agencies and authorities in achieving the objectives of
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement; and
``(v) implementing outreach programs for public
information, education, and participation to foster
stewardship of the resources of the Chesapeake Bay.
``(c) Interagency Agreements.--The Administrator may enter
into an interagency agreement with a Federal agency to carry
out this section.
``(d) Technical Assistance and Assistance Grants.--
``(1) In general.--In cooperation with the Chesapeake
Executive Council, the Administrator may provide technical
assistance, and assistance grants, to nonprofit
organizations, State and local governments, colleges,
universities, and interstate agencies to carry out this
section, subject to such terms and conditions as the
Administrator considers appropriate.
``(2) Federal share.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Federal share of an assistance grant provided under
paragraph (1) shall be determined by the Administrator in
accordance with guidance issued by the Administrator.
``(B) Chesapeake bay stewardship grants program.--The
Federal share of an assistance grant provided under paragraph
(1) to carry out an implementing activity under subsection
(h)(2) shall not exceed 75 percent of eligible project costs,
as determined by the Administrator.
``(3) Non-federal share.--An assistance grant under
paragraph (1) shall be provided on the condition that non-
Federal sources provide the remainder of eligible project
costs, as determined by the Administrator.
``(4) Administrative costs.--Administrative costs shall not
exceed 10 percent of the annual grant award.
``(e) Implementation and Monitoring Grants.--
``(1) In general.--On the request of the chief executive of
the Chesapeake Bay State, the Administrator--
``(A) shall make an implementation grant to the Chesapeake
Bay State, or a designee of a Chesapeake Bay State (such as a
soil conservation district, nonprofit organization, local
government, college, university, interstate basin commission,
or interstate agency), for the purpose of implementing the
TMDL plans of the Chesapeake Bay State and achieving the
goals established under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, subject
to such terms and conditions as the Administrator considers
to be appropriate; and
``(B) may make a monitoring grant to--
``(i) a Chesapeake Bay State, or a designee of a Chesapeake
Bay State (such as a soil conservation district, nonprofit
organization, local government, college, university,
interstate basin commission, or interstate agency), for the
purpose of monitoring the ecosystem of freshwater tributaries
to the Chesapeake Bay; or
``(ii) the States of Delaware, Maryland, or Virginia, the
District of Columbia, or a designee (such as a nonprofit
organization, local government, college, university, or
interstate agency) for the purpose of monitoring the
Chesapeake Bay, including the tidal waters of the Chesapeake
Bay.
[[Page 25150]]
``(2) Administration.--In making implementation grants to
each of the Chesapeake Bay States for a fiscal year under
this subsection, the Administrator shall ensure that not less
than--
``(A) 10 percent of the funds available to make such grants
are made to the States of Delaware, New York, and West
Virginia; and
``(B) 20 percent of the funds available to make such grants
are made to States for the sole purpose of providing
technical assistance to agricultural producers and foresters
to access conservation programs and other resources devoted
to improvements in water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and
the tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay.
``(3) Proposals.--
``(A) Implementation grants.--
``(i) In general.--A Chesapeake Bay State described in
paragraph (1) may apply for a grant under this subsection for
a fiscal year by submitting to the Administrator a
comprehensive proposal to implement programs and achieve the
goals established under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
``(ii) Implementation grant contents.--A proposal under
clause (i) shall include--
``(I) a description of proposed actions that the Chesapeake
Bay State commits to take within a specified time period that
are designed--
``(aa) to achieve and maintain all applicable water quality
standards, including standards necessary to support the
aquatic living resources of the Chesapeake Bay and related
tributaries and to protect human health;
``(bb) to restore, enhance, and protect the finfish,
shellfish, waterfowl, and other living resources, habitats of
those species and resources, and ecological relationships to
sustain all fisheries and provide for a balanced ecosystem;
``(cc) to preserve, protect, and restore those habitats and
natural areas that are vital to the survival and diversity of
the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay and associated
rivers;
``(dd) to develop, promote, and achieve sound land use
practices that protect and restore watershed resources and
water quality, reduce or maintain reduced pollutant loadings
for the Chesapeake Bay and related tributaries, and restore
and preserve aquatic living resources;
``(ee) to promote individual stewardship and assist
individuals, community-based organizations, businesses, local
governments, and schools to undertake initiatives to achieve
the goals and commitments of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement; or
``(ff) to provide technical assistance to agricultural
producers, foresters, and other eligible entities, through
technical infrastructure, including activities, processes,
tools, and agency functions needed to support delivery of
technical services, such as technical standards, resource
inventories, training, data, technology, monitoring, and
effects analyses;
``(II) a commitment to dedicate not less than 20 percent of
the grant of the Chesapeake Bay under this subsection to
support technical assistance for agricultural and forestry
land or nutrient management practices that protect and
restore watershed resources and water quality, reduce or
maintain reduced pollutant loadings for the Chesapeake Bay
and related tributaries, and restore and preserve aquatic
living resources; and
``(III) the estimated cost of the actions proposed to be
taken during the fiscal year.
``(B) Monitoring grants.--
``(i) In general.--A Chesapeake Bay State described in
paragraph (1) may apply for a grant under this subsection for
a fiscal year by submitting to the Administrator a
comprehensive proposal to monitor freshwater or estuarine
ecosystems, including water quality.
``(ii) Monitoring grant contents.--A proposal under this
subparagraph shall include--
``(I) a description of the proposed monitoring system;
``(II) certification by the Chesapeake Bay Program Director
that such a monitoring system includes such parameters as the
Chesapeake Bay Program Director determines to be necessary to
assess progress toward achieving the goals of the Chesapeake
Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009; and
``(III) the estimated cost of the monitoring proposed to be
conducted during the fiscal year.
``(iii) Concurrences.--The Administrator shall--
``(I) obtain the concurrence of the Director of the United
States Geological Survey regarding the design and
implementation of the freshwater monitoring systems
established under this subsection; and
``(II) obtain the concurrence of the Director of the
Chesapeake Bay Office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration regarding the design and implementation of the
estuarine monitoring systems established under this
subsection.
``(iv) Consultation.--The Administrator shall--
``(I) consult with the Interstate Commission on the Potomac
River Basin, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, and the
Chesapeake Bay States regarding the design and implementation
of the freshwater monitoring systems established under this
subsection, giving particular attention to the measurement of
the water quality effectiveness of agricultural conservation
program implementation (including geospatial agricultural
conservation program data), including the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Initiative under section 1240Q of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-4);
``(II) consult with Old Dominion University, the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, the University of Maryland
Center for Environmental Science, and the Chesapeake Bay
States regarding the estuarine monitoring systems established
under this subsection;
``(III) consult with the Chesapeake Bay Program Scientific
and Technical Advisory Committee regarding independent review
of monitoring designs giving particular attention to
integrated freshwater and estuarine monitoring strategies;
and
``(IV) consult with Federal departments and agencies
regarding cooperation in implementing monitoring programs.
``(f) Federal Facilities Coordination.--
``(1) Subwatershed planning and restoration.--A Federal
agency that owns or operates a facility (as defined by the
Administrator) within the Chesapeake Bay watershed shall
participate in regional and subwatershed planning and
restoration programs.
``(2) Compliance with agreements and plans.--The head of
each Federal agency that owns or occupies real property in
the Chesapeake Bay watershed shall ensure that the property,
and actions taken by the agency with respect to the property,
comply with--
``(A) the Chesapeake Bay Agreement;
``(B) the Federal Agencies Chesapeake Ecosystem Unified
Plan;
``(C) the Chesapeake Bay action plan developed in
accordance with subparagraph (g)(1)(A); and
``(D) any subsequent agreements and plans.
``(g) Federal Annual Action Plan and Progress Report.--The
Administrator, in accordance with Executive Order 13508
entitled `Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration' and
signed on May 12, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 23099), shall--
``(1) make available to the public, not later than March 31
of each year--
``(A) a Chesapeake Bay action plan describing, in the
greatest practicable degree of detail, how Federal funding
proposed in the annual budget of the United States submitted
by the President to Congress will be used to protect and
restore the Chesapeake Bay during the upcoming fiscal year;
and
``(B) an annual progress report that--
``(i) assesses the key ecological attributes that reflect
the health of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
``(ii) reviews indicators of environmental conditions in
the Chesapeake Bay;
``(iii) distinguishes between the health of the Chesapeake
Bay ecosystem and the results of management measures;
``(iv) assesses implementation of the action plan during
the preceding fiscal year;
``(v) recommends steps to improve progress in restoring and
protecting the Chesapeake Bay; and
``(vi) describes how Federal funding and actions will be
coordinated with the actions of States, basin commissions,
and others;
``(2) create and maintain, with the concurrence of the
Secretary of Agriculture, a Chesapeake Bay-wide database
containing comprehensive data on implementation of
conservation management practices in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed that --
``(A) includes baseline conservation management practice
implementation data as of the effective date of the
Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009;
``(B) includes data on subsequent conservation management
practice implementation projects funded by or reported to the
Agency or the Department;
``(C) presents the required data in statistical or
aggregate form without identifying any--
``(i) individual owner, operator, or producer; or
``(ii) specific data gathering site; and
``(D) is made available to the public not later than
December 31, 2010.
``(h) Chesapeake Bay Program.--
``(1) Management strategies.--The Administrator, in
coordination with other members of the Chesapeake Executive
Council, shall ensure that management plans are developed and
implemented by Chesapeake Bay States to achieve and
maintain--
``(A) the nutrient goals of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement
for the quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the
Chesapeake Bay and the watershed of the Chesapeake Bay;
``(B) the water quality requirements necessary to restore
living resources in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
``(C) the Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxins Reduction and
Prevention Strategy goal of reducing or eliminating the input
of chemical contaminants from all controllable sources to
levels that result in no toxic or bioaccumulative impact on
the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem or on
human health;
``(D) habitat restoration, protection, creation, and
enhancement goals established by Chesapeake Bay Agreement
signatories for
[[Page 25151]]
wetland, riparian forests, and other types of habitat
associated with the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; and
``(E) the restoration, protection, creation, and
enhancement goals established by the Chesapeake Bay Agreement
signatories for living resources associated with the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
``(2) Chesapeake bay stewardship grants program.--The
Administrator, in cooperation with the Chesapeake Executive
Council, shall--
``(A) establish a Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Grants
Program; and
``(B) in carrying out that program--
``(i) offer technical assistance and assistance grants
under subsection (d) to local governments, soil conservation
districts, academic institutions, and nonprofit organizations
in the Chesapeake Bay region to implement--
``(I) cooperative watershed strategies that address the
water quality, habitat, and living resource needs in the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
``(II) locally based protection and restoration programs or
projects within a watershed that complement the State
watershed implementation plans, including the creation,
restoration, or enhancement of habitat associated with the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; and
``(III) innovative nitrogen, phosphorus, or sediment
reduction efforts; and
``(ii) give preference to cooperative projects that involve
local governments.
``(i) Total Maximum Daily Load.--
``(1) TMDL.--
``(A) Establishment.--Not later than December 31, 2010, the
Administrator shall establish a Chesapeake Bay-wide TMDL.
``(B) Requirements.--The Administrator shall not establish
or approve a TMDL described in subparagraph (A) unless the
TMDL includes--
``(i) wasteload allocations for nitrogen, phosphorus, and
sediment necessary to implement the applicable water quality
standards in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and achieve those
standards in the Chesapeake Bay and the tidal tributaries of
the Chesapeake Bay;
``(ii) enforceable or otherwise binding load allocations
for all nonpoint sources, including atmospheric deposition,
agricultural runoff, and stormwater sources for which a
permit under section 402 is not required;
``(iii) a margin of safety so as to ensure that the TMDL
does not exceed any applicable water quality standard; and
``(iv) a requirement for no net increase of nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sediment loads above the pollution
limitations necessary to meet water quality standards for the
Chesapeake Bay, including no net projected increased
pollutant loads from--
``(I) new or increased impervious surfaces;
``(II) concentrated animal feeding operations;
``(III) transportation systems; and
``(IV) septic systems.
``(2) Permits.--
``(A) In general.--Effective beginning on January 1, 2011,
a new or reissued permit issued by the Administrator under
section 402(a) or a State authorized to administer a permit
program under section 402(b) shall include limits consistent
with all applicable wasteload allocations in the Chesapeake
Bay TMDL.
``(B) Permits.--
``(i) In general.--Effective beginning on January 1, 2011,
each Chesapeake Bay State shall submit to the Administrator
copies of any permit for discharges of nitrogen, phosphorus,
or sediment into the Chesapeake Bay watershed that is allowed
to continue beyond 5 years pursuant to a State law analogous
to section 558(c) of title 5, United States Code, not later
than 60 days after the expiration date of the permit.
``(ii) Review.--The Administrator shall have the
opportunity to review and object to the continuance of the
permit in accordance with the process described in section
402(d) for permits proposed to be issued by a State.
``(j) Actions by States.--
``(1) Watershed implementation plans.--
``(A) Plans.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than May 12, 2011, each
Chesapeake Bay State shall, after providing for reasonable
notice and 1 or more public hearings, adopt and submit to the
Administrator for approval a watershed implementation plan
for the portion of each of the 92 tidal water segments that
is subject to the jurisdiction of the Chesapeake Bay State
that together comprise the Chesapeake Bay.
``(ii) Targets.--The watershed implementation plan shall
establish reduction targets, key actions, and schedules for
reducing, to levels that will attain water quality standards,
the loads, of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment, including
pollution from--
``(I) agricultural runoff;
``(II) point sources, including point source stormwater
discharges;
``(III) nonpoint source stormwater runoff; and
``(IV) septic systems and other onsite sewage disposal
systems.
``(iii) Pollution limitations.--
``(I) In general.--The tributary pollution limitations
shall be the nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment cap loads
identified in the tributary cap load agreement numbered EPA
903-R-03-007, date December 2003, and entitled `Setting and
Allocating the Chesapeake Bay Basin Nutrient and Sediment
Loads: The Collaborative Process, Technical Tools and
Innovative Approaches,' or a Chesapeake Bay TMDL established
by the Administrator.
``(II) Stringency.--A watershed implementation plan shall
be designed to attain, at a minimum, the pollution
limitations described in subclause (I).
``(iv) Plan requirements.--Each watershed implementation
plan shall--
``(I) include State-adopted management measures, including
rules or regulations, permits, consent decrees, and other
enforceable or otherwise binding measures, to require and
achieve reductions from pollution sources;
``(II) include programs to achieve voluntary reductions
from pollution sources, including funding commitments
necessary to implement those programs;
``(III) include any additional requirements or actions that
the Chesapeake Bay State determines to be necessary to attain
the pollution limitations by the deadline established in this
paragraph;
``(IV) provide for enforcement mechanisms, including a
penalty structure for failures, such as fees or forfeiture of
State funds, including Federal funds distributed or otherwise
awarded by the State to the extent the State is authorized to
exercise independent discretion in amounts of such
distributions or awards, for use in case a permittee, local
jurisdictions, or any other party fails to adhere to assigned
pollutant limitations, implementation schedules, or permit
terms;
``(V) include a schedule for implementation divided into 2-
year periods, along with computer modeling to demonstrate the
projected reductions in nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment
loads associated with each 2-year period;
``(VI) include the stipulation of alternate actions as
contingencies;
``(VII) account for how the Chesapeake Bay State will
address additional loadings from growth through offsets or
other actions; and
``(VIII) provide assurances that--
``(aa) if compared to an estimated 2008 baseline based on
modeled loads, the initial plan shall be designed to achieve,
not later than May 31, 2017, at least 60 percent of the
nutrient and sediment limitations described in clause
(iii)(I);
``(bb) the management measures required to achieve a 50-
percent reduction of nutrient and sediment limitations shall
be in effect upon submission of the plan;
``(cc) the Chesapeake Bay State will have adequate
personnel, funding, and authority under State (and, as
appropriate, local) law to carry out the implementation plan,
and is not prohibited by any provision of Federal or State
law from carrying out the implementation plan; and
``(dd) in a case in which a Chesapeake Bay State has relied
on a local government for the implementation of any plan
provision, the Chesapeake Bay State has the responsibility
for ensuring adequate implementation of the provision.
``(B) Implementation.--
``(i) In general.--In implementing a watershed
implementation plan, each Chesapeake Bay State shall follow a
strategy developed by the Administrator for the
implementation of adaptive management principles to ensure
full implementation of all plan elements by not later than
May 12, 2025, including --
``(I) biennial evaluations of State actions;
``(II) progress made toward implementation;
``(III) determinations of necessary modifications to future
actions in order to achieve objectives; and
``(IV) appropriate provisions to adapt to climate changes.
``(ii) Deadline.--Not later than May 12, 2025, each
Chesapeake Bay State shall--
``(I) fully implement the watershed implementation plan of
the State; and
``(II) have in place all the mechanisms outlined in the
plan that are necessary to attain the applicable pollutant
limitations for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediments.
``(C) Progress reports.--Not later than May 12, 2014, and
biennially thereafter, each Chesapeake Bay State shall submit
to the Administrator a progress report that, with respect to
the 2-year period covered by the report--
``(i) includes a listing of all management measures that
were to be implemented in accordance with the approved
watershed implementation plan of the Chesapeake Bay State,
including a description of the extent to which those measures
have been fully implemented;
``(ii) includes a listing of all the management measures
described in clause (i) that the Chesapeake Bay State has
failed to fully implement in accordance with the approved
watershed implementation plan of the Chesapeake Bay State;
``(iii) includes monitored and collected water quality
data;
``(iv) includes Chesapeake Bay Program computer modeling
data that detail the nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment load
reductions projected to be achieved as a result of the
implementation of the management measures and mechanisms
carried out by the Chesapeake Bay State;
[[Page 25152]]
``(v) includes, for the subsequent 2-year period,
implementation goals and Chesapeake Bay Program computer
modeling data detailing the projected pollution reductions to
be achieved if the Chesapeake Bay State fully implements the
subsequent round of management measures;
``(vi) identifies compliance information, including
violations, actions taken by the Chesapeake Bay State to
address the violations, and dates, if any, on which
compliance was achieved; and
``(vii) specifies any revisions to the watershed
implementation plan submitted under this paragraph that the
Chesapeake Bay State determines are necessary to attain the
applicable pollutant limitations for nitrogen, phosphorus,
and sediments.
``(2) Issuance of permits.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act (including any exclusion or exception contained in a
definition under section 502), for the purpose of achieving
the nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment reductions required
under a watershed implementation plan, a Chesapeake Bay State
may issue a permit in accordance with section 402 for any
pollution source the Chesapeake Bay State determines to be
necessary.
``(B) Enforcement.--The Administrator shall enforce any
permits issued in accordance with the watershed
implementation plan in the same manner as other permits
issued under section 402 are enforced.
``(3) Stormwater permits.--
``(A) In general.--Effective beginning January 1, 2013, the
Chesapeake Bay State shall provide assurances to the
Administrator that--
``(i) the owner or operator of any development or
redevelopment project possessing an impervious footprint that
exceeds a threshold to be determined by the Administrator
through rulemaking, will use site planning, design,
construction, and maintenance strategies for the property to
maintain or restore, to the maximum extent technically
feasible, the predevelopment hydrology of the property with
regard to the temperature, rate, volume, and duration of
flow; and
``(ii) as a further condition of permitting such a
development or redevelopment, the owner or operator of any
development or redevelopment project possessing an impervious
footprint that exceeds a threshold to be determined by the
Administrator through rulemaking will compensate for any
unavoidable impacts to the predevelopment hydrology of the
property with regard to the temperature, rate, volume, and
duration of flow, such that--
``(I) the compensation within the jurisdictional boundaries
of the local government shall provide in-kind mitigation of
function at a ratio to be determined by the Administrator
through rulemaking; and
``(II) the compensation outside the jurisdictional
boundaries of the local government shall provide in-kind
mitigation, at a ratio to be determined by the Administrator
through rulemaking , within the tributary watershed in which
the project is located.
``(B) Administration.--Not later than December 31, 2012,
the Administrator shall promulgate regulations that--
``(i) define the term `predevelopment hydrology' in
subparagraph (A);
``(ii) establish the thresholds under subparagraph (A); and
``(iii) establish the compensation ratios under
subparagraph (A)(ii).
``(4) Phosphate ban.--
``(A) Phosphorus in cleaning agents.--Each Chesapeake Bay
State shall provide to the Administrator, not later than 3
years after the date of enactment of the Chesapeake Clean
Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009, assurances that
within the jurisdiction, except as provided in subparagraph
(B), a person may not use, sell, manufacture, or distribute
for use or sale any cleaning agent that contains more than
0.0 percent phosphorus by weight, expressed as elemental
phosphorus, except for a quantity not exceeding 0.5 percent
phosphorus that is incidental to the manufacture of the
cleaning agent.
``(B) Prohibited quantities of phosphorus.--Each Chesapeake
Bay State shall provide to the Administrator, not later than
3 years after the date of enactment of the Chesapeake Clean
Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009, assurances that,
within the jurisdiction, a person may use, sell, manufacture,
or distribute for use or sale a cleaning agent that contains
greater than 0.0 percent phosphorus by weight, but does not
exceed 8.7 percent phosphorus by weight, if the cleaning
agent is a substance that the Administrator, by regulation,
excludes from the limitation under subparagraph (A), based on
a finding that compliance with that subparagraph would--
``(i) create a significant hardship on the users of the
cleaning agent; or
``(ii) be unreasonable because of the lack of an adequate
substitute cleaning agent.
``(k) Action by Administrator.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem
Restoration Act of 2009, the Administrator shall establish
minimum criteria that any proposed watershed implementation
plan must meet before the Administrator may approve such a
plan.
``(2) Completeness finding.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date on
which the Administrator receives a new or revised proposed
watershed implementation plan from a Chesapeake Bay State,
the Administrator shall determine whether the minimum
criteria for the plan established under paragraph (1) have
been met.
``(B) Effect of finding of incompleteness.--If the
Administrator determines under subparagraph (A) that all or
any portion of a submitted watershed implementation plan does
not meet the minimum criteria established under paragraph
(1), the Chesapeake Bay State submitting the plan shall be
treated as not having made the submission.
``(3) Approval and disapproval.--
``(A) Deadline.--Not later than 90 days after determining
that a watershed implementation plan meets minimum criteria
in accordance with paragraph (2)(A), the Administrator shall
approve or disapprove the plan.
``(B) Full and partial approval and disapproval.--In
carrying out this paragraph, the Administrator--
``(i) shall approve a watershed implementation plan if the
plan meets all applicable requirements under this section;
and
``(ii) may approve the plan in part and disapprove the plan
in part if only a portion of the plan meets those
requirements.
``(C) Conditional approval.--The Administrator--
``(i) may conditionally approve a revised watershed
implementation plan based on a commitment of the Chesapeake
Bay State submitting the plan to adopt specific enforceable
management measures by not later than 1 year after the date
of approval of the plan revision; but
``(ii) shall treat a conditional approval as a disapproval
under this paragraph if the Chesapeake Bay State fails to
comply with the commitment of the Chesapeake Bay State.
``(D) Full approval required.--A new or revised watershed
implementation plan shall not be treated as meeting the
requirements of this section until the Administrator approves
the entire new or revised plan.
``(E) Corrections.--In any case in which the Administrator
determines that the action of the Administrator approving,
disapproving, conditionally approving, or promulgating any
new or revised watershed implementation plan was in error,
the Administrator--
``(i) may, in the same manner as the approval, disapproval,
conditional approval, or promulgation, revise the action of
the Administrator, as appropriate, without requiring any
further submission from the Chesapeake Bay State; and
``(ii) shall make the determination of the Administrator,
and the basis for that determination, available to the
public.
``(F) Effective date.--The provisions of a State watershed
implementation plan shall take effect upon the date of
approval of the plan.
``(4) Calls for plan revision.--In any case in which the
Administrator determines that watershed implementation plan
for any area is inadequate to attain or maintain applicable
pollution limitations, the Administrator--
``(A) shall notify the Chesapeake Bay State of, and require
the Chesapeake Bay State to revise the plan to correct, the
inadequacies;
``(B) may establish reasonable deadlines (not to exceed 180
days after the date on which the Administrator provides the
notification) for the submission of a revised watershed
implementation plan;
``(C) make the findings of the Administrator under
paragraph (3) and notice provided under subparagraph (A)
public; and
``(D) require the Chesapeake Bay State to comply with the
requirements applicable under the initial watershed
implementation plan, except that the Administrator may adjust
any dates (other than attainment dates) applicable under
those requirements, as appropriate.
``(5) Federal implementation.--If a Chesapeake Bay State
fails to submit a watershed implementation plan, to submit a
biennial report, or to correct a previously missed 2-year
commitment made in a watershed implementation plan, the
Administrator shall, after issuing a notice to the State and
providing a 90-day period in which the failure may be
corrected--
``(A) withhold all funds otherwise available to the
Chesapeake Bay State under this Act;
``(B) develop and administer a watershed implementation
plan for that Chesapeake Bay State until such time as the
Chesapeake Bay State has remedied the plan, reports, or
achievements to the satisfaction of the Administrator;
``(C) require that all permits issued under section 402 for
new or expanding discharges of nitrogen, phosphorus, or
sediments acquire offsets that exceed by 100 percent an
amount that would otherwise be required, taking into account
attenuation, equivalency, and uncertainty; and
``(D) for the purposes of developing and implementing a
watershed implementation plan under subparagraph (B)--
``(i) notwithstanding any other provision of this Act
(including any exclusion or exception contained in a
definition under section
[[Page 25153]]
502), promulgate such regulations or issue such permits as
the Administrator determines to be necessary to control
pollution sufficient to meet the water quality goals defined
in the watershed implementation plan; and
``(ii) enforce any permits issued in accordance with the
watershed implementation plan in the same manner as other
permits issued under section 402 are enforced.
``(6) Nitrogen and phosphorus trading program.--
``(A) Establishment.--Not later than May 12, 2012, the
Administrator, in cooperation with each Chesapeake Bay State,
shall establish an interstate nitrogen and phosphorus trading
program for the Chesapeake Bay for the generation, trading,
and use of nitrogen and phosphorus credits to facilitate the
attainment and maintenance of the Chesapeake Bay-wide TMDL
for nitrogen and phosphorus.
``(B) Trading system.--The trading program established
under this subsection shall, at a minimum--
``(i) define and standardize nitrogen and phosphorus
credits and establish procedures or standards for ensuring
equivalent water quality benefits for all credits;
``(ii) establish procedures or standards for certifying and
verifying nitrogen and phosphorus credits to ensure that
credit-generating practices from both point sources and
nonpoint sources are achieving actual reductions in nitrogen
and phosphorus;
``(iii) establish procedures or standards for generating,
quantifying, trading, and applying credits to meet regulatory
requirements and allow for trading to occur between and
across point source or nonpoint sources;
``(iv) establish baseline requirements that a credit seller
must meet before becoming eligible to generate saleable
credits;
``(v) establish points-of-regulation at the sub-State level
to facilitate trading and promote water quality goals under
which--
``(I) States may designate point sources as points-of-
regulation;
``(II) States may aggregate multiple sources to serve as
points-of-regulation; and
``(III) the Administrator shall establish guidelines or
standards to ensure that points-of-regulation shall be
generally consistent across States;
``(vi) ensure that credits are used in accordance with
permit requirements under the national pollutant discharge
elimination system established under section 402 and trade
requirements have been adequately incorporated into the
permits;
``(vii) ensure that private contracts between credit buyers
and credit sellers contain adequate provisions to ensure
enforceability under applicable law;
``(viii) establish procedures or standards for providing
public transparency on nutrient trading activity;
``(ix) ensure that, if the local receiving water is
impaired for the nutrient being traded but a TMDL has not yet
been implemented for the impairment--
``(I) trades are required to result in progress toward or
the attainment of water quality standards in the local
receiving water; and
``(II) sources in the watershed may not rely on credits
produced outside of the watershed;
``(x) require that the application of credits to meet
regulatory requirements under this section not cause or
contribute to exceedances of water quality standards, total
maximum daily loads, or wasteload or load allocations for
affected receiving waters, including avoidance of localized
impacts;
``(xi) except as part of a consent agreement, prohibit the
purchase of credits from any entity that is in significant
noncompliance with an enforceable permit issued under section
402;
``(xii) consider and incorporate, to the maximum extent
practicable, elements of State trading programs in existence
as of the date of enactment of the Chesapeake Clean Water and
Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009; and
``(xiii) allow for, as appropriate, the aggregation and
banking of credits by third parties.
``(C) Facilitation of trading.--In order to attract market
participants and facilitate the cost-effective achievement of
water-quality goals, the Administrator shall ensure that the
trading program established under this paragraph--
``(i) includes measures to mitigate credit buyer risk;
``(ii) makes use of the best available science in order to
minimize uncertainty and related transaction costs to
traders, including the Administrator, in consultation with
the Secretary of Agriculture, supporting research and other
activities that increase the scientific understanding of
nonpoint nutrient pollutant loading and the ability of
various structural and nonstructural alternatives to reduce
the loads;
``(iii) eliminates unnecessary or duplicative
administrative processes; and
``(iv) incorporates a permitting approach under the
national pollutant discharge elimination system established
under section 402 that allows trading to occur without
requiring the reopening or reissuance of permits to
incorporate individual trades.
``(7) Authority relating to development.--The Administrator
shall--
``(A) establish, for projects resulting in impervious
development, guidance relating to site planning, design,
construction, and maintenance strategies to ensure that the
land maintains predevelopment hydrology with regard to the
temperature, rate, volume, and duration of flow;
``(B) establish model ordinances and guidelines with
respect to the construction of low-impact development
infrastructure and nonstructural low-impact development
techniques for use by States, local governments, and private
entities; and
``(C) not later than 180 days after promulgation of the
regulations under subsection (j)(3)(B), issue such guidance,
model ordinances, and guidelines as are necessary to carry
out this paragraph.
``(8) Assistance with respect to stormwater discharges.--
``(A) Grant program.--The Administrator may provide grants
to any local government within the Chesapeake Bay watershed
that adopts the guidance, ordinances, and guidelines issued
under paragraph (7).
``(B) Use of funds.--A grant provided under subparagraph
(A) may be used by a local government to pay costs associated
with--
``(i) developing, implementing, and enforcing the guidance,
ordinances, and guidelines issued under paragraph (7); and
``(ii) implementing projects designed to reduce stormwater
discharges.
``(9) Consumer and commercial product report.--Not later
than 3 years after the date of enactment of the Chesapeake
Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009, the
Administrator, in consultation with the Chesapeake Executive
Council, shall--
``(A) review consumer and commercial products, the use of
which may affect the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed or associated tributaries, to determine whether
further product nutrient content restrictions are necessary
to restore or maintain water quality in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed and those tributaries; and
``(B) submit to the Committees on Appropriations,
Environment and Public Works, and Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committees on
Appropriations, Natural Resources, Energy and Commerce, and
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a product nutrient report detailing the
findings of the review under subparagraph (A).
``(l) Prohibition on Introduction of Asian Oysters.--Not
later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the
Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009,
the Administrator shall promulgate regulations--
``(1) to designate the Asian oyster as a `biological
pollutant' in the Chesapeake Bay and tidal waters pursuant to
section 502;
``(2) to prohibit the issuance of permits under sections
402 and 404 for the discharge of the Asian oyster into the
Chesapeake Bay and tidal waters; and
``(3) to specify conditions under which scientific research
on Asian oysters may be conducted within the Chesapeake Bay
and tidal waters.
``(m) Chesapeake Nutria Eradication Program.--
``(1) Grant authority.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations, the Secretary of the Interior (referred to in
this subsection as the `Secretary'), may provide financial
assistance to the States of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia
to carry out a program to implement measures--
``(A) to eradicate or control nutria; and
``(B) to restore marshland damaged by nutria.
``(2) Goals.--The continuing goals of the program shall
be--
``(A) to eradicate nutria in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
and
``(B) to restore marshland damaged by nutria.
``(3) Activities.--In the States of Delaware, Maryland, and
Virginia, the Secretary shall require that the program under
this subsection consist of management, research, and public
education activities carried out in accordance with the
document published by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service entitled `Eradication Strategies for Nutria in the
Chesapeake and Delaware Bay Watersheds', dated March 2002, or
any updates to the document.
``(n) Study on the Impacts of the Commercial Harvesting of
Menhaden on the Water Quality of the Chesapeake Bay.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Fisheries commission.--The term `Fisheries
Commission' means the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission established under the interstate compact consented
to and approved by pursuant to the Act of May 4, 1942 (56
Stat. 267, chapter 283) and the Act of May 19, 1949 (63 Stat.
70, chapter 238).
``(B) Fishing.--Except as otherwise provided, the term
`fishing'--
``(i) means--
``(I) the commercial catching, taking, or harvesting of
menhaden, except when incidental to harvesting that occurs in
the course of commercial or recreational fish-catching
activities directed at a species other than menhaden;
``(II) the attempted commercial catching, taking, or
harvesting of menhaden; or
[[Page 25154]]
``(III) any operation at sea in support of, or in
preparation for, any activity described in subclause (I) or
(II); and
``(ii) does not include any scientific research authorized
by the Federal Government or by any State Government.
``(2) Study.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem
Restoration Act of 2009, building on the research underway or
conducted under the oversight of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, the Administrator, in cooperation
and consultation with the Administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Fisheries
Commission, shall conduct and submit to Congress a study for
the purposes of determining--
``(A) progress toward understanding the structure of the
menhaden population of the Atlantic Coast of the United
States and of the Chesapeake Bay;
``(B) the role of the population as filter feeders,
including the role of the population with respect to
impacting water clarity, dissolved oxygen levels, and other
ecosystem functions;
``(C) the role of the population as prey species for
predatory fish in the Chesapeake Bay and in coastal
ecosystems;
``(D) the impact on the Atlantic coastal and Chesapeake Bay
ecosystems of fishing for menhaden;
``(E) the impact on attainment of the water quality goals
of this Act of commercial fishing for menhaden; and
``(F) the recommendations of the Administrator, if any, for
future sustainable management of such fishing and additional
research needed to fully address the progress, roles, and
impacts described in this paragraph.
``(o) Effect on Other Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section removes or
otherwise affects any other obligation for a point source to
comply with other applicable requirements under this Act.
``(2) Violations by states.--The failure of a State to
submit a watershed implementation plan or biennial report, or
to correct a previously missed 2-year commitment made in a
watershed implementation plan, by the applicable deadline
established under this section shall--
``(A) constitute a violation of this Act; and
``(B) subject the State to--
``(i) enforcement action by the Administrator; and
``(ii) civil actions commenced pursuant to section 505.
``(3) Failure of administrator to act.--The failure of the
Administrator to act under this section shall subject the
Administrator to civil actions commenced pursuant to section
505.
``(p) Evaluation by the Inspector General.--The Inspector
General of the Environmental Protection Agency shall evaluate
the implementation of this section on a periodic basis of not
less than once every 3 years.
``(q) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) Implementation and monitoring grants.--
``(A) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to
amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made
available to carry out this section, there are authorized to
be appropriated to the Administrator--
``(i) to provide implementation grants under subsection
(e)(3)(A), $80,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through
2015, to remain available until expended;
``(ii) to carry out a freshwater monitoring program under
subsection (e)(3)(B), $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2010 through 2015; and
``(iii) to carry out a Chesapeake Bay and tidal water
monitoring program under subsection (e)(3)(B), $5,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2010 through 2015.
``(B) Cost sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of a
program carried out using funds from a grant provided--
``(i) under subparagraph (A)(i) shall not exceed 50
percent; and
``(ii) under clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A) shall
not exceed 80 percent.
``(2) Chesapeake stewardship grants.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out subsection (h)(2) $15,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014.
``(3) Storm water pollution planning and implementation
grants.--
``(A) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to
amounts authorized or otherwise made available to carry out
this section, there are authorized to be appropriated to the
Administrator--
``(i) to carry out subsection (k)(8)(B)(i), $10,000,000;
and
``(ii) to carry out subsection (k)(8)(B)(ii),
$1,500,000,000.
``(B) Cost-sharing.--A grant provided for a project under--
``(i) subsection (k)(8)(B)(i) may not be used to cover more
than 80 percent of the cost of the project; and
``(ii) subsection (k)(8)(B)(ii) may not be used to cover
more than 75 percent of the cost of the project.
``(4) Nutria eradication grants.--
``(A) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial
assistance in the Chesapeake Bay watershed under subsection
(m) $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2015.
``(B) Cost-sharing.--
``(i) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
carrying out the program under subsection (m) may not exceed
75 percent of the total costs of the program.
``(ii) In-kind contributions.--The non-Federal share of the
cost of carrying out the program under subsection (m) may be
provided in the form of in-kind contributions of materials or
services.
``(5) Limitation on administrative expenses.--Not more than
10 percent of the annual amount of any grant provided by the
Administrator or Secretary under any program described in
paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) may be used for
administrative expenses.
``(6) Availability.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated
under this subsection shall remain available until
expended.''.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 2694. Mr. ENSIGN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1776, to amend title XVIII of
the Social Security Act to provide for the update under the
Medicare physician fee schedule for years beginning with 2010
and to sunset the application of the sustainable growth rate
formula, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 2695. Mr. SESSIONS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3548, to amend the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 to provide for the
temporary availability of certain additional emergency
unemployment compensation, and for other purposes; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 2694. Mr. ENSIGN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1776, to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to provide for the update under the Medicare physician fee schedule
for years beginning with 2010 and to sunset the application of the
sustainable growth rate formula, and for other purposes; which was
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
TITLE--MEDICAL CARE ACCESS PROTECTION
SEC. _1. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Medical Care Access
Protection Act of 2009'' or the ``MCAP Act''.
SEC. _2. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Alternative dispute resolution system; adr.--The term
``alternative dispute resolution system'' or ``ADR'' means a
system that provides for the resolution of health care
lawsuits in a manner other than through a civil action
brought in a State or Federal court.
(2) Claimant.--The term ``claimant'' means any person who
brings a health care lawsuit, including a person who asserts
or claims a right to legal or equitable contribution,
indemnity or subrogation, arising out of a health care
liability claim or action, and any person on whose behalf
such a claim is asserted or such an action is brought,
whether deceased, incompetent, or a minor.
(3) Collateral source benefits.--The term ``collateral
source benefits'' means any amount paid or reasonably likely
to be paid in the future to or on behalf of the claimant, or
any service, product or other benefit provided or reasonably
likely to be provided in the future to or on behalf of the
claimant, as a result of the injury or wrongful death,
pursuant to--
(A) any State or Federal health, sickness, income-
disability, accident, or workers' compensation law;
(B) any health, sickness, income-disability, or accident
insurance that provides health benefits or income-disability
coverage;
(C) any contract or agreement of any group, organization,
partnership, or corporation to provide, pay for, or reimburse
the cost of medical, hospital, dental, or income disability
benefits; and
(D) any other publicly or privately funded program.
(4) Compensatory damages.--The term ``compensatory
damages'' means objectively verifiable monetary losses
incurred as a result of the provision of, use of, or payment
for (or failure to provide, use, or pay for) health care
services or medical products, such as past and future medical
expenses, loss of past and future earnings, cost of obtaining
domestic services, loss of employment, and loss of business
or employment opportunities, damages for physical and
emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical
impairment, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment
of life, loss of society and companionship, loss of
consortium (other than loss of domestic service), hedonic
damages, injury to reputation, and all other nonpecuniary
losses of any kind or nature. Such term includes economic
damages and noneconomic damages, as such terms are defined in
this section.
[[Page 25155]]
(5) Contingent fee.--The term ``contingent fee'' includes
all compensation to any person or persons which is payable
only if a recovery is effected on behalf of one or more
claimants.
(6) Economic damages.--The term ``economic damages'' means
objectively verifiable monetary losses incurred as a result
of the provision of, use of, or payment for (or failure to
provide, use, or pay for) health care services or medical
products, such as past and future medical expenses, loss of
past and future earnings, cost of obtaining domestic
services, loss of employment, and loss of business or
employment opportunities.
(7) Health care goods or services.--The term ``health care
goods or services'' means any goods or services provided by a
health care institution, provider, or by any individual
working under the supervision of a health care provider, that
relates to the diagnosis, prevention, care, or treatment of
any human disease or impairment, or the assessment of the
health of human beings.
(8) Health care institution.--The term ``health care
institution'' means any entity licensed under Federal or
State law to provide health care services (including but not
limited to ambulatory surgical centers, assisted living
facilities, emergency medical services providers, hospices,
hospitals and hospital systems, nursing homes, or other
entities licensed to provide such services).
(9) Health care lawsuit.--The term ``health care lawsuit''
means any health care liability claim concerning the
provision of health care goods or services affecting
interstate commerce, or any health care liability action
concerning the provision of (or the failure to provide)
health care goods or services affecting interstate commerce,
brought in a State or Federal court or pursuant to an
alternative dispute resolution system, against a health care
provider or a health care institution regardless of the
theory of liability on which the claim is based, or the
number of claimants, plaintiffs, defendants, or other
parties, or the number of claims or causes of action, in
which the claimant alleges a health care liability claim.
(10) Health care liability action.--The term ``health care
liability action'' means a civil action brought in a State or
Federal Court or pursuant to an alternative dispute
resolution system, against a health care provider or a health
care institution regardless of the theory of liability on
which the claim is based, or the number of plaintiffs,
defendants, or other parties, or the number of causes of
action, in which the claimant alleges a health care liability
claim.
(11) Health care liability claim.--The term ``health care
liability claim'' means a demand by any person, whether or
not pursuant to ADR, against a health care provider or health
care institution, including third-party claims, cross-claims,
counter-claims, or contribution claims, which are based upon
the provision of, use of, or payment for (or the failure to
provide, use, or pay for) health care services, regardless of
the theory of liability on which the claim is based, or the
number of plaintiffs, defendants, or other parties, or the
number of causes of action.
(12) Health care provider.--
(A) In general.--The term ``health care provider'' means
any person (including but not limited to a physician (as
defined by section 1861(r) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395x(r)), registered nurse, dentist, podiatrist,
pharmacist, chiropractor, or optometrist) required by State
or Federal law to be licensed, registered, or certified to
provide health care services, and being either so licensed,
registered, or certified, or exempted from such requirement
by other statute or regulation.
(B) Treatment of certain professional associations.--For
purposes of this title, a professional association that is
organized under State law by an individual physician or group
of physicians, a partnership or limited liability partnership
formed by a group of physicians, a nonprofit health
corporation certified under State law, or a company formed by
a group of physicians under State law shall be treated as a
health care provider under subparagraph (A).
(13) Malicious intent to injure.--The term ``malicious
intent to injure'' means intentionally causing or attempting
to cause physical injury other than providing health care
goods or services.
(14) Noneconomic damages.--The term ``noneconomic damages''
means damages for physical and emotional pain, suffering,
inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish,
disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and
companionship, loss of consortium (other than loss of
domestic service), hedonic damages, injury to reputation, and
all other nonpecuniary losses of any kind or nature.
(15) Punitive damages.--The term ``punitive damages'' means
damages awarded, for the purpose of punishment or deterrence,
and not solely for compensatory purposes, against a health
care provider or health care institution. Punitive damages
are neither economic nor noneconomic damages.
(16) Recovery.--The term ``recovery'' means the net sum
recovered after deducting any disbursements or costs incurred
in connection with prosecution or settlement of the claim,
including all costs paid or advanced by any person. Costs of
health care incurred by the plaintiff and the attorneys'
office overhead costs or charges for legal services are not
deductible disbursements or costs for such purpose.
(17) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern
Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands,
and any other territory or possession of the United States,
or any political subdivision thereof.
SEC. _3. ENCOURAGING SPEEDY RESOLUTION OF CLAIMS.
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided for in this
section, the time for the commencement of a health care
lawsuit shall be 3 years after the date of manifestation of
injury or 1 year after the claimant discovers, or through the
use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the
injury, whichever occurs first.
(b) General Exception.--The time for the commencement of a
health care lawsuit shall not exceed 3 years after the date
of manifestation of injury unless the tolling of time was
delayed as a result of--
(1) fraud;
(2) intentional concealment; or
(3) the presence of a foreign body, which has no
therapeutic or diagnostic purpose or effect, in the person of
the injured person.
(c) Minors.--An action by a minor shall be commenced within
3 years from the date of the alleged manifestation of injury
except that if such minor is under the full age of 6 years,
such action shall be commenced within 3 years of the
manifestation of injury, or prior to the eighth birthday of
the minor, whichever provides a longer period. Such time
limitation shall be tolled for minors for any period during
which a parent or guardian and a health care provider or
health care institution have committed fraud or collusion in
the failure to bring an action on behalf of the injured
minor.
(d) Rule 11 Sanctions.--Whenever a Federal or State court
determines (whether by motion of the parties or whether on
the motion of the court) that there has been a violation of
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (or a similar
violation of applicable State court rules) in a health care
liability action to which this title applies, the court shall
impose upon the attorneys, law firms, or pro se litigants
that have violated Rule 11 or are responsible for the
violation, an appropriate sanction, which shall include an
order to pay the other party or parties for the reasonable
expenses incurred as a direct result of the filing of the
pleading, motion, or other paper that is the subject of the
violation, including a reasonable attorneys' fee. Such
sanction shall be sufficient to deter repetition of such
conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated,
and to compensate the party or parties injured by such
conduct.
SEC. _4. COMPENSATING PATIENT INJURY.
(a) Unlimited Amount of Damages for Actual Economic Losses
in Health Care Lawsuits.--In any health care lawsuit, nothing
in this title shall limit the recovery by a claimant of the
full amount of the available economic damages,
notwithstanding the limitation contained in subsection (b).
(b) Additional Noneconomic Damages.--
(1) Health care providers.--In any health care lawsuit
where final judgment is rendered against a health care
provider, the amount of noneconomic damages recovered from
the provider, if otherwise available under applicable Federal
or State law, may be as much as $250,000, regardless of the
number of parties other than a health care institution
against whom the action is brought or the number of separate
claims or actions brought with respect to the same
occurrence.
(2) Health care institutions.--
(A) Single institution.--In any health care lawsuit where
final judgment is rendered against a single health care
institution, the amount of noneconomic damages recovered from
the institution, if otherwise available under applicable
Federal or State law, may be as much as $250,000, regardless
of the number of parties against whom the action is brought
or the number of separate claims or actions brought with
respect to the same occurrence.
(B) Multiple institutions.--In any health care lawsuit
where final judgment is rendered against more than one health
care institution, the amount of noneconomic damages recovered
from each institution, if otherwise available under
applicable Federal or State law, may be as much as $250,000,
regardless of the number of parties against whom the action
is brought or the number of separate claims or actions
brought with respect to the same occurrence, except that the
total amount recovered from all such institutions in such
lawsuit shall not exceed $500,000.
(c) No Discount of Award for Noneconomic Damages.--In any
health care lawsuit--
(1) an award for future noneconomic damages shall not be
discounted to present value;
(2) the jury shall not be informed about the maximum award
for noneconomic damages under subsection (b);
(3) an award for noneconomic damages in excess of the
limitations provided for in subsection (b) shall be reduced
either before the
[[Page 25156]]
entry of judgment, or by amendment of the judgment after
entry of judgment, and such reduction shall be made before
accounting for any other reduction in damages required by
law; and
(4) if separate awards are rendered for past and future
noneconomic damages and the combined awards exceed the
limitations described in subsection (b), the future
noneconomic damages shall be reduced first.
(d) Fair Share Rule.--In any health care lawsuit, each
party shall be liable for that party's several share of any
damages only and not for the share of any other person. Each
party shall be liable only for the amount of damages
allocated to such party in direct proportion to such party's
percentage of responsibility. A separate judgment shall be
rendered against each such party for the amount allocated to
such party. For purposes of this section, the trier of fact
shall determine the proportion of responsibility of each
party for the claimant's harm.
SEC. _5. MAXIMIZING PATIENT RECOVERY.
(a) Court Supervision of Share of Damages Actually Paid to
Claimants.--
(1) In general.--In any health care lawsuit, the court
shall supervise the arrangements for payment of damages to
protect against conflicts of interest that may have the
effect of reducing the amount of damages awarded that are
actually paid to claimants.
(2) Contingency fees.--
(A) In general.--In any health care lawsuit in which the
attorney for a party claims a financial stake in the outcome
by virtue of a contingent fee, the court shall have the power
to restrict the payment of a claimant's damage recovery to
such attorney, and to redirect such damages to the claimant
based upon the interests of justice and principles of equity.
(B) Limitation.--The total of all contingent fees for
representing all claimants in a health care lawsuit shall not
exceed the following limits:
(i) 40 percent of the first $50,000 recovered by the
claimant(s).
(ii) 33\1/3\ percent of the next $50,000 recovered by the
claimant(s).
(iii) 25 percent of the next $500,000 recovered by the
claimant(s).
(iv) 15 percent of any amount by which the recovery by the
claimant(s) is in excess of $600,000.
(b) Applicability.--
(1) In general.--The limitations in subsection (a) shall
apply whether the recovery is by judgment, settlement,
mediation, arbitration, or any other form of alternative
dispute resolution.
(2) Minors.--In a health care lawsuit involving a minor or
incompetent person, a court retains the authority to
authorize or approve a fee that is less than the maximum
permitted under this section.
(c) Expert Witnesses.--
(1) Requirement.--No individual shall be qualified to
testify as an expert witness concerning issues of negligence
in any health care lawsuit against a defendant unless such
individual--
(A) except as required under paragraph (2), is a health
care professional who--
(i) is appropriately credentialed or licensed in 1 or more
States to deliver health care services; and
(ii) typically treats the diagnosis or condition or
provides the type of treatment under review; and
(B) can demonstrate by competent evidence that, as a result
of training, education, knowledge, and experience in the
evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of the disease or injury
which is the subject matter of the lawsuit against the
defendant, the individual was substantially familiar with
applicable standards of care and practice as they relate to
the act or omission which is the subject of the lawsuit on
the date of the incident.
(2) Physician review.--In a health care lawsuit, if the
claim of the plaintiff involved treatment that is recommended
or provided by a physician (allopathic or osteopathic), an
individual shall not be qualified to be an expert witness
under this subsection with respect to issues of negligence
concerning such treatment unless such individual is a
physician.
(3) Specialties and subspecialties.--With respect to a
lawsuit described in paragraph (1), a court shall not permit
an expert in one medical specialty or subspecialty to testify
against a defendant in another medical specialty or
subspecialty unless, in addition to a showing of substantial
familiarity in accordance with paragraph (1)(B), there is a
showing that the standards of care and practice in the two
specialty or subspecialty fields are similar.
(4) Limitation.--The limitations in this subsection shall
not apply to expert witnesses testifying as to the degree or
permanency of medical or physical impairment.
SEC. _6. ADDITIONAL HEALTH BENEFITS.
(a) In General.--The amount of any damages received by a
claimant in any health care lawsuit shall be reduced by the
court by the amount of any collateral source benefits to
which the claimant is entitled, less any insurance premiums
or other payments made by the claimant (or by the spouse,
parent, child, or legal guardian of the claimant) to obtain
or secure such benefits.
(b) Preservation of Current Law.--Where a payor of
collateral source benefits has a right of recovery by
reimbursement or subrogation and such right is permitted
under Federal or State law, subsection (a) shall not apply.
(c) Application of Provision.--This section shall apply to
any health care lawsuit that is settled or resolved by a fact
finder.
SEC. _7. PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
(a) Punitive Damages Permitted.--
(1) In general.--Punitive damages may, if otherwise
available under applicable State or Federal law, be awarded
against any person in a health care lawsuit only if it is
proven by clear and convincing evidence that such person
acted with malicious intent to injure the claimant, or that
such person deliberately failed to avoid unnecessary injury
that such person knew the claimant was substantially certain
to suffer.
(2) Filing of lawsuit.--No demand for punitive damages
shall be included in a health care lawsuit as initially
filed. A court may allow a claimant to file an amended
pleading for punitive damages only upon a motion by the
claimant and after a finding by the court, upon review of
supporting and opposing affidavits or after a hearing, after
weighing the evidence, that the claimant has established by a
substantial probability that the claimant will prevail on the
claim for punitive damages.
(3) Separate proceeding.--At the request of any party in a
health care lawsuit, the trier of fact shall consider in a
separate proceeding--
(A) whether punitive damages are to be awarded and the
amount of such award; and
(B) the amount of punitive damages following a
determination of punitive liability.
If a separate proceeding is requested, evidence relevant only
to the claim for punitive damages, as determined by
applicable State law, shall be inadmissible in any proceeding
to determine whether compensatory damages are to be awarded.
(4) Limitation where no compensatory damages are awarded.--
In any health care lawsuit where no judgment for compensatory
damages is rendered against a person, no punitive damages may
be awarded with respect to the claim in such lawsuit against
such person.
(b) Determining Amount of Punitive Damages.--
(1) Factors considered.--In determining the amount of
punitive damages under this section, the trier of fact shall
consider only the following:
(A) the severity of the harm caused by the conduct of such
party;
(B) the duration of the conduct or any concealment of it by
such party;
(C) the profitability of the conduct to such party;
(D) the number of products sold or medical procedures
rendered for compensation, as the case may be, by such party,
of the kind causing the harm complained of by the claimant;
(E) any criminal penalties imposed on such party, as a
result of the conduct complained of by the claimant; and
(F) the amount of any civil fines assessed against such
party as a result of the conduct complained of by the
claimant.
(2) Maximum award.--The amount of punitive damages awarded
in a health care lawsuit may not exceed an amount equal to
two times the amount of economic damages awarded in the
lawsuit or $250,000, whichever is greater. The jury shall not
be informed of the limitation under the preceding sentence.
(c) Liability of Health Care Providers.--
(1) In general.--A health care provider who prescribes, or
who dispenses pursuant to a prescription, a drug, biological
product, or medical device approved by the Food and Drug
Administration, for an approved indication of the drug,
biological product, or medical device, shall not be named as
a party to a product liability lawsuit invoking such drug,
biological product, or medical device and shall not be liable
to a claimant in a class action lawsuit against the
manufacturer, distributor, or product seller of such drug,
biological product, or medical device.
(2) Medical product.--The term ``medical product'' means a
drug or device intended for humans. The terms ``drug'' and
``device'' have the meanings given such terms in sections
201(g)(1) and 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act (21 U.S.C. 321), respectively, including any component or
raw material used therein, but excluding health care
services.
SEC. _8. AUTHORIZATION OF PAYMENT OF FUTURE DAMAGES TO
CLAIMANTS IN HEALTH CARE LAWSUITS.
(a) In General.--In any health care lawsuit, if an award of
future damages, without reduction to present value, equaling
or exceeding $50,000 is made against a party with sufficient
insurance or other assets to fund a periodic payment of such
a judgment, the court shall, at the request of any party,
enter a judgment ordering that the future damages be paid by
periodic payments in accordance with the Uniform Periodic
Payment of Judgments Act promulgated by the National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.
(b) Applicability.--This section applies to all actions
which have not been first set for trial or retrial before the
effective date of this title.
SEC. _9. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.
(a) General Vaccine Injury.--
[[Page 25157]]
(1) In general.--To the extent that title XXI of the Public
Health Service Act establishes a Federal rule of law
applicable to a civil action brought for a vaccine-related
injury or death--
(A) this title shall not affect the application of the rule
of law to such an action; and
(B) any rule of law prescribed by this title in conflict
with a rule of law of such title XXI shall not apply to such
action.
(2) Exception.--If there is an aspect of a civil action
brought for a vaccine-related injury or death to which a
Federal rule of law under title XXI of the Public Health
Service Act does not apply, then this title or otherwise
applicable law (as determined under this title) will apply to
such aspect of such action.
(b) Smallpox Vaccine Injury.--
(1) In general.--To the extent that part C of title II of
the Public Health Service Act establishes a Federal rule of
law applicable to a civil action brought for a smallpox
vaccine-related injury or death--
(A) this title shall not affect the application of the rule
of law to such an action; and
(B) any rule of law prescribed by this title in conflict
with a rule of law of such part C shall not apply to such
action.
(2) Exception.--If there is an aspect of a civil action
brought for a smallpox vaccine-related injury or death to
which a Federal rule of law under part C of title II of the
Public Health Service Act does not apply, then this title or
otherwise applicable law (as determined under this title)
will apply to such aspect of such action.
(c) Other Federal Law.--Except as provided in this section,
nothing in this title shall be deemed to affect any defense
available, or any limitation on liability that applies to, a
defendant in a health care lawsuit or action under any other
provision of Federal law.
SEC. _10. STATE FLEXIBILITY AND PROTECTION OF STATES' RIGHTS.
(a) Health Care Lawsuits.--The provisions governing health
care lawsuits set forth in this title shall preempt, subject
to subsections (b) and (c), State law to the extent that
State law prevents the application of any provisions of law
established by or under this title. The provisions governing
health care lawsuits set forth in this title supersede
chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, to the extent
that such chapter--
(1) provides for a greater amount of damages or contingent
fees, a longer period in which a health care lawsuit may be
commenced, or a reduced applicability or scope of periodic
payment of future damages, than provided in this title; or
(2) prohibits the introduction of evidence regarding
collateral source benefits.
(b) Preemption of Certain State Laws.--No provision of this
title shall be construed to preempt any State law (whether
effective before, on, or after the date of the enactment of
this title) that specifies a particular monetary amount of
compensatory or punitive damages (or the total amount of
damages) that may be awarded in a health care lawsuit,
regardless of whether such monetary amount is greater or
lesser than is provided for under this title, notwithstanding
section __5(a).
(c) Protection of State's Rights and Other Laws.--
(1) In general.--Any issue that is not governed by a
provision of law established by or under this title
(including the State standards of negligence) shall be
governed by otherwise applicable Federal or State law.
(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this title shall be
construed to--
(A) preempt or supersede any Federal or State law that
imposes greater procedural or substantive protections (such
as a shorter statute of limitations) for a health care
provider or health care institution from liability, loss, or
damages than those provided by this title;
(B) preempt or supercede any State law that permits and
provides for the enforcement of any arbitration agreement
related to a health care liability claim whether enacted
prior to or after the date of enactment of this title;
(C) create a cause of action that is not otherwise
available under Federal or State law; or
(D) affect the scope of preemption of any other Federal
law.
SEC. _11. APPLICABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE.
This title shall apply to any health care lawsuit brought
in a Federal or State court, or subject to an alternative
dispute resolution system, that is initiated on or after the
date of the enactment of this title, except that any health
care lawsuit arising from an injury occurring prior to the
date of enactment of this title shall be governed by the
applicable statute of limitations provisions in effect at the
time the injury occurred.
______
SA 2695. Mr. SESSIONS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill H.R. 3548, to amend the Supplemental Appropriations
Act, 2008 to provide for the temporary availability of certain
additional emergency unemployment compensation, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 7, after line 9, insert the following:
TITLE II--EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION
SEC. 201. REPEAL OF TERMINATION OF THE E-VERIFY PROGRAM.
Section 401(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public
Law 104-208; 8 U.S.C. 1324a note) is amended by striking
``Unless'' and all that follows.
SEC. 202. DESIGNATION OF THE E-VERIFY PROGRAM.
(a) Designation.--Sections 401(c)(1), 403(a), 403(b)(1),
403(c)(1), and 405(b)(2) of the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of
Public Law 104-208; 8 U.S.C. 1324a note) are amended by
striking ``basic pilot program'' each place that term appears
and inserting ``E-Verify Program''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Title IV of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 8 U.S.C. 1324a
note) is amended--
(1) in the heading of section 403(a) by striking ``Basic
Pilot'' and inserting ``E-Verify''; and
(2) in section 404(h)(1) by striking ``under a pilot
program'' and inserting ``under this subtitle''.
SEC. 203. REQUIREMENT FOR RECIPIENTS OF UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION BENEFITS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE E-
VERIFY PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--No individual may receive unemployment
compensation benefits under any State or Federal law until
after the date that the individual's identity and employment
eligibility are verified through E-Verify Program (as
designated by section 202) under title IV of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(division C of Public Law 104-208; 8 U.S.C. 1324a note).
(b) Effective Date.--The requirements of subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 204. REQUIREMENT FOR CONTRACTORS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
E-VERIFY PROGRAM.
The head of each agency or department of the United States
that enters into a contract shall require, as a condition of
the contract, that the contractor participate in the E-Verify
Program (as designated by section 202) under title IV of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-209; 8 U.S.C. 1324a
note) to verify the identity and employment eligibility of--
(1) all individuals hired during the term of the contract
by the contractor to perform employment duties within the
United States; and
(2) all individuals assigned by the contractor to perform
work within the United States the under such contract.
____________________
NOTICE OF HEARING
committee on indian affairs
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the
Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, October 22, 2009, at
2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct
a business meeting pending committee issues, to be followed immediately
by an oversight hearing on Indian Energy and Energy Efficiency.
Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs
Committee at 202-224-2251.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on October 20, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a
hearing entitled ``The State of the Nation's Housing Market.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Finance
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on
October 20, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office
Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``S. 1631, the Customs
Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2009.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet
during
[[Page 25158]]
the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 20, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on October 20, 2009, at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a
hearing entitled ``Reform Done Right: Sensible Health Care Solutions
for America's Small Businesses.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Select Committee on Intelligence
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on October 20, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on administrative oversight and the courts
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the
Courts, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on
October 20, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate
Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Medical Debt: Can
Bankruptcy Reform Facilitate a Fresh Start?'' The witness list is
attached.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Arex Avanni, a
detailee to the Committee on Appropriations, be given full privileges
during debate on H.R. 2892 today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. REID. I now ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday morning,
October 21, following the period of morning business, the Senate
proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 469, the
nomination of Roberto Lange to be U.S. District Judge for the District
of South Dakota; that debate on the nomination be limited to 2 hours
equally divided and controlled between Senators Leahy and Sessions or
their designees, with the vote on confirmation occurring at 2 p.m.;
that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be considered made and
laid on the table, no further motions be in order, the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume
legislative session.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2009
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of S. 1818.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1818) to amend the Morris K. Udall Scholarship
and Excellence in National Environmental and Native American
Public Policy Act of 1992 to honor the legacy of Stewart L.
Udall, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, there be no intervening action or debate, and any statements
relating to this bill be printed in the Record.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The bill (S. 1818) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading,
was read the third time, and passed, as follows:
S. 1818
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 ``Morris K. Udall Scholarship
and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Amendments
Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. SHORT TITLE.
Section 1 of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence
in National Environmental and Native American Public Policy
Act of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5601 note; Public Law 102-259) is
amended to read as follows:
``SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
``This Act may be cited as the `Morris K. Udall and Stewart
L. Udall Foundation Act'.''.
SEC. 3. FINDINGS.
Section 3 of the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall
Foundation Act (20 U.S.C. 5601) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) the Foundation--
``(A) since 1995, has operated exceptional scholarship,
internship, and fellowship programs for areas of study
related to the environment and Native American tribal policy
and health care;
``(B) since 1999, has provided valuable environmental
conflict resolution services and leadership through the
United States Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution; and
``(C) is committed to continue making a substantial
contribution toward public policy in the future by--
``(i) playing a significant role in developing the next
generation of environmental and Native American leaders; and
``(ii) working with current leaders to improve
decisionmaking on--
``(I) challenging environmental, energy, and related
economic problems; and
``(II) tribal governance and economic issues;
``(6) Stewart L. Udall, as a member of Congress, Secretary
of the Interior, environmental lawyer, and author, has
provided distinguished national leadership in environmental
and Native American policy for more than 50 years;
``(7) as Secretary of the Interior from 1961 to 1969,
Stewart L. Udall oversaw the creation of 4 national parks, 6
national monuments, 8 national seashores and lakeshores, 9
recreation areas, 20 historic sites, and 56 wildlife refuges;
and
``(8) it is fitting that the leadership and vision of
Stewart L. Udall in the areas of environmental and Native
American policy be jointly honored with that of Morris K.
Udall through the foundation bearing the Udall name.''.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
Section 4 of the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall
Foundation Act (20 U.S.C. 5602) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Morris K. Udall
Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental
Policy'';
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``Scholarship and
Excellence in National Environmental Policy'' and inserting
``and Stewart L. Udall''; and
(3) in paragraph (9), by striking ``Scholarship and
Excellence in National Environmental Policy'' and inserting
``and Stewart L. Udall''.
SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF FOUNDATION.
Section 5 of the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall
Foundation Act (20 U.S.C. 5603) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``SCHOLARSHIP AND
EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY'' and inserting
``AND STEWART L. UDALL'';
(2) in subsection (a), by striking ``Scholarship and
Excellence in National Environmental Policy'' and inserting
``and Stewart L. Udall''; and
(3) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ``the rate specified
for employees in level IV of the Executive Schedule under
section 5315 of title 5, United States Code'' and inserting
``a rate determined by the Board in accordance with section
5383 of title 5, United States Code''.
SEC. 6. AUTHORITY OF FOUNDATION.
Section 7 of the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall
Foundation Act (20 U.S.C. 5605) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(5)--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) to conduct training, research, and other activities
under section 6(7).''; and
(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Udall Scholars.--Recipients of scholarships,
fellowships, and internships under this Act shall be known as
`Udall Scholars', `Udall Fellows', and `Udall Interns',
respectively.''.
SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT OF TRUST FUND.
Section 8 of the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall
Foundation Act (20 U.S.C. 5606) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``SCHOLARSHIP AND
EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY'' and inserting
``AND STEWART L. UDALL''; and
[[Page 25159]]
(2) in subsection (a), by striking ``Scholarship and
Excellence in National Environmental Policy'' and inserting
``and Stewart L. Udall''.
SEC. 8. EXPENDITURES AND AUDIT OF TRUST FUND.
Section 9(a) of the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall
Foundation Act (20 U.S.C. 5607(a)) is amended by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``, including a
reasonable amount for official reception and representation
expenses, as determined by the Board, not to exceed $5,000
for a fiscal year''.
SEC. 9. USE OF INSTITUTE BY FEDERAL AGENCY OR OTHER ENTITY.
Section 11 of the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall
Foundation Act (20 U.S.C. 5607b) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(f) Agency Management or Control.--Use of the Foundation
or Institute to provide independent and impartial assessment,
mediation, or other dispute or conflict resolution under this
section shall not be considered to be the establishment or
use of an advisory committee within the meaning of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).''.
SEC. 10. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
Section 12(a) of the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall
Foundation Act (20 U.S.C. 5608(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1)(A) appoint such personnel as may be necessary to
carry out the provisions of this Act, without regard to the
provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing
appointments in the competitive service; and
``(B) fix the compensation of the personnel appointed under
subparagraph (A) at a rate not to exceed the maximum rate for
employees in grade GS-15 of the General Schedule under
section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, except that up
to 4 employees (in addition to the Executive Director under
section 5(f)(2)) may be paid at a rate determined by the
Board in accordance with section 5383 of that title.'';
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(3) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) to rent office space in the District of Columbia or
its environs; and''.
____________________
APPOINTMENTS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair announces, on behalf of
the President pro tempore, pursuant to P.L. 110-315, the appointment of
the following to be members of the National Advisory Committee on
Institutional Quality and Integrity: Daniel Klaich of Nevada, Cameron
Staples of Connecticut, and Larry Vanderhoef of California.
____________________
ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2009
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate
completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow,
October 21; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of
proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired,
the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the
day, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for 2
hours, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with
the time divided and controlled between the two leaders or their
designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the
majority controlling the final half; that following morning business,
the Senate proceed to executive session as provided for under the
previous order.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senators should expect two rollcall votes
tomorrow at around 2 p.m. The first vote will be on the confirmation of
Roberto Lange to be a U.S. district judge for the District of South
Dakota. We anticipate setting up a second vote which would be on the
motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1776, the
Medicare Physicians Fairness Act.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the
previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 7:38 p.m., adjourned until
Wednesday, October 21, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the Senate:
IN THE ARMY
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be general
LT. GEN. KEITH B. ALEXANDER
IN THE NAVY
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be vice admiral
REAR ADM. JOHN T. BLAKE
[[Page 25160]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The House met at 12:30 p.m. and was called to order by the Speaker.
____________________
MORNING-HOUR DEBATE
The SPEAKER. 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.
____________________
ENERGY LEGISLATION: THE SENATE MUST JOIN THE HOUSE IN ACTING SWIFTLY
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Connolly) for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, despite rabid partisanship,
this House of Representatives has successfully pursued a productive
legislative agenda this year. Among many important bills, such as the
expansion of children's health insurance and passage of economic
recovery legislation, we passed the American Clean Energy and Security
Act just this past June.
This bill would reduce greenhouse gas pollution, create market
incentives for investment in clean energy jobs, invest in green job
training for workers, create incentives for farmers to sequester
carbon, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and protect trade-
sensitive industries from highly polluting foreign competition.
According to prominent economists, it would spur investments in
technology that would further stimulate the economy right now.
Since we passed this bill, a growing number of businesses such as
Apple Computer, Exelon, Pacific Gas and Electric, Johnson & Johnson,
Timberland, Nike, Dominion Virginia Power and so many others from
diverse sectors of the economy have called on the United States Senate
to act. Many of these businesses believe climate change legislation is
so important to address for American business that they actually have
withdrawn their membership or suspended their membership from various
committees in the United States Chamber of Commerce to protest its
policy of opposition to this legislation.
Now that the House has passed this bill, the Senate too must act
quickly to pass it so that the United States can take its rightful
place as a leading voice in the effort to reduce greenhouse gas
pollution.
Despite widespread business support for the bill, some partisan
interest groups vigorously opposed its passage, and I applaud my
colleagues, especially those from the other side of the aisle who had
the courage to support it, for overcoming the shrill dissent of
powerful special interests. Because those same interest groups are
preparing a campaign blitz focused on the U.S. Senate, it is an apt
time to recall the discredited arguments that they will employ once
again when attempting to defeat this bill.
For example, the Republican leadership claims this bill will cost the
American family $3,100 per year. Not true. The Republican leadership
cited an MIT study when first releasing that cost estimate. In
response, the MIT professor who wrote the study wrote the minority
leader here in the House pointing out that his figure vastly
overestimated costs by 1,000 percent.
Moreover, the Republicans ignore a central feature of the bill to
protect consumers. The American Clean Energy and Security Act
distributes carbon allowances to the companies or cooperatives from
which Americans buy electricity. And by law, the bill says that they
have to use those allowances to protect consumers from any price
increases.
Our Republican colleagues also ignore the impact new efficiencies
will have on electric bills. The House Energy bill will improve
building codes by 30 percent, establish new efficiency standards for
appliances and invest billions of dollars in home weatherization and
efficiency programs. As a result, consumers will see a reduction in
their electric bills as they consume less electricity. According to the
nonpartisan American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, those
savings will average $750 per household when the bill is fully
implemented.
Another common refrain from the opposition is that a cap-and-trade
system is new, complicated and unworkable. As my colleagues will
recall, it was a cap-and-trade system that allowed us to successfully
stop the expansion of the ozone hole by reducing CFC pollution, and we
cut acid rain and smog pollution by reducing emissions from coal-fired
power plants with a cap-and-trade program in the 1990s. At the time,
those same voices claiming that this would kill the economy said the
same thing. And yet in the 1990s, we saw some of the most rapid
expansion of economic growth in U.S. history.
Madam Speaker, scientists are observing more rapid climate change
than their models anticipated. We do not have the luxury of inaction or
delay. Moreover, the welfare of our economy demands that America lead
in the clean energy revolution. We cannot allow China, Spain and other
nations to profit from the construction of wind turbines, solar,
advanced batteries and the like while Americans lose their jobs. Now is
the time for the U.S. Senate to join us here in the House in passing a
vibrant, clean energy bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, jump-
start our economy and lessen our reliance on foreign oil.
____________________
THE AIG BONUS DEBACLE: THE HEADACHES KEEP COMING
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Edwards of Maryland). The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for 5 minutes.
Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, the Special Inspector General for the
Troubled Asset Relief Program, Neil Barofsky, recently released an
alarming audit which revealed Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner's
complete lack of oversight and total mismanagement of American
International Group's (AIG) distribution of millions in bonus payments
following the company's $180 billion taxpayer bailout.
Just think about this: U.S. taxpayers own 80 percent of AIG, and AIG
is using taxpayer money to pay themselves huge bonuses. Let's examine
Mr. Geithner's role as Secretary of the Treasury and his role with AIG.
Mr. Geithner, as we will recall, was President of the Federal Reserve
of New York prior to becoming Secretary of the Treasury in January of
this year. Interestingly enough, on September 29, 2008, during Mr.
Geithner's time as president, AIG officials briefed a senior vice
president at the New York Fed about the details of AIG's deferred
compensation plan, bonuses, and retention payments for its Financial
Products group. AIG even e-mailed the New York Fed official copies of
its compensation plans. Mr. Geithner was president of the New York Fed
at the time the bank knew about the bonuses, and yet he maintains that
he was ``not apprised of the specifics.''
Please, Mr. Secretary, just admit you knew about the bonuses and you
were just trying to protect your friends on Wall Street at taxpayers'
expense.
Now let's fast forward to March of this year. Mr. Geithner is now
Secretary of the Treasury, and the news breaks to the American people
about AIG--the company that is ``too big to
[[Page 25161]]
fail,'' and in need of $180 billion in taxpayer bailout--would be
distributing $165 million in retention payments to employees of its
financial products subsidiary. Now, this unit, I will remind everybody,
of course, is the same entity responsible for writing the credit
default swap policies that contributed directly to the company's near
collapse. Yet again, we have Secretary Geithner claiming that he only
found out about the AIG bonuses on March 10, 2009, just 3 days before
they were paid.
Please, Mr. Secretary, if a company is in bankruptcy, you don't give
out bonuses.
Given that sources at the Federal Reserve have stated that ``Treasury
staff was informed that the March 15 bonus payment date was upcoming,''
surely Mr. Secretary, as head of the U.S. Department of the Treasury,
you must have known about the payments. It is even harder to believe in
light of the Special Inspector General's report which notes ``Federal
Reserve Board of New York officials e-mailed the Treasury's internal
counsel, legal counsel, the amounts and timing of the AIG financial
products retention award'' plan.
So even his legal counsel knew about it.
Madam Speaker, everybody at the Federal Reserve knew about the AIG
bonus issue, and officials at the Treasury surely knew. Yet somehow,
the head of our Treasury Department and former head of the New York Fed
at the time of the AIG bailout, said he was completely in the dark.
Please, Mr. Secretary, just admit you knew all the about the bonuses.
Mr. Barofsky's audit concludes that ``This, coupled with Treasury's
subsequent limited communications with the Federal Reserve Board of New
York with respect to executive compensation, has meant that the
Secretary of the Treasury invested $40 billion of taxpayers' funds in
AIG, designed AIG's contractual executive compensation restrictions and
helped manage the government's majority stake in AIG for several
months, all without having any detailed information about the scope of
AIG's very substantial, and very controversial, executive compensation
obligations.''
Please, Mr. Secretary.
It should also be noted that former Secretary Paulson was also
complicit in the AIG bonus mismanagement. It was under Mr. Paulson's
watch, after all, that the government acquired this huge stake in AIG
in the first place. And it was Mr. Paulson's decision to bail out AIG,
which happened to owe billions to Goldman Sachs, while subsequently
letting Goldman Sachs' main competitor, Lehman Brothers, fail.
The American people were rightly outraged when they found out that
AIG would be paying out millions in bonuses despite needing a $180
million taxpayer bailout. But it doesn't stop there. The audit also
revealed that even kitchen assistants and elevator operators got
bonuses over $7,000. So clearly, not all of the AIG bonuses were
contractually obligated as the company's executives claim. The
headaches just keep coming.
This is what happens when high-ranking government officials such as
Mr. Paulson and Mr. Geithner have clear conflicts of interest and are
trusted to manage billions in taxpayers' money. Mr. Paulson and Mr.
Geithner's close ties to Wall Street are just too close for comfort for
the American people and their tax dollars.
____________________
{time} 1245
CONDEMNING ILLEGAL LOGGING
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The irreplaceable role of healthy forests as havens for biodiversity,
carbon sinks and renewable resources demands that we reverse a global
legacy of environmental pillaging. Illegal logging and resource
extraction is not just about environmental decimation, with watershed
pollution, biodiversity loss and increased carbon emissions, it's about
the human loss as well: the local communities left with a culture of
violence and corruption devastated without resources for survival, and
beyond, to everybody on the planet.
We all benefit from the medicines, carbon capture and species
diversity these forests provide. For years, I've worked to eliminate
the illegal logging trade. To make sure the United States can lead by
example and stop our own use of illegally logged lumber, I authored the
Legal Timber Protection Act whose provisions were signed into law last
year. The U.S. Government is now empowered to determine where imported
wood and plants actually come from to promote legal harvest. Yet the
illegal trade continues.
Last Thursday, with Chairmen Payne and Faleomavaega, I introduced a
resolution to condemn the illegal logging and extraction of
Madagascar's unique and invaluable natural resources. Madagascar hosts
some of this planet's greatest diversity. Larger than the State of
California, this island nation broke off from the African mainland
about 160 million years ago, spawning a biological laboratory with over
150,000 plants and animals found nowhere else in the world: massive
moths, towering trees, and a hundred different lemur species. The
majority of Madagascar's people live on less than $2 a day, and
protection of these incredible and unique resources, only 10 percent of
which remain, could be key to a sustainable and economically secure
future. Yet political turmoil is putting the honest livelihoods of
many, as well as one of our planet's greatest treasures, in extreme
peril.
In March, the democratically elected President was ousted by a
political rival with the backing of the military, a move which has been
condemned by the United States, the African Union and others as a
military coup d'etat. That ushered in a collapse of security for these
precious treasures as political instability bred further corruption and
mismanagement. Twenty years of partnership with the United States and
nongovernmental organizations that has resulted in more effective local
management and preservation is being undone in a matter of months. The
de facto government uses the nation's endangered resources to boost its
regime and has issued sweeping decrees allowing the harvest and export
of wood from protected forests and World Heritage Sites.
Reports from Madagascar are dire, detailing rampant illegal logging,
mining, and resource degradation as detailed in an excellent report in
last Friday's Washington Post. Traffickers smuggle record numbers of
one of the world's rarest tortoises to Asian and European collectors;
poachers kill and roast scores of lemurs for restaurants; and armed
loggers brazenly plunder protected forests, looting dwindling hardwoods
for furniture. These activities not only deny locals access to basic
resources, they also degrade the country's thriving eco-tourism
industry which brought in almost $400 million last year.
The United States has condemned this current government and suspended
all nonhumanitarian aid and terminated assistance through a Millennium
Development Corporation compact. The World Wildlife Fund, Conservation
International and the Wildlife Conservation Society have all denounced
the subsequent wholesale exploitation of some of the world's most
diverse forests and the decimation of the local people's resources and
livelihood.
As the World Forestry Congress convenes this week, we have an
excellent opportunity to raise awareness to stop rampant illegal
logging and the harvesting of species. I am pleased that the United
States Forest Service chief specifically referenced our resolution, H.
Res. 839, during his address to the Forestry Congress as an example of
United States commitment. The international community, all of us, must
engage before it's too late for these protected species and do all we
can to prevent the irreparable harm caused by illegal logging.
This resolution condemns the ongoing tragedy and calls for the
restoration of the rule of law and shows that
[[Page 25162]]
the Federal Government will fight to help the people of Madagascar
protect these resources.
I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring House Resolution
839 so that the House can do its part to stop this outrage.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until 2 p.m. today.
Accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 51 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess until 2 p.m.
____________________
{time} 1400
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Salazar) at 2 p.m.
____________________
PRAYER
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
Together let us thank God for another day of life. Lord, we are truly
gifted with another opportunity to praise and thank You for our many
blessings. By our being truly present to others today by our work in
public service on behalf of others, Lord, may we lift up their spirits
and provide some hope to those most in need.
Open our eyes, Lord, to see Your wonders that surround us. May a
faith vision shape our priority of issues demanding our attention and
may honest responsibility reveal just how much ability we have to
respond to all Your people and the common good of the Nation.
Open our hearts, Lord, that we may trust the wisdom shared and the
faith witnessed when we truly listen to one another. May each of us
draw closer to one another and so strengthen the union of these United
States and give You the glory both now and forever.
Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Adler) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. ADLER of New Jersey 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.
____________________
GUN CONTROL
(Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court said last year that
the Second Amendment means what it says: ``The right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' There is nothing vague
about that personal right. Never mind, Chicago still has a gun ban law.
So the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case where those who believe in
liberty are challenging the Chicago antigun law. Gun Grabbers pass a
gun ban claiming it reduces crime, but crime actually goes up in
banishment areas. So this is not about crime.
The antigun lobby steals individual freedom under the false pretext
of providing security by government. In reality, these people want more
government intrusion into our personal lives. Obliteration of the
Second Amendment is one of the most intrusive methods they use. Gun
control is really government control.
The Second Amendment was, among other things, originally designed to
protect people against tyranny. Thomas Jefferson said, ``Those who
hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.''
The right to bear arms should apply even in Chicago, whether the
paranoid gun control crowd likes it or not.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
DEMOCRATS' HEALTH CARE PLAN WILL KILL JOBS
(Mr. BOEHNER asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, having run a small business, I know what
it's like to meet a payroll and offer health care benefits to my
employees. I know what it's like to create jobs for families struggling
to make ends meet. I also understand the consequences for small
businesses when Washington imposes higher taxes, new government
mandates, and more red tape.
Americans know that small businesses are the engine of job creation
in their communities; government is not. And more than ever before,
small businesses need solutions from Washington that help create jobs
and provide quality, affordable health care for their employees.
Republicans have been offering those solutions all year long:
solutions like allowing small business to join together to get health
insurance at lower rates--the same way that large businesses and labor
unions do today; promoting wellness and expanded health savings
accounts to provide additional flexibility to small businesses; and
ending junk lawsuits to lower health care costs for small businesses
and all Americans.
Under the Democrats' costly government-run plan, however, health care
costs are going to go up and countless small business jobs will be
destroyed as a result. At the heart of the Democrats' plan is a massive
tax increase which will fall most heavily on entrepreneurs that run
small businesses. It also includes the harsh mandate that requires
employers to provide health insurance or face a steep tax.
It will kill jobs, plain and simple.
____________________
HONORING THE SERVICE OF LANCE CORPORAL ALFONSO OCHOA, JR.
(Mr. COSTA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the service of Lance
Corporal Alfonso Ochoa, Jr., who was recently killed by a roadside bomb
in Afghanistan.
A native of Armona, California, Alfonso joined the Marine Corps only
after graduating early from Hanford High School. His enthusiasm to his
country and his commitments were apparent to all who knew him. It is my
hope that Alfonso's strength, valor, and pride in our Nation will serve
as an example for all of us.
My thoughts are with his father and mother, as well as his wife, whom
he just married 6 months ago, and go out on behalf of all Americans.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to mention that two other
servicemembers from the Central Valley recently sustained serious
injuries overseas, and I wish them and their families comfort and
strength during these difficult times and a speedy recovery.
Staff Sergeant Christian Hughes and Senior Airman Phillip Newlyn,
both of Fresno, California, are at Walter Reed Medical Center; and I
ask my colleagues to join me in honoring these soldiers, their courage,
and their service to their country and wish them a smooth and speedy
recovery.
____________________
THANK YOU, COMMANDER CARNEY
(Mr. KIRK asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I want to praise one of my colleagues from the
other side of the aisle, my shipmate in the Navy, Congressman Chris
Carney.
Chris is a commander in the Navy and just completed 2 weeks of active
duty. He served as a combat mission operations commander for the
Predator and Reaper Hunter/Killer UAVs, as well as the Global Hawk.
[[Page 25163]]
Commander Carney was the first sailor to be certified as a mission
commander, now with the call sign of ``Big House.'' Over the past
couple of weeks, his unit flew dozens of missions over Afghanistan and
Iraq providing our troops with intel and reconnaissance. They also took
out Taliban terrorists with Hellfire missiles and helped with the
search and rescue of Americans.
If you see Commander Congressman Chris Carney back at work today,
thank him for his service to our Nation in uniform as one of our
citizen-sailors.
____________________
WHITE HOUSE ATTACKS FOX NEWS FOR TELLING TRUTH
(Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, with unemployment at a 26-year high,
a record budget deficit, and a looming health care bill that punishes
taxpayers and bankrupts the government, what is the White House doing?
They are attacking Fox News for telling the truth.
The White House spokesman says that Fox News ``is not a news
organization.'' We need to fact-check the White House on whatever they
say about Fox and any legislation since they are not being straight
with the American people.
Separate studies by the Pew Research Center and the Center for Media
and Public Affairs found that Fox News coverage is more balanced than
any other network. The White House has no problem with other national
news outlets because they offer biased reports and give the
administration a free pass. In fact, network news programs have favored
proponents of the administration's health care proposal over critics of
the plan by a margin of more than 2-1, according to the Business and
Media Institute.
The White House, like the national media, should let the American
people make up their own minds, not try to control what they hear.
____________________
HEALTH CARE'S IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESS
(Mr. SMITH of Nebraska asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, for generations, America's small
businesses have been the engines driving our economy, and they remain
one of our brightest hopes for economic recovery.
These entrepreneurs represent more than 99 percent of all businesses
in the country and create more than 72 percent of the new jobs. Yet,
under the guise of health care reform, Congress is set to punish these
innovators by leveling more than $200 billion in new taxes. Those are
taxes. The result of these new taxes will be the loss of an estimated
5.5 million jobs.
Our economy is in a precarious situation, the Federal deficit stands
at $1.42 trillion, and 263,000 jobs were lost in September alone. Why
would we want to push a government takeover of health care inflicting
further harm on small businesses--the very strength of our economy?
____________________
WHAT HAPPENED TO AUGUST
(Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California asked and was given permission
to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, there has been a
lot of discussion over Fox News, but last night I watched ABC News as
they talked about the new poll put out by ABC and The Washington Post.
And I scratched my head as I listened to them talk about the fact the
American people now support a public option. The American people are
rallying to the side of ObamaCare. And I wondered how much out of step
with America would my constituents be, could all of these people who
showed up at these town hall meetings be; and then I had a chance to
look at the questions.
You ought to examine those questions. I mean, they put the public
option in a box and tied a red ribbon around it. I might have even
voted for it. And if you look at the difference in the responses of
those questions as we had through this entire year, it shows there
hasn't been that much of a change.
Now, I guess ABC News has joined the White House and the Democratic
leadership in having us ignore August. What happened to August, Mr.
Speaker? The American people spoke, and yet the leaders in this body
and the White House pretended it didn't happen.
We cannot ignore the American people despite what ABC and The
Washington Post may try to tell us.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 19, 2009.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
The Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in
Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, I have the honor to transmit a sealed
envelope received from the White House on Friday, October 16,
2009 at 2:18 p.m., and said to contain a message from the
President whereby he makes a determination and certification
of Haiti's compliance with HOPE II requirements under PL 110-
246.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Lorraine C. Miller,
Clerk of the House.
____________________
HAITIAN HEMISPHERIC OPPORTUNITY THROUGH PARTNERSHIP ENCOURAGEMENT ACT
OF 2008--MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO.
111-69)
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following message
from the President of the United States; which was read and referred to
the Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed:
To the Congress of the United States:
The Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement
Act of 2008 (HOPE II) (the ``Act'') (Public Law 110-246), amended the
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) to make certain
additional products from Haiti eligible for preferential tariff
treatment. Under HOPE II, these imports from Haiti will continue to be
eligible for preferential treatment after October 18, 2009, if I
determine and certify that Haiti has met certain eligibility criteria
set out in the Act.
Since enactment of HOPE II, Haiti has issued a decree establishing an
independent labor ombudsman's office, and the President of Haiti has
selected a labor ombudsman following consultation with unions and
industry representatives. In addition, Haiti, in cooperation with the
International Labor Organization, has established a Technical
Assistance Improvement and Compliance Needs Assessment and Remediation
(TAICNAR) Program. Haiti has also implemented an electronic visa system
that acts as a registry of Haitian producers of articles eligible for
duty-free treatment and has made participation in the TAICNAR Program a
condition of using this visa system.
In light of these actions and in accordance with section 213A of
CBERA, as amended, I have determined and hereby certify that Haiti: (i)
has implemented the requirements set forth in sections 213A(e)(2) and
(e)(3); and (ii) is requiring producers of articles for which duty-free
treatment may be requested under section 213A(b) to participate in the
TAICNAR Program and has developed a system to ensure participation in
such program by such producers, including by developing and maintaining
a registry of producers.
Barack Obama.
The White House, October 16, 2009.
[[Page 25164]]
____________________
{time} 1415
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 19, 2009.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
The Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in
Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, I have the honor to transmit a sealed
envelope received from the White House on Friday, October 16,
2009 at 2:18 p.m., and said to contain a message from the
President whereby he submits a copy of a notice filed earlier
with the Federal Register continuing the emergency with
respect to significant narcotics traffickers centered in
Colombia first declared in Executive Order 12978 of October
21, 1995.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Lorraine C. Miller,
Clerk of the House.
____________________
CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO SIGNIFICANT
NARCOTICS TRAFFICKERS CENTERED IN COLOMBIA--MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 111-70)
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 Foreign
Affairs and ordered to be printed:
To the Congress of the United States:
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d),
provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless,
prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President
publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a
notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the
anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the
Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the
emergency declared with respect to significant narcotics traffickers
centered in Colombia is to continue in effect beyond October 21, 2009.
The circumstances that led to the declaration on October 21, 1995, of
a national emergency have not been resolved. The actions of significant
narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia continue to pose an unusual
and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and
economy of the United States and to cause an extreme level of violence,
corruption, and harm in the United States and abroad. For these
reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to maintain economic
pressure on significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia by
blocking their property and interests in property that are in the
United States or within the possession or control of United States
persons and by depriving them of access to the U.S. market and
financial system.
Barack Obama.
The White House, October 16, 2009.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would like to make an announcement
regarding decorum in the Chamber.
The Chair must remind all Members that under clause 5 of rule XVII
and the resolution adopted by the House on July 17, 1979, as
implemented by Speakers under clause 2 of rule I, the standard of dress
on the floor of the House is proper business attire: for gentlemen,
coat and tie. The donning of a lab coat or other attire in the nature
of a distinctive uniform of another occupation is not proper.
The Chair expects the cooperation of all Members in upholding this
standard of decorum.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair
will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules
on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which
the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule XX.
Record votes on postponed questions will be taken after 6:30 p.m.
today.
____________________
FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT AMENDMENT
Mr. ADLER of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 3763) to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to
provide for an exclusion from Red Flag Guidelines for certain
businesses.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3763
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXCLUSION FOR CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESSES.
(a) In General.--Section 615(e) of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681m(e)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraphs:
``(4) Exclusion for certain businesses.--For purposes of
this subsection, the term `creditor' shall not include--
``(A) a health care practice with 20 or fewer employees;
``(B) an accounting practice with 20 or fewer employees;
``(C) a legal practice with 20 or fewer employees; or
``(D) any other business, if the Commission determines,
following an application for exclusion by such business, that
such business--
``(i) knows all of its customers or clients individually;
``(ii) only performs services in or around the residences
of its customers; or
``(iii) has not experienced incidents of identity theft and
identity theft is rare for businesses of that type.
``(5) Limitation on exclusion for businesses no-longer
eligible.--To the extent that a business can no longer
demonstrate that it meets the criteria under paragraph (4)
that permitted its exclusion from the term `creditor', such
exclusion shall no longer apply.
``(6) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
``(A) Employee.--With respect to a business, the term
`employee' means any individual who works for such business
and is paid either wages or a salary.
``(B) Health care practice.--
``(i) In general.--The term `health care practice' means a
business that's primary service is providing health care via
health care professionals employed by the business.
``(ii) Health care professional.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the term `health care professional' means
an individual engaged in providing health care and licensed
under State law, including physicians, dentists, podiatrists,
chiropractors, physical therapists, occupational therapists,
marriage and family therapists, optometrists, speech
therapists, language therapists, hearing therapists, and
veterinarians.''.
(b) Process for Exclusion Applications.--Not later than 180
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal
Trade Commission shall issue regulations, in accordance with
section 553 of title 5, United States Code, that set forth
the process by which a business may apply for an exclusion
under section 615(e)(4)(D) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Adler) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
General Leave
Mr. ADLER of New Jersey. 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
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. ADLER of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as
I may consume.
First, I want to thank Representatives Michael Simpson from Idaho,
Paul Broun from Georgia, particularly Chris Lee from New York, as well
as Dan Maffei from New York for helping me draft this bipartisan bill
to help protect small businesses from overreaching Federal regulations
during these tough economic times. In addition, I would like to thank
Jon
[[Page 25165]]
Leibowitz, chairman of the FTC, for delaying enforcement of the Red
Flag Guidelines until Congress passes this commonsense fix.
American small businesses are struggling. They are often forced to
comply with burdensome regulations that significantly increase their
expenses. I am committed to helping small businesses, because the key
to our economic recovery is tied to their ability to thrive. Today, my
bill will clarify the intention of past legislation so that it isn't
blindly enforced against America's small businesses.
The Federal Trade Commission went too far and went beyond the intent
of Congress by considering non-financial, service-related industries to
be ``creditors'' under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of
2003. Its ruling would force thousands of small businesses to comply
with burdensome, expensive regulations by forcing them to develop and
implement an identity theft program.
My commonsense bill would exempt health care practices, law and
accounting firms from the FTC's Red Flag Guidelines. In addition, it
would create a system where the FTC has some flexibility to waive
implementation of the regulations for other industries.
During these tough economic times, the Federal Government should not
be placing burdensome regulations on small businesses. Small businesses
are the backbone of New Jersey's economy, and they shouldn't be
included under a random definition interpreted by a Federal
bureaucracy. Failure to pass this bill today will hurt America and the
hardworking, innovative entrepreneurs that manage and operate small
businesses across this great country.
Again, I applaud the bipartisan way we crafted this legislation and
urge the rest of my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3763, which will
exempt small businesses from cumbersome government regulations
regarding identity theft, and I appreciate the leadership of my friend
from New Jersey.
There is no question that identity theft is a serious problem in this
country. Millions of Americans every year have their credit affected by
identity thieves, prompting previous Congresses to enact measures to
increase awareness and education about the issue. These actions have
played a significant role in decreasing the number of Americans
impacted by identity theft each and every year. Additionally, a policy
change enacted in 2003 required large financial institutions and
creditors to develop and implement identity theft programs to increase
consumer protections.
Unfortunately, however, the Federal Trade Commission, the government
body responsible for enforcing these guidelines, has gone too far in
defining the intent of the law and has chosen to apply the guidelines
to all businesses, large and small. While these reporting requirements
are no doubt necessary for large businesses and corporations with
thousands of customers, FTC has issued rules that it will soon begin to
impose, forcing the same regulation requirements for small businesses
as well.
Small businesses know their customers, and they have a more personal
relationship with those they do business with. If not addressed by this
Congress, small businesses will soon be mandated to follow these
excessive requirements that will place an undue burden on them while
not providing any real increase to consumer protections.
Specifically, the bill before us today will exempt accounting, legal
and the health care practices with 20 or fewer employees from the
reporting requirement. Importantly, it also provides FTC with the
option of excluding other small businesses that know all its customers
individually and perform services near where its customers live. By
passing this fix today, Congress can provide the FTC a clear definition
of how Congress intended the policy to be enacted and protect small
businesses and their customers from unnecessary government
intervention.
As a cosponsor of this important legislation, I urge its immediate
adoption.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ADLER of New Jersey. I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. LEE of New York. With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my
good friend from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Chris Lee
from New York, for yielding me some time.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to come before you today to
speak in favor of this bipartisan, commonsense bill which will help so
many of our small businesses in our country. In my opinion, the manner
in which this legislation was crafted, with input from both sides of
the aisle, with the FTC and with the various sectors that would be
adversely affected if we had not acted, is the model for how this House
can work to actually solve the problems facing our country.
I wish very ardently that we could get together, Republicans and
Democrats alike, and find some commonsense solutions to the health care
financing in this country the same way that my friend, Mr. Adler, and
the rest of the Democratic colleagues and those of us on our side came
together on this. And I think that's the way that this House ought to
operate.
I congratulate Mr. Adler for what he has done and other colleagues on
both sides for bringing forth this commonsense legislation. I would
personally like to thank my colleagues, Mr. Adler and Dr. Simpson, for
their tireless efforts as we worked to put this very effective,
commonsense legislation together. I also want to thank the committee
staff that helped in this process.
This legislation is a very specific exemption without which it would
cost so many small businesses thousands of dollars to unnecessarily
implement. But it also allows the FTC the ability to exempt other
businesses that aren't one of the three industries outlined in this
bill. And that just makes sense, also.
When enacted, H.R. 3763 will truly reflect the original intent of the
FACT Act and codify an exemption for health care providers, accounting
firms and law firms that were never meant to be wrapped in this
overarching Red Flag legislation.
So, again, I would like to thank Mr. Adler, Mr. Lee and Dr. Simpson
and each and every person who helped bring this legislation to
fruition. This is the way we ought to operate. And I think it is just a
great day for this Congress as we, as Democrats and Republicans, came
together on this commonsense legislation.
Mr. ADLER of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. LEE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, so I will close by encouraging my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to support this much-needed legislation that will ensure that
small businesses are not encumbered with more burdensome Federal
regulation and ensure that we can get this economy back and moving
forward.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ADLER of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for
time. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Before I close, I would like to reiterate the importance of this
bill. Many of America's economic problems are not the fault of small
businesses, but they have borne the brunt of the economic downturn. My
legislation, Mr. Lee's legislation, Mr. Broun's legislation, Mr.
Simpson's and Mr. Maffei's, a bipartisan piece of legislation, will
prevent one more layer of Federal regulations that would add another
cost on the backs of small businesses across America.
Again, I urge all Members of Congress to support this bill. I thank
Mr. Broun for his comments about the bipartisan nature of this bill.
This is my and Mr. Lee's second bill together. I hope it's the second
of many to try to serve the process of this House and to serve the
people of our great country.
[[Page 25166]]
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support to H.R.
3763, to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to provide for an
exclusion from Red Flag Guidelines for certain businesses. This bill is
a bipartisan, common-sense approach to protecting our nation's small
businesses from needless, burdensome government regulation. This
legislation would exempt certain businesses, including health
providers, from complying with the Red Flags Rule, which requires
financial institutions and creditors to develop and implement a written
identity theft program.
The bill recognizes that many of our nation's small businesses,
particularly health providers, are not financial institutions and
therefore do not present the same level of risk as financial
institutions in cases of identity theft. In fact, many of these medical
and dental offices were considered creditors under the rule simply
because of the fact that they are willing to work with patients on
developing flexible payment plans for those patients that can't afford
to pay at the time of service. Thus, this rule actually appeared to
discourage efforts to improve access to care for people who can't
afford to pay, which runs contrary to all of Congress's efforts, on
both sides of the aisle, to improve our health system.
When Congress expressed those concerns to the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC), they delayed the implementation of the rule twice, in
April and again in August, as they worked with providers and other
small businesses in an effort to minimize the burdens of compliance and
address their concerns with the program. I would like to recognize and
thank the FTC for their efforts. However, as this bill demonstrates,
Congress believes that entities such as health providers, accountants
and others were never meant to be included in the definition of
creditor. This legislation is an appropriate next step to better
defining who is a creditor and protecting our small businesses from
needless costs and regulations.
I would like to thank Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bacchus for
working with us to craft a balanced bill to address all parties'
concerns. In addition, I would like to thank Congressman Adler and
Congressman Broun--I have greatly enjoyed working with you on this
legislation. In addition, I would like to thank the FTC for their
willingness to work with us to address the concerns of medical
providers and small businesses alike. They have been a true partner in
this process, and I would like to recognize their efforts to address
our concerns with this rule.
Mr. Speaker, during these difficult economic times, it is more
important than ever that government push forward legislation to promote
small businesses in America. In addition, we should be working with
America's dentists and doctors to promote policies that improve access
to care instead of burdening them with unnecessary rules and compliance
measures. This legislation does exactly that.
Mr. ADLER of New Jersey. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Adler) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 3763.
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. ADLER of New Jersey. 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} 1430
ARMY SPECIALIST JEREMIAH PAUL McCLEERY POST OFFICE BUILDING
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 3319) to designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 440 South Gulling Street in Portola, California, as
the ``Army Specialist Jeremiah Paul McCleery Post Office Building''.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3319
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ARMY SPECIALIST JEREMIAH PAUL MCCLEERY POST OFFICE
BUILDING.
(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 440 South Gulling Street in Portola,
California, shall be known and designated as the ``Army
Specialist Jeremiah Paul McCleery Post Office Building''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``Army Specialist Jeremiah Paul McCleery
Post Office Building''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
McClintock) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
General Leave
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I now yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the House subcommittee with jurisdiction
over the United States Postal Service, I am very proud this afternoon
to present H.R. 3319 for consideration. This measure, if passed, will
designate the postal facility located at 440 South Gulling Street in
Portola, California, as the ``Army Specialist Jeremiah Paul McCleery
Post Office Building.''
Introduced by my colleague and friend Representative Tom McClintock
of California on June 23, 2009, and favorably reported out of the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee on September 10, 2009, by
unanimous consent, H.R. 3319 enjoys the support of the entire
California House delegation.
A native of Portola, California, Army Specialist Jeremiah McCleery
proudly served in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom with the United
States Army's 1st Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat
Team, 1st Calvary Division out of Fort Hood, Texas. Regrettably,
Specialist McCleery and his friend and fellow Californian, Army
Specialist Jake Velloza, died on May 2 from wounds sustained after
those two soldiers were shot by enemy forces in Mosul, Iraq. Specialist
McCleery was just 24 years old at the time of his death.
Specialist McCleery's heroic commitment to the United States military
began at the age of 4 after his father, Joe McCleery, took his young
son to Twentynine Palms, California, to watch the homecoming of a unit
of United States Marines returning from the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The
opportunity to witness the triumphant return of those brave American
soldiers prompted Specialist McCleery's lifelong desire to serve his
country.
Even as a young boy, Specialist McCleery was passionate about
becoming a member of America's military. As a child, he spent hours in
his backyard playing the role of soldier, and soon enough he joined the
Boy Scouts of America and subsequently the Civil Air Patrol.
While he intended to enlist in the United States Army following his
graduation from Portola High School in 2004, Specialist McCleery
delayed his enlistment after his beloved mother, Mrs. Collette
McCleery, was diagnosed with cancer during his senior year. Specialist
McCleery decided to stay with his family during his mother's battle
with cancer, and only went on with his life's desire of enlisting in
the military after his mother passed away in 2005. So, in addition to
his dedication to the United States Army, Specialist McCleery will be
equally remembered for his steadfast devotion to his family, especially
his father, Joe, and his sister, Chastity.
Specialist McCleery enjoyed the outdoors, and specifically loved
hunting, riding four-wheelers, and sport shooting with his friends, but
without a doubt his favorite outdoor pastime was always fishing with
his dad. Although he is no longer with us, Specialist McCleery's memory
will live on with his friends and family and all those who were
fortunate enough to know this great young American.
Mr. Speaker, Army Specialist Jeremiah McCleery's life stands as a
shining example of the bravery and dedication of the heroic men and
women who
[[Page 25167]]
serve our great Nation at home and abroad. I urge all my colleagues to
join me in honoring this fine American soldier by designating the
postal facility at 440 South Gulling Street in Portola, California, in
his memory.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his tribute to
Army Specialist Jeremiah Paul McCleery and to urge support of H.R. 3319
that names the United States Post Office in Portola in his memory. Miah
McCleery grew up in that town, and to that town he returned as a fallen
hero at the age of 24.
Let me tell you a little bit more about him. His best friend was his
father, Joe. A high school friend, Josh Rogers, was asked when Jeremiah
was the happiest. Josh replied, He was happiest whenever he was doing
anything with his dad.
As my friend from Massachusetts said, when Jeremiah was 4 years old,
his dad took him out to see the returning American soldiers from the
first Gulf War; as Shakespeare said, ``This story shall the good man
teach his son.'' It was from that moment in 1991 that Jeremiah wanted,
more than anything, to serve his country.
Joe and Collette moved their family to the little town of Portola in
1996, where they built their home themselves as a family. It was in
Portola where Miah McCleery grew up.
If you want a sense of the character of this young man, just spend a
few minutes with those who knew him. His older sister, Lynette
Flanagan, tells of how Miah would take on much older boys at school--
not in his own defense, but in the defense of others. She said, ``He
once got sent to the principal's office for getting into a fight. When
my mother arrived at school, Jeremiah was not sorry for his actions. He
explained with pride that he had stood up to a bully who had slapped a
little girl. Jeremiah was never afraid to stand up for what he believed
in, even if that would get him into trouble. It didn't matter if the
bully was twice his size, he wouldn't back down.''
Jeremiah was a Boy Scout, he joined the Civil Air Patrol, and he
planned to enlist in the Army as soon as he graduated from Portola High
School in 2004, but that year his mother, Collette, was diagnosed with
cancer and he stayed there with his family until she died. In 2007, he
finally enlisted. When his sister, Chastity, begged him not to go, he
said that he felt that by going into the military he was protecting his
family.
By all accounts, he was an exemplary soldier who commanded the
friendship and respect of his colleagues. While at Fort Hood, he became
close friends with another Californian, Jake Velloza, and they shipped
out to Iraq together. Before that, he had fallen in love with Amanda
Harazin while stationed at Fort Hood. Amanda is known as ``A-J'' to her
friends, but Jeremiah called her the ``love of his life.'' They were to
have been married on May 30, but on May 2, outside of Mosul, Iraq, at a
combat outpost in Hammam Alil, American soldiers were attacked by two
gunmen wearing Iraqi police uniforms. Two U.S. soldiers--Jeremiah
McCleery and his best friend, Jake Velloza--were killed in that attack
and three others were wounded. So on May 14, the day before he was
supposed to return to a happy homecoming and an impending marriage,
Jeremiah McCleery returned to his hometown to be buried beside his
mother in Portola.
The local paper described his return with these words, which speak
volumes about the community which helped to mold this American hero.
They reported, ``Across the Sierra Valley people lined the highway,
some with their hands over their hearts as a mark of respect. In
Portola, streets were lined with flag-waving citizens. Shopowners left
their stores to join in, temporarily suspending business as usual.''
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to share a little of what I have learned about
Jeremiah McCleery because it helps to answer the question that James
Michener first asked, ``Where do we get such men?'' Well, we get them
from the heart and soul of America. We get them from good and decent
families like the McCleerys. We get them from little towns like
Portola, California.
Over the summer, I had the honor to visit the men and women who guard
the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery. The
painstaking care and the meticulous precision with which these young
men and women discharge their duties in withering heat and in freezing
cold 24 hours a day, 365 days a year is legendary. I asked them why
they did it, and one of them told me, ``We do it to tell our country
that we will never forget.''
For that reason, I bring this bill to the House today with the
unanimous support of the Portola City Council, the entire California
congressional delegation, and the entire community that watched
Jeremiah McCleery grow from a boy to a man and, ultimately, to return
as a hero. We ask that the Congress name the local post office in honor
of Army Specialist Jeremiah Paul McCleery to tell our countrymen that
we will never forget, and also to express our awe and our gratitude
that humanity has, within itself, a small band of brothers like
Jeremiah McCleery who step forward not for treasure or profit or even
to defend their own freedom, but, rather, to win the freedom of a
people half a world away. And they do it because their country asks
them to and because it is virtuous and noble.
We owe these men and their grieving families a debt that we can never
repay, except to honor their memory and to keep their sacrifice always
in mind, those who gave up everything to proclaim liberty throughout
all the land and unto all the inhabitants thereof.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, again, I encourage our friends on both sides
of the aisle to join with Mr. McClintock in honoring Army Specialist
Jeremiah McCleery through the passage of H.R. 3319.
Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my heartfelt support
for H.R. 3319 which will designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 440 South Gulling Street in Portola,
California, as the ``Army Specialist Jeremiah Paul McCleery Post Office
Building.''
Jeremiah McCleery was born in Glendora, California, to parents
Colette and Joe McCleery on April 5, 1985. Jeremiah grew up in a very
close family and was well known for telling jokes and seeing the humor
in life. He enjoyed the outdoors and spent a great deal of time
fishing, camping, working on his truck, and sport shooting.
Jeremiah wanted to join the Army since he was 4 years old when his
father took him to watch the triumphant return of U.S. soldiers from
the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The outpouring that greeted American forces
during that homecoming made a lasting impression on the young Jeremiah
and set him on a path to serve his country. Since that day, he was a
Boy Scout and joined the Civil Air Patrol. Later Jeremiah enlisted in
the Army on June 2007. Jeremiah was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 12th
Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division at Ft.
Hood, Texas, and was deployed to Iraq. Tragically, on May 2, 2009,
Jeremiah was shot and killed at a combat outpost in Hammam Alil, Iraq,
north of Baghdad. Spc. Jeremiah McCleery gave his life while defending
his country in Iraq.
My family and I extended our heartfelt sympathy and condolences to
Jeremiah's father who lives in Sparks, Nevada, who has suffered this
deep loss. We are committed to providing full support for their needs.
I also remain dedicated to fulfilling all of America's promises to
those who faithfully serve our nation and to their families. Therefore,
I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 3319, which will honor
Specialist Jeremiah Paul McCleery for his sacrifice.
Mr. LYNCH. 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 Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3319.
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. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
[[Page 25168]]
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.
____________________
EXTENSION OF COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION LIABILITY REGIME
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 3819) to extend the commercial space transportation
liability regime.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3819
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION LIABILITY REGIME
EXTENSION.
Section 70113(f) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009.'' and inserting
``December 31, 2012.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
General Leave
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3819, the bill now
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong support of H.R. 3819, a
bill to extend the current commercial space transportation liability
regime.
First established by Congress as part of the Commercial Space Launch
Act Amendments of 1988, the commercial space transportation risk-
sharing liability and insurance regime has been extended four times
since its original enactment. The current extension expires on December
31 of this year, and it is therefore important for Congress to act now
so that there is sufficient time for this legislation to make its way
to the President before the current authority expires.
The liability and insurance regime that would be extended by this
legislation is three-tiered and was originally modeled on the Price-
Anderson Act that governs liability risk-sharing under the nuclear
power industry. Under the regime, commercial space launch providers
licensed by the U.S. Government are required to provide third-party
liability insurance to compensate for maximum probable losses from
third-party claims up to a level of $500 million. For claims above
those maximum probable losses, the U.S. Government may pay successful
liability claims up to $1.5 billion in 1989 dollars above the insurance
level, subject to funds being appropriated by Congress for that
purpose.
{time} 1445
Finally, for successful claims above those amounts, the licensee
assumes responsibility for payment.
To date, not a single dollar has had to be appropriated by the U.S.
Government to pay third-party claims, but the existence of the
liability risk-sharing regime has enabled the development and
sustainment of a commercial space launch industry in the U.S.,
including the emergence of several new companies in recent years.
In addition, the regime has allowed U.S. companies to remain
competitive with their international counterparts, almost all of whose
governments provide similar or more generous risk-sharing liability
regimes to that of the U.S.
I should note that, in the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of
2004, we directed that there be an independent review of the current
risk-sharing regime to see whether or not it was working and whether it
needed to be continued or passed, and that review was completed in
2006. I think a number of the review's findings bear mentioning; and,
therefore, I will quote a couple of those.
First of all: ``Private liability insurance capacity remains fragile
and far below what would be needed to compensate for government
indemnification if it were eliminated.''
Secondly: ``Foreign competition has increased, and all credible
international competitors have risk-sharing schemes rivaling or
surpassing that of the U.S.''
Finally: ``The current regime has become the industry standard. Its
elimination could send the wrong signal to international customers and
competitors and would be a negative factor in the competition for
global launch business.''
In sum, the commercial space transportation liability and insurance
regime has worked. It has not cost the American taxpayers a single
dollar in claims payments to date. It has strengthened U.S.
competitiveness in commercial space launch, and it is not a blank
check, since any potential claims payments must be subject to prior
congressional appropriation. The bill before us today extends the
liability risk-sharing regime for a period of 3 years.
As Members may know, there currently is debate on the potential role
to be played by would-be commercial providers of crew transportation to
the international space station. At present, no such commercial crew
transportation systems exist. Before a meaningful decision can be made
on the potential role of commercially provided crew transportation in
meeting governmental needs, important policy and safety issues will
have to be addressed.
The most optimistic projections of the would-be commercial providers
are that it will be at least 3 years before such crew transportation
systems could be developed, and many independent observers argue it
will be longer than that. Therefore, the duration of the extension
contained in this bill is limited so as not to prejudge the outcome of
the deliberations on those policy and safety issues or to take a
position on the role to be played by commercial crew transportation
systems.
So, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank Ranking Member
Ralph Hall, Space and Aeronautics Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords, and
subcommittee Ranking Member Pete Olson for cosponsoring this important
legislation. I want to extend my thanks to Dick Obermann, who is the
staff director for our subcommittee, and his very good team.
This is a good bipartisan bill, and I urge Members to support it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EHLERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3819, extending the
current commercial space transportation liability regime through the
end of 2012.
The economic competitiveness of the U.S. commercial launch industry
is vital to our national interests. Domestic commercial launch services
are an integral part of our Nation's infrastructure and high-technology
economy. Commercial launch services are used to launch a variety of
U.S. civil and national security payloads, including communications,
weather, remote sensing, GPS, and other systems. We can scarcely
imagine a society today which does not need to have those particular
devices available.
The current commercial space launch indemnification regime has been
in place since 1988 and has been renewed four times. It has helped
protect U.S. commercial launch providers against catastrophic third-
party liability when conducting FAA-licensed launch activities. Since
its inception, there has never been a loss that would trigger this
regime, and Congress has never had to appropriate any funds.
By ensuring adequate liability coverage, this system has strengthened
U.S. competitiveness in a global space launch market, and it has
enabled private-sector investment to develop new entries into the
market. In other words, this regime has worked well by not being used.
It has cost nothing, and
[[Page 25169]]
it has given our space enterprises a big boost.
Over the last 20 years, competition from foreign launch providers,
including China, France, India, and Russia, has grown significantly. At
the same time, the overall number of launch opportunities has
decreased. The commercial space transportation liability regime enables
U.S. launch providers to operate without ``betting the company'' with
every launch. In a competitive market with narrow returns, this has
been a vital link in strengthening this vital industry.
I join with the Chair of the Science Committee in urging my
colleagues to support the U.S. commercial launch industry and to vote
for H.R. 3819.
I have no other speakers, so I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today in
support of House Resolution 3819 ``to extend the commercial space
transportation liability regime.'' Extending this liability regime will
ensure that commercial launches can continue to take place.
This indemnification regime has been in place since 1988 and has been
renewed four times. It is an important element in maintaining the
economic competitiveness of the domestic U.S. commercial launch
services industry. The regime helps protect against catastrophic third-
party liability claims when conducting Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)-licensed launch activities.
We are aware of the importance of the technological advances and
services provided to the citizens of our nation as a result of the
commercial launch industry--many of these services we all utilize on a
daily basis. Allowing for these types of technologies to grow, prosper,
and become more efficient and effective is an initiative that we want
to continue. Ensuring progress in the commercial space industry by
extending the current insurance indemnification regime will directly
improve those initiatives.
As the Member of Congress representing Texas' 18th Congressional
District in Houston, near NASA's Johnson Space Center, laws related to
space programs and the commercial space industry are near and dear to
me and my constituents. Laws relating to commercial space
transportation provide tools to further the goals that were outlined in
the Augustine Commission to chart our next steps into space. This
industry provides jobs and keeps U.S.-based companies and technologies
competitive in a global market. It is extremely important that we
support the furtherance of this industry and the technological services
it provides.
With soaring deficits facing our states and the looming costs of
health care reform and energy reform before the nation, tough choices
have been made. Surely, some argue that we cannot afford to gamble
further money in space based initiatives.
Yet others, like me and my constituents realize the benefits of
ensuring the continuance of the commercial launch industry, which we
see as an investment, not a gamble. In the past, such investments paved
the way for new innovations in agriculture, architecture, media
technology, and even health care. The pace maker is just one of the
many life saving technologies that have resulted from that same small
step. This mastery of ``rocket science'' is what placed our nation in
the driver's seat of technology and economics.
We must also not forget that America's leadership in space plays an
important role in our nation's national security. We have already seen
the preeminent role that space based technology plays in modern warfare
and intelligence gathering.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. 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 Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 3819.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL CHEMISTRY WEEK
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution (H. Res. 793) supporting the goals and ideals
of National Chemistry Week.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 793
Whereas chemistry is a vitally important field of science
and technology that has transformed the world and improved
the quality of life around the globe;
Whereas the chemical sciences have created an
infrastructure that delivers the foods, fuels, medicines, and
materials that are the hallmarks of modern life;
Whereas the contributions of chemical scientists and
engineers are central to technological progress and to the
health of many industries, including the chemical,
pharmaceutical, electronics, agricultural, automotive, and
aerospace industries, and these contributions boost economic
growth, create new jobs, and improve health and standards of
living;
Whereas, in order to foster the innovation that will ensure
the Nation's global competitiveness, schools must cultivate
the finest scientists, engineers, and technicians from every
background and neighborhood, with a particular focus on
increasing access to science, technology, engineering, and
math education for Latinos, African-Americans, women, and
other underrepresented students in these fields;
Whereas National Chemistry Week was established in 1987 by
the American Chemical Society, the world's largest scientific
society, to enhance public appreciation of the chemical
sciences and to educate the public, particularly school-age
children, about the important role of chemistry in everyday
life;
Whereas 2009 marks the 140th anniversary of Dmitri
Mendeleev's creation of the Periodic Table of the Elements;
Whereas the theme of National Chemistry Week in 2009,
``Chemistry--It's Elemental'', was chosen to raise public
awareness about the importance of chemistry and the chemical
sciences by emphasizing that the elements, forming the basis
of the universe, play an integral role in daily life;
Whereas many common elements, such as copper in electrical
wires, neon in lights, sodium in table salt, and aluminum in
soda cans, are tangibly present in everyday life;
Whereas more than 10,000 volunteers from industry,
government, and academia will observe National Chemistry Week
during the week of October 18, 2009, by conducting hands-on
science activities with millions of children in local
schools, libraries, and museums; and
Whereas National Chemistry Week volunteers will help
provide resources to science educators across the country,
promote community events for recycling common elemental items
such as aluminum cans, encourage students to explore creative
representations of the elements in the Periodic Table, and
generally act as ``chemistry ambassadors'' who emphasize the
importance and contributions of chemistry to daily life: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes that the contributions of chemical
scientists and engineers have created new jobs, boosted
economic growth, and improved the Nation's health and
standard of living;
(2) supports the goals and ideals of National Chemistry
Week; and
(3) encourages the people of the United States to observe
National Chemistry Week with appropriate recognition,
activities, and programs to demonstrate the importance of
chemistry to everyday life.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
General Leave
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Res. 793, the
resolution now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 793, a
resolution recognizing the importance of chemistry and honoring
National Chemistry Week.
I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) for
introducing this resolution.
The importance of chemistry and chemical engineering in our lives
cannot be overstated. These disciplines contribute to public health by
helping to keep our water clean and our food pure. They contribute to
advances in medicine through new biomaterials, drug design and drug
delivery techniques. They help make cleaner and
[[Page 25170]]
more efficient energy technologies possible, and they help keep toxins
out of our homes and out of our natural environment through the
development of green chemicals and materials.
In short, chemistry and chemical engineering contribute in
immeasurable ways to the economic strength, security, and well-being of
our Nation and all its citizens. For this reason, it is important to
get young people excited about chemistry and interested in pursuing
careers in chemistry and in the sciences in general. National Chemistry
Week plays a great role in this effort.
National Chemistry Week activities are carried out by local sections
of the American Chemical Society located in all parts of our Nation. It
is estimated that over 10,000 volunteers from industry, government, and
academia will participate in National Chemistry Week activities this
year.
They will be working to design hands-on activities, to provide
demonstrations and to develop exhibits. Through these activities, they
will help stimulate the interest of young people in chemistry and in
pursuing careers in science and technology.
So, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the American Chemical Society for its
efforts to establish and to sustain National Chemistry Week.
Once again, I thank Mr. Reyes and his cosponsors for introducing this
resolution, and I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the
importance of chemistry in our daily lives and the positive impact of
National Chemistry Week by supporting H. Res. 793.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EHLERS. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 793, supporting the goals
and ideals of National Chemistry Week.
This year marks the 21st anniversary of National Chemistry Week. It
is a concept that was first introduced in 1987 by the American Chemical
Society, the world's largest scientific society and one of the premier
scientific societies in our Nation. Over the past 20 years, this annual
event has proven to be a great success, and it will continue this week
with various events, celebrating the impact chemistry has made on our
society from the very beginning.
Designed to reach out to the public, especially elementary and
secondary schoolchildren, the National Chemistry Week program will
emphasize the importance of chemistry in everyday life with this year's
theme, ``Chemistry--It's Elemental,'' which will celebrate the Periodic
Table of Elements. Created 140 years ago this year by Dmitri Mendeleev,
the Periodic Table of Elements articulates the very basis of the
universe, and it consists of common elements used in our everyday lives
as well as some fairly exotic elements which are rarely used in our
everyday lives.
Activities for the week will highlight the history of elements, the
roles elements play in everyday life, the common and not-so-common uses
of elements, and the history of the periodic table. This week is a
wonderful opportunity for the public to engage in various events
designed to increase the knowledge and awareness of chemistry's
everyday effects.
More than 10,000 volunteers from local areas, businesses and schools
will unite this week to educate millions of children across the
country. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution, and I urge my
colleagues to join me in honoring all those who are volunteering their
time and who are promoting these various activities through National
Chemistry Week.
I would just like to add a few personal observations of things that
I've encountered during my lifetime as a scientist. I'm a physicist,
not a chemist; but I have learned some chemistry. I remember speaking
to a group about environmental issues sometime back, and a lady came up
to me afterwards, and was very concerned--actually, I would say
distressed.
She said, I'm terribly concerned about all these chemicals today and
what's happening to us and what it's doing to us and our bodies.
I said, Well, that's certainly something to be concerned about. Do
you have any chemicals specifically that you're worried about?
She said, No, no. All of them.
So I asked her if she liked to eat oranges. She said, Oh, yes, I love
oranges.
I said, In spite of the fact that they're filled with chemicals?
She said she didn't know they were filled with chemicals.
I said, Well, yes, things like vitamin C and lots of other foods and
chemicals that are very useful to your body.
The point that I made to her is that the question is not so much the
chemicals; it's which chemicals. We have to recognize which are bad
chemicals for individuals to ingest or to breathe and which ones are
very good for us and are, in fact, very healthy. That's the point of
what the Chemical Society is trying to develop here, that chemistry is
an integral part of life. It is not bad in and of itself. In fact, it
can be good in and of itself, but we should be aware as legislators and
as scientists of the many great things that we have developed using
chemistry which have improved living for people in this Nation and in
other nations throughout the world.
So let's all join in this particular effort. Let's recognize the
tremendous strides we have taken forward thanks to chemistry and, for
that matter, physics and other sciences. Let's recognize that these
are, by and large, good for the people and good for the Nation. Let's
all join in this great event which recognizes what the American
Chemical Society and chemists in general have done for the past few
years.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Chairman Bart Gordon from Tennessee, for
yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Res. 793, a resolution
recognizing the week of October 18 as National Chemistry Week.
I want to thank Congressman Silvestre Reyes, co-Chair of the
Diversity and Innovation Caucus, for sponsoring this resolution.
The American Chemical Society, the world's largest scientific
society, established National Chemistry Week in 1987 to help educate
the public, particularly school-aged children, about the important role
of the chemical sciences and their significant contributions to our
quality of life.
{time} 1500
This year, more than 10,000 National Chemistry Week volunteers, from
both the public and private sectors, will help educate millions of
children about the practical applications of chemistry by engaging them
through stimulating hands-on science activities in local schools, in
libraries and museums around the whole country.
During this year's observance of National Chemistry Week, students
and chemistry professionals will celebrate the theme ``Chemistry--It's
Elemental.'' This theme recognizes the 140th anniversary of Dmitri
Mendeleev's creation of the periodic table of the elements. The
elements are the basis of the universe and of life on Earth, composing
the graphite in pencils, the tungsten in light bulbs and in neon
lights, the copper for cooling applications and the sodium in table
salt, almost everything we encounter in our day-to-day activities.
The promotion of STEM education and the advancement of minorities in
the STEM areas have become increasingly important in my congressional
district and across the Nation.
Mr. Speaker, just last month, the University of Texas-Pan American in
Edinburg, Texas, held its eighth annual Hispanic Engineering Science
and Technology Conference to promote the importance of science literacy
to thousands of students, parents and teachers. It was a big success.
HESTEC was created to address the shortage of scientists and
engineers in our country. This year, the event drew more than 400,000
participants in deep south Texas. Since its inception in 2002, the
university has created an exceptional pipeline of Hispanic scientists
and engineers.
[[Page 25171]]
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong
Learning, and Competitiveness, I am proud to say that in the past 2
years, Congress has expanded educational opportunities in STEM
education, particularly for women and minority students, and authorized
programs to recruit highly qualified teachers to high-need school
districts in the STEM areas with the passage of the College Cost
Reduction and Access Act in 2007, as well as the passage of the Higher
Education Opportunity Act in 2008.
This legislation made historic investments in higher education to
strengthen STEM education and create a new generation of minority
workers in STEM fields. As you know, the House passed H.R. 3221, the
Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, last month to increase
affordability and accessibility in higher education.
If the House-passed bill is signed into law, this legislation will
provide $2.5 billion over a 10-year period to strengthen minority-
serving institutions in STEM areas and ensure that the students they
serve graduate and become the engineers and scientists our country
desperately needs.
National Chemistry Week highlights the importance of chemistry and
the natural sciences to our students. It's critical that our schools
continue to cultivate exceptional scientists, engineers and technicians
from every background to help strengthen our Nation's competitiveness
and to promote scientific discovery and innovation in the 21st century.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Griffith). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. HINOJOSA. I want to thank Chairman Reyes from El Paso for
introducing this resolution, H. Res. 793, and I thank Chairman Gordon
for bringing it to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, National Chemistry Week is critically important in
promoting STEM issues in our schools and in preparing our students to
pursue careers in STEM. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all I want to commend the previous speaker, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa). We work together on the Education Committee,
and I have always admired his deep interest in science and his desire
to make science available to and comprehensible to everyone in this
Nation, including those who have not had the opportunity to study it in
elementary or high school.
I commend him for his deep interest. Whenever I have needed help on
this issue of science and science education, Mr. Hinojosa has jumped
into the fray with me, so I want to take a minute to commend him on
that.
I also want to commend the Chair of the Science Committee, who has
also been very helpful in these efforts. As most Members know, I was a
professor for many years, a professor of physics. I taught every course
at the college level, from the simplest to the most complicated. I have
never lost my love for teaching, and particularly my effort to improve
science education in the elementary and secondary schools.
Mr. Hinojosa pointed out that if we do not produce a generation of
scientists out of those students who are currently in elementary and
secondary school, our Nation in the future will suffer because of that.
On the next topic which will be coming to the floor, I will say more
about that.
It's absolutely essential that we recognize how important it is for
our students to learn these subjects. Parents must realize that. I
always tell the students, if you really want to make certain you have a
job after you get out of college, study science. You may end up in
medicine, as the Speaker pro tempore has, or you may end up in other
fields. But it's quite likely you are not going to get as good a job if
you don't bother to learn science. This is just the nature of the world
today.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 793, a
resolution I introduced to recognize the week of October 18th as
National Chemistry Week.
The American Chemical Society, the world's largest scientific
society, established National Chemistry Week in 1987 to educate the
public, particularly school age children, about the important role of
the chemical sciences and their significant contributions to our
quality of life.
This year, more than 10,000 National Chemistry Week volunteers from
both the public and private sectors will help educate millions of
children about the practical applications of chemistry by engaging them
through stimulating hands-on science activities in local schools,
libraries, and museums around the country.
During this year's observance of National Chemistry Week, students
and chemistry professionals will celebrate the theme ``Chemistry--It's
Elemental!'' This theme was chosen to emphasize the 140th anniversary
of Dmitri Mendeleev's creation of the Periodic Table of the Elements.
The elements are the basis of the universe and of life on Earth,
composing graphite in pencils; tungsten in light bulbs and neon lights;
copper for cooling applications; and sodium in table salt--almost
everything we encounter in our day-to-day activities.
Local El Paso college students are doing their part to promote
chemistry in our community by coordinating the Chemistry Circus.
Sponsored by the Department of Chemistry at the University of Texas at
El Paso and performed by the American Chemical Society Student
Affiliates, the Chemistry Circus incorporates short vignettes that
explore many fundamental concepts of chemical science. The performances
are presented throughout the school year to K-12 audiences--and
adults--emphasizing Texas science academic standards.
The promotion of student advancement and success in the STEM fields
is one of my highest priorities. In 2008, I founded the Diversity and
Innovation Caucus with five of my colleagues in the House of
Representatives in order to generate policy ideas for increasing the
participation of underrepresented groups in the fields of Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, articulate the importance of
pro-STEM and pro-innovation policies for underrepresented groups in
STEM fields, and communicate the importance of promoting diversity in
STEM for the achievement of America's innovation and competitiveness
goals.
Over the past year, I am proud to say that the caucus has produced
key legislative initiatives that promote the recruitment of highly-
qualified teachers to high-need school districts, the development of
laboratory facilities at less privileged schools, and the recruitment
of minority students to the STEM fields through the reauthorization of
the Higher Education Act.
Emphasizing the importance of chemistry and the natural sciences to
our students is essential to ensure that our schools continue to
cultivate the finest scientists, engineers, and technicians from every
background. Educating our children about the importance of chemistry
and the natural sciences will help strengthen our nation's economic
competitiveness and foster American ingenuity and innovation in the
years ahead.
Mr. Speaker, National Chemistry Week is a vital component in the
effort to promote STEM issues in our schools. I therefore urge my
colleagues to support this effort through the passage of this
resolution.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
support of House Resolution 793 to support the goals and ideals of
National Chemistry Week.
This year, National Chemistry Week takes place on October 18-24 and
is a community-based annual event that unites local sections of the
American Chemical Society, schools, businesses, and individuals to
communicate the importance of chemistry in our daily life. This year
marks the 22nd Anniversary of National Chemistry Week, and events and
demonstrations will take place across the country to engage students of
all ages. This year's theme, ``Chemistry--It's Elemental,'' emphasizes
the important role of elements in everyday life and celebrates the
140th anniversary of Dmitri Mendeleev's creation of the Periodic Table
of Elements.
I have been a strong supporter of the Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields and have long encouraged
students and teachers to hold STEM education in higher regard. It is
well documented that science and math skills are becoming increasingly
important to the U.S. workforce, and with the creation of a new,
competitive, and complex global economy, we must ensure that we are
educating the next generation of STEM professionals. Innovation is a
product of a sound knowledge in math, science, and engineering, and
without this understanding, our ability to be innovative will
[[Page 25172]]
decrease along with our ability to be competitive.
For this reason, I believe it is incredibly important to recognize
the goals of National Chemistry Week to increase our understanding, and
our students' understanding, of the chemical sciences. I applaud the
American Chemistry Society's efforts in this regard and encourage my
colleagues to join me in supporting House Resolution 793 for our
students and the future of our economy.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 793,
supporting the goals and ideals of National Chemistry Week. I commend
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Reyes, for his continued support of this
important celebration of chemistry.
This year marks the 22nd anniversary of National Chemistry Week,
which is sponsored by the American Chemical Society. The event features
outreach programs created by schools and businesses to educate
communities and schoolchildren on the importance of chemistry in their
everyday lives. The theme of this year's National Chemistry Week is
``Chemistry--It's Elemental,'' which emphasizes the role that elements
play in every aspect of our lives, from the air we breath to the cars
we drive to the food we eat.
I applaud the ACS for their commitment to chemistry education at the
elementary and secondary level. To maintain our nation's role as a
leader in innovation in an increasingly globalized world, our young
people will need to excel in the fields of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. Training a new generation of chemists
will also be essential for solving the world's most pressing issues,
from fighting global warming to discovering vaccines for emerging
diseases. This is why I am pleased that this year's event includes a
national chemistry competition, the distribution of 10,000 Merck
Indexes to science educators, and a website with biographies of
chemists and online activities to inspire students to choose a career
path in chemistry.
As important as this resolution is though, we need to do more in
Congress right now to improve STEM education. A recent National
Assessment of Education Progress showed that, for the first time since
1980, 4th graders made no progress in math performance between 2007 and
2009. Study after study highlights the need to strengthen math and
science education so that our nation's students do not continue to lag
behind others in developing the skills critical for global
competitiveness.
Again, I commend Mr. Reyes and the ACS for their commitment to
promoting a greater understanding of chemistry, and I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this important resolution.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.
Res 793, ``Supporting the goals and ideals of National Chemistry
Week.'' I support this resolution because success in science is of the
utmost importance for the future of our youth and our nation.
In order to keep America as a leader in science we need to focus on
the success of our youth by emphasizing achievement in all academic
endeavors. Letting our students fall behind those of the rest of the
world is a mistake we cannot afford.
Chemistry is a field of science and technology that has transformed
the world and will vastly improve the quality of life around the globe.
Chemical sciences create an infrastructure that delivers the foods,
fuels, medicines, and materials that are the hallmark of modern life.
Chemical scientists and engineers are essential to technological
progress and to the health of many industries, including the chemical,
pharmaceutical, electronics, agricultural, automotive, and aerospace
industries. The contributions of chemists boost economic growth, create
new jobs, and improve health and standards of living. My home district,
Texas' 18th District and other parts of Houston are the hub for many of
these industries, namely NASA, the Medical Center, and the Port of
Houston.
In order to foster the innovation that America needs to ensure global
competitiveness, our schools must cultivate the finest scientists,
engineers, and technicians from every background and neighborhood. We
must strive to focus on increasing access to science, technology,
engineering, and math education for Latinos, African-Americans, women,
and other underrepresented students in these fields.
National Chemistry Week was established in 1987 by the American
Chemical Society, the world's largest scientific society, to enhance
the publics' appreciation of the chemical sciences and also to educate
the public. 2009 also marks the 140th anniversary of Dmitri Mendeleev's
creation of the Periodic Table of the Elements, one of the greatest
achievements in scientific history. The theme of National Chemistry
Week this year is, ``Chemistry--It's Elemental'', which was chosen to
raise public awareness about the importance of chemistry and the
chemical sciences by emphasizing that the elements, forming the basis
of the universe, play an integral role in daily life. There are many
common elements, such as copper in electrical wires, neon in lights,
sodium in table salt, and aluminum in soda cans, that are tangibly
present in everyday life.
This year, it is anticipated that more than 10,000 volunteers from
industry, government, and academia will observe National Chemistry Week
during the week of October 18, 2009, by conducting hands-on science
activities with millions of children in local schools, libraries, and
museums. National Chemistry Week encourages volunteers to provide
resources to science educators across the country, promote community
events for recycling common elemental items such as aluminum cans,
encourage students to explore creative representations of the elements
in the Periodic Table, and generally act as ``chemistry ambassadors''
who emphasize the importance and contributions of chemistry to daily
life.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me thank Dr.
Ehlers for bringing both his real-world experience to the Science
Committee, as well as his passion for the work that we do there. He
makes us a better committee.
I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 793.
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 COMPUTER SCIENCE AND COMPUTING CAREERS AMONG THE PUBLIC AND
IN SCHOOLS
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution (H. Res. 558) supporting the increased
understanding of, and interest in, computer science and computing
careers among the public and in schools, and to ensure an ample and
diverse future technology workforce through the designation of National
Computer Science Education Week, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 558
Whereas computing technology has become an integral part of
culture and is transforming how people interact with each
other and the world around them;
Whereas computer science is transforming industry, creating
new fields of commerce, driving innovation in all fields of
science, and bolstering productivity in established economic
sectors;
Whereas the field of computer science underpins the
information technology sector of our economy, which is a
significant contributor to United States economic output;
Whereas the information technology sector is uniquely
positioned to help with economic recovery through the
research and development of new innovations;
Whereas National Computer Science Education Week can inform
students, teachers, parents, and the general public about the
crucial role that computer science plays in transforming our
society and how computer science enables innovation in all
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines
and creates economic opportunities;
Whereas providing students the chance to participate in
high-quality computer science activities, including through
science scholarships, exposes them to the rich opportunities
the field offers and provides critical thinking skills that
will serve them throughout their lives;
Whereas all students deserve a thorough preparation in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education,
including access to the qualified teachers, technology, and
age-appropriate curriculum needed to learn computer science
at the elementary and secondary levels of education;
Whereas these subjects provide the critical foundation to
master the skills demanded by our 21st century workforce;
Whereas computer science education has challenges to
address, including distinguishing computer science from
technology literacy and providing adequate professional
development for computer science teachers;
[[Page 25173]]
Whereas the field of computer science has significant
equity barriers to address, including attracting more
participation by females and underrepresented minorities to
all levels and branches;
Whereas Grace Murray Hopper, one of the first females in
the field of computer science, engineered new programming
languages and pioneered standards for computer systems which
laid the foundation for many advancements in computer
science; and
Whereas the week of December 7, in honor of Grace Hopper's
birthday, is designated as ``National Computer Science
Education Week'': Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) supports the designation of National Computer Science
Education Week;
(2) encourages schools, teachers, researchers,
universities, and policymakers to identify mechanisms for
teachers to receive cutting edge professional development to
provide sustainable learning experiences in computer science
at all educational levels and encourage students to be
exposed to computer science concepts;
(3) encourages opportunities, including through existing
programs, for females and underrepresented minorities in
computer science; and
(4) supports research in computer science to address what
would motivate increased participation in this field.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
General Leave
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Res. 558, the
resolution now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is considering H. Res. 558.
I would like to thank my good friend from Michigan, Dr. Vern Ehlers,
for his leadership on STEM education generally and for his resolution
highlighting computer science education. I would also like to thank the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for his work on the resolution.
Today's world is run by computers. From communications, to finance,
to transportation and national defense, almost every facet of the
modern world is tied to computers.
As we move forward in the 21st century, the country that leads in
innovation in the computing and IT fields will very likely lead in
productivity and economic growth. If we want America to be the leader,
it is vitally important that we train the next generation of IT and
computing professionals to provide this spark to our economy.
This resolution recognizes the importance of computer science
education to our country, and encourages increased efforts and
participation in this field. I want to highlight the attention this
resolution pays to the important issue of increasing the involvement of
women and underrepresented minorities in the computer science field.
If we want to be truly successful in our efforts to maintain an
innovative economy, we need everyone in our country involved in the
effort. This is true across the STEM fields, where the problem of
underrepresentation of certain groups persists.
I want to once again thank Dr. Ehlers and Mr. Polis for introducing
this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 558, supporting
computer science and the designation of National Computer Science
Education Week, and I yield myself so much time as I may consume.
The purpose of this particular resolution is multifold. One, it's to
recognize the importance of computer science and computer science
education. Secondly, it is to recognize that we are falling behind as a
nation in the number of computer scientists that we graduate. I had no
idea of this until last year when I was visited by one of my
constituents. The purpose of this resolution is also to honor that
constituent, as well as Dr. Grace Hopper.
The constituent who took the time to visit me was Professor Joel
Adams. He is the Chair of the Computer Science Department at Calvin
College, a stellar liberal arts college located in my district in Grand
Rapids, Michigan. He pointed out to me something that I was totally
unaware of, even though I thought I kept up with all the problems in
science. He told me he was very concerned about the small number of
computer scientists that we are graduating, and was particularly
concerned about the lack of students entering into computer science,
either taking computer science courses in high school or majoring in
computer sciences in their college or university careers.
Without the students enrolling in this field we are, of course, going
to have a shortage of individuals in the future to develop computer
science theory and practice in the United States of America. Therefore,
I commend Professor Adams for bringing this to my attention. I also
will commend in a few moments Dr. Hopper, who has been very effective
in bringing computer science down to the level of elementary students.
I am very pleased today that we are considering this resolution,
which turns our attention to the issue of computer science education.
As you know, I have spent much time in Congress fighting for research
in education, particularly education in the areas of science,
technology, engineering, mathematics, all of which are collectively
called STEM.
I believe these STEM subjects hold special promise for the future of
our Nation, and that it is very critical that all of our Nation's
students receive a foundation in STEM. This helps develop well-rounded
citizens and also may prepare some students to become the innovators of
tomorrow.
As a former teacher, I always enjoy speaking to students in high
schools, and I always have a little bit of fun with them, too, because
high school students, out of custom, I think, tend not to want to study
too hard and tend not to want to study too much science. Some people
would say those go hand in hand.
But I always remind them of one thing. I ask them a question, first
of all, who is the richest person in the world? Well, they all know
that. Bill Gates.
How did he start out? Computer science.
Is he a nerd? No, he's not a nerd.
I said, Yes, he is. I know him personally, and he is a nerd of the
first order. I say it's very important what courses you take in high
school, because I can tell you one thing. When you get out and start
looking for a job, you either are going to be a nerd or you are going
to work for a nerd. Now which would you rather do?
Of course at that point they say, Well, I guess I'd rather be a nerd.
At any rate, somehow we have to reach the high school students and
make them recognize that these issues are very important to their
future.
{time} 1515
It is very nice to have acronyms to catch these general areas, as we
do in talking about STEM education, but the lines between these
disciplines blur quickly when you step into the classroom and into the
real world. One of the areas where we are facing a really unique
challenge is in computer science.
It is very important that students in K-12 are exposed to computer
science, and we have a shortage of teachers in high schools who are
able to teach it in a meaningful way. Many students do not get a chance
to learn about it in school, and even when they have a chance, they may
not learn it as well as they should. The lack of understanding of
computer science and how it fuels innovation in STEM disciplines
contributes to a lack of interest in computing careers, especially
among women and underrepresented minorities, whose participation rates
in computer science are among the lowest of any scientific field.
[[Page 25174]]
By introducing students to computer science at an early age and
providing them with learning experience in computer science at all
educational levels, we can reverse this trend and expand and diversify
our technology workforce.
Computing technology and the innovation it yields are transforming
our world and are critical to our global competitiveness, particularly
our economic competitiveness. However, we are not preparing an adequate
and diverse workforce to meet the ever-growing demand for the
information technology sector, which includes some of the country's
most innovative and successful companies.
A 2009 Computer Science Teachers Association study shows that even in
schools which employ computer science teachers, only a little more than
half of the schools offer introductory courses in computer science, and
the number of course offerings are declining. Given the enormous
importance of these skills, we need to understand how to attract more
students to these courses early in their education.
To raise awareness about the challenges facing computer science
education, the resolution before us today designates National Computer
Science Education Week. The week of December 7 has been chosen to honor
the birthday of Grace Murray Hopper, one of the first female computer
scientists.
Dr. Hopper is best known for her 1953 invention of the compiler, the
intermediate computer language that translates English language
instructions into computer language. She came up with the compiler, she
said, because she was ``lazy'' and hoped that ``the programmer may
return to being a mathematician.'' Her work on compilers and getting
machines to understand language instructions ultimately resulted in the
COBOL business language.
I can say from personal experience I deeply appreciate the work she
did, because when I first started using computers in 1957, I was
writing programs in assembly language. It is just one step above the
computer language itself. It was laborious, painstaking work to try to
get the computer to understand what I was trying to do. Today, of
course, we program in English or some other language and are able to
accomplish much more as a result.
A mathematician by training, Dr. Hopper taught mathematics, served in
the military, and held a vast variety of positions throughout her life
in both the public and private sector. Her pioneering work,
particularly in computer languages, underpins many of the tools used in
today's digital computing.
I would like to share a quick anecdote about Dr. Hopper, as recounted
by Merry Maisel of the San Diego Supercomputer Center.
``Most of us remember seeing Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper on
television. We recall a charming, tiny white-haired lady in a Navy
uniform with a lot of braid, admonishing a class of young naval
officers to remember their nanoseconds. The `nanoseconds' she handed
out were lengths of wire, cut to not quite 12 inches in length, equal
to the distance traveled by electromagnetic waves along the wire in the
space of a nanosecond--one billionth of a second. In teaching efficient
programming methods, Rear Admiral Hopper wanted to make sure her
students ``would not waste nanoseconds,'' and we are talking about the
nanoseconds of computer operation.
``Occasionally, to make the demonstration even more powerful, she
would bring to class an entire `microsecond,' a coil of wire nearly
1,000 feet long that the rear admiral, herself tough and wiry, would
brandish with a sweeping gesture and a steady wrist.''
Dr. Hopper passed away in 1992. I am glad to honor her legacy with
the designation of National Computer Science Education Week, as I also
honor Professor Adams for calling to my attention the current shortfall
in computer scientists.
This resolution also promotes cutting-edge professional development
for teachers in order to encourage students to be exposed to computer
science concepts and support researching ways to increase participation
in this field. Without professional development, we will not train and
retrain the necessary workforce to provide the education students need
in computer science.
I hope my colleagues will join me today in recognizing the importance
of computer science education and honoring the memory of Grace Murray
Hopper. I would particularly like to thank my distinguished colleague
from Colorado, Mr. Polis, for his early and steadfast support for this
resolution and his work on it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Dr. Ehlers for
standing up for us nerds of America, as he does so well.
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, in today's knowledge-based economy,
technological breakthroughs and innovations are the keys to economic
growth and prosperity. As a former Internet entrepreneur myself, I know
firsthand how computer technology is transforming people's lives
throughout the world and represents a critical strategy for ensuring
our Nation's global competitiveness.
The applications of computing innovations are present in every aspect
of our lives and are fueling major changes in our society, from
communications, to education, to health care, to defense, to how we
interact with each other every day and conduct our transactions.
To maintain America's leadership and ensure that we remain at the
forefront of cutting-edge technology advancements, we need to prepare
and train a highly skilled and diverse workforce that can effectively
meet the needs of the information technology sector, which includes
some of the country's most innovative and successful companies.
In my Second Congressional District alone, we have IBM, Google,
Qualcomm, Sun and Avaya. A forthcoming report by the National Center
for Women & Information Technology, NCWIT, based at the University of
Colorado at Boulder, clearly demonstrates the ever-growing demand.
Computing professions rank among the top 10 fastest-growing
professions. By 2016, there will be more than 1.5 million computer
specialist jobs available. And yet the talent pool shrinks as the
industry is failing to attract and retain an ample and diverse
technology workforce. If current trends continue, the IT industry will
only be able to fill half of its available jobs. By 2016, U.S.
universities will produce only half of the computer science bachelor's
degrees that are needed.
Obviously, this shortage requires a bold vision for, and major
investments in, education. And while such an effort should permeate the
entire spectrum of lifelong learning, the K-12 school system represents
the most important area to provide students with a solid grounding in
computer science and spark their interest in rewarding careers in
information technology.
But, unfortunately, too many students don't get a chance to learn
about computer science in schools today, especially women and
underrepresented minorities, whose participation rates in computer
science are among the lowest in any scientific field.
Consider these facts. High school girls represent only 17 percent of
computer science advanced placement test takers. Only 18 percent of
computer and information science degrees were awarded to women in 2008,
down from 37 percent in 1985. While women comprise almost half of the
workforce, they hold less than a quarter of our Nation's IT-related
professional jobs, down from 36 percent in 1991. Finally, only about 10
percent of the 2005 computer and information science graduates were
African American and 6 percent Latino.
During my six year tenure on the Colorado State Board of Education
and then as a charter school superintendent, I saw how a lack of
understanding of computer science and its critical role in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM disciplines,
contributes to lack of interest in computing careers. For example, in a
recent survey among college
[[Page 25175]]
freshman in the school district I live in, only 1 percent of them
responded that they intend to major in computer science, double our
State average, but still very discouraging.
There is some good news. The good news is we can reverse this trend
and expand and diversify our technology workforce by introducing
students to computer science at an early age and providing them with a
learning experience in computer science at all educational levels.
Through cutting-edge professional development, we can assist teachers
to encourage students to be exposed to computer science concepts.
Through high quality computer science activities, including science
scholarships, we can provide students with the critical thinking skills
that will serve them throughout their lives. And by researching and
implementing the best practices to increase participation in the field,
we can begin to lay the groundwork for preparing and encouraging
diverse students to join the workforce that will launch a new era of
innovation and economic growth.
That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in approving this
bipartisan resolution that raises awareness about these important
issues by supporting the designation of the week of December 7th as the
National Computer Science Education Week, which honors the birthday of
Grace Murray Hopper, one of the first female computer scientists.
As my colleague Mr. Ehlers said, it is better that our students
become nerds than work for them.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I will make some closing comments.
I thank the gentleman from Colorado for his comments. He knows
whereof he speaks. He did a lot of good work in this area before he
came to the Congress. He has been very helpful in the Education
Committee in addressing these issues, and I appreciate that effort.
I think the key is to get children started in computer science at an
early age. They love to deal with computers when they are doing video
games and things of that sort. It is not too much of a leap to get them
thinking about programming the computers, and that is the kind of
knowledge that we need to develop in this Nation if we are going to
remain competitive in the years ahead on the international scene.
So, I am delighted to recognize computer scientists in general, and I
hope we do a better job of producing more and better computer
scientists in this Nation so that we indeed will remain competitive and
continue to lead the world in this particular area.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to once
again thank Dr. Ehlers for his leadership in this area. It has been
very evident by his conversation today of his passion that he brings to
this important subject.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 558, 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. GORDON of Tennessee. 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.
____________________
RAISING AWARENESS AND ENHANCING THE STATE OF CYBER SECURITY IN THE
UNITED STATES
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution (H. Res. 797) expressing the sense of Congress
with respect to raising awareness and enhancing the state of cyber
security in the United States, and supporting the goals and ideals of
the sixth annual National Cyber Security Awareness Month.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 797
Whereas more than 220,000,000 American adults use the
Internet in the United States, 80 percent of whom connect
through broadband connections, to conduct business,
communicate with family and friends, manage finances and pay
bills, access educational opportunities, shop at home,
participate in online entertainment and games, and stay
informed of news and current events;
Whereas nearly all United States small businesses, which
represent more than 99 percent of all United States employers
and employ more than 50 percent of the private workforce,
increasingly rely on the Internet to manage their businesses,
expand their customer reach, and enhance the management of
their supply chain;
Whereas nearly 100 percent of public schools in the United
States have Internet access, with a significant percentage of
instructional rooms connected to the Internet to enhance
children's education by providing access to educational
online content and encouraging self-initiative to discover
research resources;
Whereas approximately 93 percent of all teenagers use the
Internet;
Whereas the number of children who connect to the Internet
at school continues to rise, and teaching children of all
ages to become good cyber-citizens through safe, secure, and
ethical online behaviors and practices is essential to
protect their computer systems and potentially their physical
safety;
Whereas the growth and popularity of social networking
websites has attracted millions of Americans, providing
access to a range of valuable services, but exposing them to
potential threats like cyber bullies, predators, and identity
thieves;
Whereas cyber security is a critical part of the Nation's
overall homeland security;
Whereas the Nation's critical infrastructures and economy
rely on the secure and reliable operation of information
networks to support the Nation's financial services, energy,
telecommunications, transportation, health care, and
emergency response systems;
Whereas cyber attacks have been attempted against the
Nation and the United States economy, and the Department of
Homeland Security's mission includes securing the homeland
against cyber terrorism and other attacks;
Whereas Internet users and critical infrastructure owners
and operators face an increasing threat of criminal activity
and malicious attacks through viruses, worms, Trojans, and
unwanted programs such as spyware, adware, hacking tools, and
password stealers, that are frequent and fast in propagation,
are costly to repair, can cause extensive economic harm, and
can disable entire systems;
Whereas coordination among the Federal Government, State,
local, and tribal governments, and the private sector is
essential to securing America's critical cyber
infrastructure;
Whereas millions of records containing personally
identifiable information have been lost, stolen or breached,
threatening the security and financial well-being of United
States citizens;
Whereas now more than ever before, consumers face
significant financial and personal privacy losses due to
identity theft and fraud;
Whereas national organizations, policymakers, government
agencies, private sector companies, nonprofit institutions,
schools, academic organizations, consumers, and the media
recognize the need to increase awareness of cyber security
and the need for enhanced cyber security in the United
States;
Whereas the Cyberspace Policy Review, published by the
White House in May 2009, recommends that the Federal
Government initiate a national public awareness and education
campaign to promote cyber security;
Whereas the National Cyber Security Alliance's mission is
to increase awareness of cyber security practices and
technologies to home users, students, teachers, and small
businesses through educational activities, online resources
and checklists, and Public Service Announcements; and
Whereas the National Cyber Security Alliance, the Multi-
State Information Sharing and Analysis Center, and the
Department of Homeland Security have designated October as
National Cyber Security Awareness Month to provide an
opportunity to educate United States citizens about cyber
security: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) supports the goals and ideals of National Cyber
Security Awareness Month; and
(2) intends to work with Federal agencies, national
organizations, businesses, and educational institutions to
encourage the development and implementation of existing and
future cyber security consensus standards,
[[Page 25176]]
practices, and technologies in order to enhance the state of
cyber security in the United States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
General Leave
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Res. 797, the
resolution now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 797, a resolution to
applaud the goals and activities of the National Cyber Security
Awareness Month. The Science and Technology Committee has been a leader
in Congress supporting the efforts to promote better security and
cybersecurity, and I am pleased to support this resolution and to help
raise awareness of this critical issue.
Each year, Americans become more and more dependent on technology for
their daily lives. More than 200 million people in this country use the
Internet for shopping, education, socializing, information gathering,
banking and entertainment, and an increasing number of Internet users
are children and seniors.
Unfortunately, with this growth in use, we have also seen a startling
increase in cybersecurity. Bank accounts are now being hacked; children
are being bullied or harassed on social networking sites; and personal
information is being stolen from relatives, retailers, universities,
and even government agencies.
For example, earlier this year, computer systems at the FAA were
hacked, increasing the risk of large-scale commercial air traffic
systems disruption.
Improving cybersecurity will take the effort of all of the key
stakeholders: Federal, State and local governments, academia, business
and individuals.
{time} 1530
We are all part of the user community and we each must do our part,
from updating the Web browsers of our personal computers to improving
the coordination of cybersecurity research investments across the
public and private sectors. We need to change the way we think about
cybersecurity and ensure it is built in from the beginning.
Cybersecurity is a challenge that transcends borders. There are 1.7
trillion Internet users worldwide, which means that we can only advance
cybersecurity through increased international collaboration. That's why
I join my colleagues in applauding the efforts of the National Cyber
Security Alliance, a public-private partnership focused on improving
cybersecurity for home users, small businesses, and education
institutions.
I want to thank my friend from New York (Ms. Clarke) for introducing
this resolution and urge my colleagues to support it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 797 and yield
myself so much time as I may consume.
It seems that nearly every facet of our lives, professional and
personal, relies on computers and the Internet in some fashion--
communication, transportation, shopping, medicine, entertainment, and
the list goes on. It is not an understatement to say that information
technology has become one of the main components of our everyday
American lives, and as such, we are left more and more vulnerable to
cyberattacks, viruses, worms, and identity theft. As our Nation depends
more heavily on this technology, both proactive and reactive
cybersecurity are essential.
In order to raise awareness of the importance of cybersecurity, the
National Cyber Security Alliance has declared the month of October as
Cyber Security Awareness Month. All month long, the NCSA is sponsoring
events and programs to raise awareness of the importance of
cybersecurity.
The National Cyber Security Alliance is the preeminent public-private
partnership, working with the Department of Homeland Security,
corporate sponsors, and nonprofit collaborators to promote
cybersecurity awareness for home users, small and medium size
businesses, and primary and secondary education. We all have a role in
sustaining our cyberinfrastructure, which is essentially this year's
theme, ``Our Shared Responsibility.''
The NCSA offers many tips for individuals and businesses alike to
help protect themselves from cyberattacks. StaySafeOnline.org is a Web
site created by the NCSA to provide education on all of the different
aspects and issues related to cybersecurity. All of the organizations
and agencies involved in National Cyber Security Awareness Month have
put forth a great effort in raising awareness and helping us as
Americans become better, more responsible computer users.
I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 797, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the author
of this resolution, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke), and
congratulate her on an outstanding hearing last Friday on this issue.
Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer H. Res. 797, my
resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Cyber Security
Awareness Month, for a vote today. I would like to thank Chairman Bart
Gordon for giving me the opportunity to share with him and this
committee the virtues of National Cyber Security Awareness Month.
The goal of National Cyber Security Awareness Month is to heighten
awareness of everyday Internet users and to explain that by taking some
simple steps, we can all safeguard ourselves from the latest online
threats and respond to potential cybercrimes against ourselves and our
Nation.
Each year, the National Cybersecurity Division (NCSD) of the
Department of Homeland Security joins with the National Cyber Security
Alliance (NCSA), the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis
Center, and other partners to support National Cyber Security Awareness
Month. I thank DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and Assistant Secretary
Greg Schaffer as well as Will Pelgrin with MS-ISAC and Michael Kaiser
with StaySafeOnline.org for their leadership in promoting National
Cyber Security Awareness Month.
This year, the theme of National Cyber Security Awareness Month is
``Our Shared Responsibility.'' Ultimately, our cyberinfrastructure is
only as strong as its weakest link. In this digital age, we are all
connected. No individual, business, or government entity is solely
responsible for cybersecurity. We all must understand how our
individual online computing practices have a collective impact on our
Nation's cybersecurity. It would be naive to believe, however, that
simple steps by end users alone will sufficiently combat the larger
threats associated with a growing networked society.
As chairwoman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging
Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology, I have held three
hearings this year on our Nation's cybersecurity posture. Cybersecurity
vulnerabilities can and have significantly impacted our national and
economic security. Through the leadership of the Obama administration,
cybersecurity is finally gaining the much-needed attention it deserves,
both in the Federal Government and the private sector. The oversight
that the Homeland Security Committee is undertaking will help to focus
our attention; however, much more work remains to be done.
Last week, I held a roundtable discussion with key cybersecurity
stakeholders in Congress, the administration, and the private sector on
this extremely complex issue. Everyone agreed that end user awareness
and
[[Page 25177]]
education is an extremely critical component to fortifying our national
cybersecurity posture. More and more and with each passing moment, we
are awakening to the vulnerabilities and threats that come from our
interactions on the World Wide Web. Simply put, we must protect
ourselves. That is why this resolution received overwhelming bipartisan
support.
I thank my colleagues, especially Chairman Gordon, for cosponsoring
H. Res. 797, and I look forward to working with him as well as other
committees of cross jurisdiction on this critical issue going forward.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, if the majority has no additional speakers,
then I will proceed to close.
We have had a lot of good discussion here about cybersecurity, but a
word that hasn't popped up as much is cyberwarfare, and that is by far
the most dangerous situation facing our Nation today.
Cybersecurity is indeed a major issue and we need protection from
thieves trying to steal our bank accounts, et cetera. But the real
difficulty we face as a Nation occurs because we are so vulnerable. We
are so advanced technologically, that we are vulnerable to attacks of
all types from many enemies of different backgrounds and different
abilities.
It is a sad commentary today that a powerful, strong nation such as
the United States of America can be the victim of a very small nation
or even a small group of individuals seeking to do us harm using
cyberwarfare. I myself did not realize the extent of this until some
years ago. I was selected as a rapporteur of the NATO Parliamentary
Assembly Science Committee to write a report on cyberwarfare; and it
was simply astounding to learn the risks that we face as a wealthy,
well-established, highly developed nation simply because we make such
great use of cyberknowledge and cybertechniques that we are
automatically very vulnerable in the area of cyberwarfare.
I appreciate the gentlelady from New York bringing this to our
attention. We have a lot of work to do here, not just in the military,
but in many civilian sectors as well. The warning is here. The alarm
has been rung. Let's make sure that, as a nation, we go ahead and
defend ourselves as we should against this very, very highly
technological but very dangerous new activity.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
House Resolution 797, recognizing the goals and ideals of National
Cybersecurity Awareness Month.
The release of the Presidential Cyberspace Policy Review in May was
an important step forward.
However, more work remains to be done to ensure that cybersecurity is
fully integrated into our nation's homeland security efforts.
Our country can't afford 20th century thinking for a 21st century
problem.
I congratulate Ms. Clarke, the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on
Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology, for her
work on cybersecurity, and thank her for authoring this resolution.
The Committee has held ten hearings and undertaken numerous
investigations into cybersecurity issues affecting the Federal
government, the private sector, and critical infrastructure owners and
operators in just the last three years.
Though the Homeland Security Committee is primarily concerned with
cybersecurity on Federal networks and critical infrastructure, we
recognize the important education mission carried out by the National
Cyber Security Alliance and their efforts to reach home users, small
businesses, and students and educators of all ages.
The National Cyber Security Alliance's mission is to increase
awareness of cyber security practices and technologies to these folks
through educational activities, online resources and checklists.
Raising the awareness of this issue in both the public and private
sectors is absolutely vital as our country becomes increasingly
connected.
Cybercrime is a serious business--recent reports suggest that cyber-
crime has become a $105 billion business that now surpasses the value
of the illegal drug trade worldwide.
During the past two years, one in five online consumers has been a
victim of cybercrime.
But companies and consumers continue to underestimate the threat from
phishing, data loss, and other cyber vulnerabilities.
I encourage my colleagues today to support this resolution and join
me and Representative Clarke in our efforts to address this threat to
our economy and homeland security.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Homeland Security
Committee, a member of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cyber
Security, and Science and Technology, and a co-sponsor of this
legislation, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 797, the ``National
Cyber Security Awareness Month Resolution.'' October is National Cyber
Security Awareness Month, and in this digital age when so much of our
country's economic and financial transactions are conducted in
cyberspace over distributed computing networks, there are few higher
priorities than cyber security.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Yvette Clark, the gentle lady from New York and
Chair of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cyber Security, and
Science and Technology, for her leadership and vision in recognizing
the importance of cyber security in our overall national security. I
could not agree more with Congresswoman Clarke that it is not enough to
just acknowledge the importance of this issue. In this digital age, we
must work with federal agencies, national organizations, businesses,
and educational institutions to strengthen existing security measures
and to develop new methods to enhance the cyber security of the United
States.
The tragedy of September 11th shook our national security like no
event before or since. Although our Nation has remained safe and secure
from physical attacks during the eight years since that terrible day,
in this digital age we must remain vigilant against a possible
terrorist attack on our cyber networks.
Such an attack could have devastating and immediate consequences for
our nation and all of our citizens; funds could not be accessed from
ATMs; mail service would be interrupted; the efficient movement of
goods would be severely curtailed; capital markets could be shut down;
and emergency response operations would be deprived of the information
needed to save lives and property.
While this doomsday scenario has been the subject of the silver
screen in recent years (e.g., ``Die Hard or Live Free,'' ``Eagle
Eye''), make no mistake--the danger is very real and we ignore or
minimize it at our peril. Many nations, including Russia, China, and
North Korea, already possess the capability to launch cyber attacks
against unprepared adversaries or competitors. And terrorist groups
like al Qaeda are working round the clock to acquire this capability.
Clearly, the United States must be proactive if we are to secure the
physical and cyber networks of our country.
That is why I am also an original co-sponsor of H.R. 2195, the
``Critical Electric Infrastructure Protection Act.'' Among other
things, this legislation provides the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission the authority to create mandatory physical and cyber
security standards for the electric power system. I look forward to the
day when the Homeland Security Committee reports this legislation
favorably to the House.
But today, I am very proud to stand with Chairwoman Clarke in support
of H. Res. 797, which is a clarion call to action to secure our
nation's cyber networks. I urge all Members to join with me in voting
for this resolution.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
In conclusion, I want to once again thank the gentlewoman from New
York for bringing this important resolution to us. I think that this
will help give our country a better awareness of the concerns we have
about cybersecurity.
Also, as Dr. Ehlers notes, our Science and Technology Committee has
spent quite a bit of time on this issue, being the first to have a
review of the 60-day review. Hopefully, we are going to be seeing in
the next very few days a significant bill coming out of our committee
concerning the necessary research and technology aspect of moving
forward with our research in the cybersecurity area.
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 Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 797.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
[[Page 25178]]
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until approximately 6:30 p.m. today.
Accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 41 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess until approximately 6:30 p.m.
____________________
{time} 1830
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. Halvorson) at 6 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3585, SOLAR
TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP ACT
Mr. PERLMUTTER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 111-304) on the resolution (H. Res. 846) providing
for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3585) to guide and provide for
United States research, development, and demonstration of solar energy
technologies, and for other purposes, which was referred to the House
Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings
will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed.
Votes will be taken in the following order:
H.R. 3763, by the yeas and nays;
H.R. 3319, by the yeas and nays;
H. Res. 558, by the yeas and nays.
Proceedings on House Resolution 797 will resume later in the week.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
____________________
FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT AMENDMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3763, 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 New Jersey (Mr. Adler) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 3763.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 400,
nays 0, not voting 32, as follows:
[Roll No. 790]
YEAS--400
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Bonner
Bono Mack
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
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
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
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Guthrie
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
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
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
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 (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--32
Abercrombie
Andrews
Barrett (SC)
Bean
Boehner
Capuano
Carter
Crenshaw
Crowley
Deal (GA)
Etheridge
Gerlach
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Israel
Langevin
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Murtha
Price (GA)
Rohrabacher
Schwartz
Shadegg
Shuler
Sires
Spratt
Walden
Wasserman Schultz
Weiner
Wexler
Young (AK)
{time} 1855
Mr. CARSON of Indiana changed his 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:
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 790, had I been present,
I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 790, I was unavoidably
detained and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have vote
``yea.''
[[Page 25179]]
____________________
MOMENT OF SILENCE IN MEMORY OF FORMER REPRESENTATIVE BOB DAVIS OF
MICHIGAN
(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, I rise to regretfully inform my colleagues
of the passing of former Congressman Bob Davis, who represented most of
northern Michigan in Congress from 1979-1993. Bob died last Friday.
I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in his honor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will all Members rise for a moment of
silence.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and
achievements of Former Representative Bob Davis. I was deeply saddened
to hear the loss of my friend Bob, a true Michigander. Through
attending public schools in Mackinac County, miming a small Michigan
business, and serving as a city council member, state representative
and senator, Bob came to understand the state on every level. By the
time he came to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1979, he truly
understood the needs of Michigan's people. From his work with then-
Governor George Romney to reduce the tolls on the Mackinac Bridge, to
his work in the House Armed Services Committee to procure major defense
weapons systems, he always worked toward tangible results for those he
was serving.
Bob and I not only shared a love for Michigan and its people, but
also a deep appreciation for the outdoors. Some of his greatest
achievements while serving in the U.S. House were through his role as
the Ranking Member on the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries
Committee. He was able to help establish the Upper Peninsula's Keweenaw
National Historic Park, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, and
to protect the Great Lakes from invasive species. Even after his
passing, Bob Davis' legacy and achievements will live on, in no small
part through the natural and historic lands of Michigan that he fought
to protect and preserve.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
continue.
There was no objection.
____________________
ARMY SPECIALIST JEREMIAH PAUL McCLEERY POST OFFICE BUILDING
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3319, 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 Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3319.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 401,
nays 0, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 791]
YEAS--401
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
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
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
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
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
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)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
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
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 (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--31
Andrews
Barrett (SC)
Bean
Capuano
Carter
Crenshaw
Crowley
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, M.
Ellison
Etheridge
Gerlach
Gutierrez
Israel
Kanjorski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Murtha
Price (GA)
Rohrabacher
Schock
Shadegg
Shuler
Sires
Walden
Wasserman Schultz
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1904
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.
____________________
MOMENT OF SILENCE IN MEMORY OF FORMER REPRESENTATIVE JAY JOHNSON OF
WISCONSIN
(Mr. OBEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I rise to regretfully inform my colleagues
of the passing of our former colleague, Jay Johnson, who represented
the Eighth District of Wisconsin with distinction from January of 1997
through January
[[Page 25180]]
of 1999, and I would ask that the House observe a moment of silence in
his honor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will all Members rise to observe a moment of
silence.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. DINGELL. Madam 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 the moment of silence in
memory of former Representative Bob Davis of Michigan.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
continue.
There was no objection.
____________________
SUPPORTING COMPUTER SCIENCE AND COMPUTING CAREERS AMONG THE PUBLIC AND
IN SCHOOLS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 558,
as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 558, as amended.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 405,
nays 0, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 792]
YEAS--405
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
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
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
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
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
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
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
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)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
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
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 (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walz
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--27
Barrett (SC)
Bean
Capuano
Carter
Crenshaw
Crowley
Deal (GA)
Etheridge
Gerlach
Gutierrez
Israel
Kirk
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Murtha
Price (GA)
Rohrabacher
Shadegg
Shuler
Sires
Velazquez
Walden
Wasserman Schultz
Weiner
Wexler
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1912
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this
Chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 790, 791 and 792.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 20, 2009.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in
Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, the Clerk received the following message
from the Secretary of the Senate on October 20, 2009, at 5:23
p.m.:
That the Senate agreed to the Conference Report
accompanying the bill H.R. 2892.
That the Senate passed without amendment H.R. 621.
That the Senate passed S. 1793.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Lorraine C. Miller,
Clerk of the House.
[[Page 25181]]
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 874
Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my
name as a cosponsor of H.R. 874.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oregon?
There was no objection.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 20, 2009.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
The Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in
Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, I have the honor to transmit a sealed
envelope received from the White House on Tuesday, October
20, 2009 at 4:28 p.m., and said to contain a message from the
President whereby he submits a copy of a notice filed earlier
with the Federal Register continuing the emergency with
respect to the situation in or in relation to the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, first declared by Executive Order
13413 of October 27, 2006.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Lorraine C. Miller,
Clerk of the House.
____________________
CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO THE DEMOCRATIC
REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO--MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
(H. DOC. NO. 111-71)
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 Foreign
Affairs and ordered to be printed:
To the Congress of the United States:
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d))
provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless,
prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President
publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a
notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the
anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the
Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the
national emergency with respect to the situation in or in relation to
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the related measures blocking
the property of certain persons contributing to the conflict in that
country, are to continue in effect beyond October 27, 2009.
The situation in or in relation to the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, which has been marked by widespread violence and atrocities that
continue to threaten regional stability, continues to pose an unusual
and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States.
For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the
national emergency to deal with that threat and the related measures
blocking the property of certain persons contributing to the conflict
in that country.
Barack Obama.
The White House, October 20, 2009.
____________________
{time} 1915
HONORING FORMER CONGRESSMEN BOB DAVIS AND JAY JOHNSON
(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, earlier today the House observed moments
of silence for two former Members of this Chamber.
Last Friday, former Congressman Bob Davis, a Republican from St.
Ignace, Michigan, and my predecessor in Congress, passed away in
Arlington, Virginia. Bob Davis dedicated his life to public service. He
served members of his community as owner and operator of a funeral home
in St. Ignace before serving in the Michigan State House and State
Senate, where he was the Republican leader.
In 1978, Bob was elected to Congress where he served for 14 years.
Over the course of those 14 years, Bob Davis was known to the people of
what was then Michigan's 11th Congressional District for his
constituent services. Bob's last, and perhaps greatest, legislative
achievement was the establishment of the Keweenaw National Historic
Park in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, which showcases the region's rich
mining heritage.
Just like they did 17 years ago with the establishment of the
Keweenaw National Historic Park, the people of the Keweenaw Peninsula
rang the local church bells in tribute to Congressman Davis last Friday
as citizens paid tribute and silently prayed for Bob and his family.
I join my constituents and Members of this Chamber in paying tribute
to Bob and offering our sympathy and prayers to his wife, Brook, and
their children Rob, Lisa, George, Alexandra, and Hannah.
Just days after Bob's passing, we lost another public servant with
roots in northern Michigan.
On Saturday, former Congressman Jay Johnson, a Democrat from Green
Bay, Wisconsin, passed away. Jay was a native of Bessemer in Michigan's
Upper Peninsula and a graduate of Gogebic Community College and
Northern Michigan University. He was a man of the people, and he was
always proud to be known by his Upper Peninsula roots.
Jay worked as a journalist for 32 years in Wisconsin, Florida, and
Michigan before making a run for Congress. He represented Wisconsin's
Eighth Congressional District from 1996 to 1998 and was appointed
director of the U.S. Mint by President Clinton in 2000 where he served
for 2 years.
I am pleased to have served with Jay in Congress, and my heartfelt
condolences go out to his wife, JoLee, and his entire family.
____________________
HONORING DAVE AND JULIE ZISKA'S SERVICE TO THE BOY SCOUTS OF SOUTH
FLORIDA
(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to congratulate Dave
and Julie Ziska for 28 years of service to the Boy Scouts of south
Florida. This year, the many individuals and families who have been
enriched by the Ziskas gather together in Miami as Dave and Julie
receive the 2009 Distinguished Citizen Award from the South Florida
Council of the Boy Scouts of America.
The Boy Scouts of America is an outstanding organization that fosters
strong ideals in young men and helps build leaders for the future. With
the Ziskas' amazing service and support, the Boy Scouts of south
Florida has been able to successfully accomplish this mission. Dave and
Julie Ziska have not only had a profound impact on the Boy Scouts but
also on the families of the Scouts and the entire south Florida
community.
The Ziska's guidance and goodwill over the past 28 years has
encouraged many young men to become active in Scouting. In fact, 207
young men attained the distinct and high honor of being Eagle Scouts
with their help.
I congratulate and recognize Dave and Julie Ziska for their
commendable service to the Boy Scouts of America and to the Boy Scouts
of south Florida.
Congratulations.
____________________
GUN CONTROL IN CHICAGO
(Mr. QUIGLEY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, in the past weeks and months, Chicago has
made national news, unfortunately not just because of the Olympic
decision. It is because school-age children have been attacked and
killed by other school-age children. The last thing our city needs is
more guns on our streets and more children fearing for their safety.
Recently, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review McDonald
v.
[[Page 25182]]
City of Chicago, a case that challenges whether Chicago's local handgun
ban is legal. In a time of national concern over senseless and deadly
attacks, it is a concern.
Since 1983, it has been illegal to purchase or own a handgun within
Chicago city limits. Over the course of that 26 years, Chicago has seen
the number of registered handguns drop. Guns have become scarcer,
saving lives and creating safer neighborhoods in the process.
As we work to make our cities and communities safer, there are many
additional things we could and should fight for. I stand ready to work
with the administration to reinstate the assault weapons ban and ready
to work with this body to close the gun show loophole.
But in the absence of Federal action, it is critical that we preserve
the rights of the people to protect their children and their families
at the local level.
____________________
RECOGNIZING OCTOBER AS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
(Mr. PAULSEN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PAULSEN. Madam Speaker, October is Domestic Violence Awareness
Month, a time to remember the victims of this terrible and often hidden
crime and also a time to renew our commitment to eliminating it.
I recently had the privilege of participating in the dedication
ceremony for a new Peace Garden at Cornerstone Shelter in my district.
The garden honors both the victim of the crime as well as those people
committed to restoring hope for those who have experienced domestic
violence. The Minnesota Department of Public Safety has reported that
70,000 primary victims have received services from battered women's
shelters and domestic abuse agencies in 2008 alone.
Thankfully, we have organizations like Cornerstone who provide needed
assistance and resources to victims while working to end domestic
violence as a whole. When we bring the light of truth to an issue like
domestic abuse, its power to destroy decreases.
It's important that we remember the victims of domestic violence and
let them know they are not alone as we fight to make the world a better
place.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE PASSING OF CONGRESSMAN JAY JOHNSON
(Mr. KAGEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KAGEN. Madam Speaker, like everyone else in northeast Wisconsin,
I am shocked and saddened by the passing of my friend, former
Congressman Jay Johnson. Jay represented the Eighth District of
Wisconsin in this body from January of 1997 to January 1999.
Jay was a friend of mine. He was a gentle person, and everyone in
northeast Wisconsin was considered his friend as well. He served the
best interests of all of our families and will be greatly missed.
For many years, Jay's trusted voice and kind countenance came into
all of our homes as a news anchor on WFRV-TV and WLUK-TV in Green Bay.
His colleagues in this room here all recall how kind he was. His
colleagues in the newsroom in Green Bay recalled his kind heart, his
unending patience, and his grand sense of humor. They will remember him
as a gentleman in every sense of the world.
It's clear from his life spent in front of the camera and here in
public service that he truly loved people.
In 2000, President Clinton appointed Jay to be director of the United
States Mint; and more recently, he ran Jay Johnson Coins and
Consulting.
During my service here, Jay had been a mentor, an adviser, and a
close friend. On behalf of the people of the Eighth District of
Wisconsin, I want to thank Jay for his service and extend my deepest
sympathies to his wife, JoLee, their family and friends.
____________________
PROTECT SMALL BUSINESS FROM BIG GOVERNMENT
(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, small businesses are
doing all they can to create jobs and bring our economy back to life.
Unfortunately in Washington, Democrats have decided to scheme new taxes
and mandates as a part of their Big Government takeover of the health
care system. With 263,000 more jobs lost last month, it is shocking
that Democrats believe now is the time to punish small business that
creates the majority of jobs in America.
The National Federation of Independent Business has revealed the Big
Government Democrat health takeover would cost 1.6 million jobs in the
United States. Destroying jobs will make it harder, not easier, for
individuals to afford health care.
We need H.R. 3400 to target reforms to our health insurance system,
like shopping for plans across State lines, association health plans
for small businesses, and tax credits for individuals to purchase
insurance.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September the 11th in the global war on terrorism.
____________________
HEALTH CARE AND TRANSPARENCY
(Mr. BURGESS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, it's now been over 5 months since the
White House announced numerous deals with major stakeholders in the
health care debate. Little or no details regarding these negotiations
have been released. And last week during the Finance Committee hearings
in the other body, a plan for a commission to slow the growth of
Medicare spending was revealed. But it was then revealed that the
hospitals would be exempt from this commission because, according to
Congress Daily, they had already negotiated a cost-cutting agreement
with the White House.
You know, despite the rhetoric of last fall, then-candidate Obama's
promise to make all health care reform negotiation public, we still
have very few details on what exactly was agreed to during these highly
publicized but very secret meetings last May. How can Congress do its
due diligence in creating policy before us without the crucial details?
More importantly, how can the American public know what we are doing is
indeed in their best interest?
In January of this year, we were promised an administration that
would bring all parties together; we were promised an administration
that would not negotiate behind closed doors and in fact would be
broadcasting these negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people
could see for themselves what the choices were.
When will these cease to become promises and become reality?
____________________
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.
____________________
CONGRESS NEEDS TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE FOR SENIORS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, my colleagues, yesterday I
had the privilege to be in the heart of my district in Waterbury,
Connecticut, to meet with a group of seniors, very concerned and active
seniors. They call themselves the Silver Waves. And through letters and
phone calls and emails and thousands of one-on-one conversations
throughout the greater Waterbury area, they have been able to gather
over 300 signatures on the petition that I am holding right here
expressing why they believe that this
[[Page 25183]]
Congress has to start paying attention to the very real economic
pressures that seniors in this economy and in this country are facing
and why, in particular, we need to step up to the plate and do the
right thing for seniors who are about to face a zero percent increase
on Social Security in this country.
{time} 1930
Madam Speaker, I'm here to bring these petitions to my colleagues
because I couldn't agree with them more.
This economic downturn has hit all of us, but it has hit seniors in
particular. Just like many Americans, they have mortgages to pay,
they've got car payments to make, and they've got grocery bills to pay.
But unlike many Americans, they also face disproportionately high
health care costs, unusually high prescription-drug costs, and multiple
bills that seem only to be rising. Put that together with decreased
retirement funds, and seniors are facing a particularly tough forecast.
Now over the past year, this Congress has tried to take some steps to
pull this economy up from the depths of the recession. We've acted to
make sure that our financial system didn't collapse. We've moved
quickly to make critical investments in our economy to help it recover.
We're working now to try to make this health care system work for both
our customers, our patients and also for our economy. But in all of
this, we have to remember that seniors throughout this country face
economic challenges that are unique only to them, and as we continue to
work on getting our entire economy to recover, we have to remember that
we have to specifically target seniors, most of which are living on
fixed incomes today.
Now the impetus behind these petitions is a very real sense from the
senior citizens in my district, which I think is reflective of a
feeling across this country, that over the past decade or so, they've
watched Washington dole out special favors to the insurance companies,
to the drug companies, to the oil companies and to the banks. And
they're wondering where the help is for them. And in the middle of this
tough economic recession, just when they're waiting for the help to
come to them, they get some of the worst news of all, that they will be
receiving a zero percent increase in their Social Security check.
Now that's why we need to listen to the people who have signed these
petitions, because this number is 3,000 in Waterbury, Connecticut, but
it would be millions across the country of seniors who want to know why
a formula designed to reflect the true cost of living increases for
them gives them a zero percent increase when they know that their costs
are increasing on a regular basis, and why they can't get Congress to
step up to the plate and help them when it seems like over the past
decade, a lot of other people with a lot more influence and a lot more
power than them have been helped.
So I'm here to deliver these petitions and to say ``thank you'' to
people like Lucille Keating, Jeannine Laliberte, Lorraine Johnston and
Lida Keroski, who put these together, and assure them not only do I
agree with the sentiment they and so many Americans have brought to
this House, but that I believe we are going to take seriously the
notion that in this very difficult economy we need to step up to the
plate and do the right thing for seniors in this country.
____________________
HALLOWEEN HEALTH CARE
Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, the Senate's Halloween health care
bill seeped out of the dark dungeons of the Capitol Building today.
News reports say it's 1,500 pages long. Why is legislation drafted in
the secret, dark caverns of the Capitol, where the trolls roam at
night, void of public view? Is it so scary the healthcrats don't want
us to know what's in it?
We need to know exactly what's in these bills and how much they
really cost before we vote on anything. And why is there such a rush to
pass a bill anyway? Maybe they have frightening parts that no one will
see if quickly passed. One scary part is the government wanting
American money now. You see, new taxes take effect immediately, but the
legislation won't be in operation until 2013. That's right. American
taxpayers pay 3 years of new taxes on a deal that doesn't take effect
for 3 years. Now isn't that scary?
And what is the goal of this government bill? If the goal is to
provide universal health care for everyone, the bill is a failure. The
President told us there are 30 million uninsured. The Congressional
Budget Office said the latest and greatest bill still will leave 25
million uninsured. So we're letting the government take over health
care just to add 5 million people to the government system. It would be
cheaper just to buy them all health insurance and then require proof of
citizenship to get insurance rather than spend trillions and let Uncle
Sam take care of us all.
If the goal of the Halloween health care bill is to provide better
quality care, the bill is a failure. Just look at the way the
government runs the Indian universal health care system. The government
has been committing medical malpractice against the Indians for
decades. If the goal is to make health care cheaper, the bill fails
again. The bill will cost over $1 trillion just to set it up. And the
idea that government can run an entire health care system cheaper than
the private sector is a myth. The only way that government can do it
cheaper is to drastically cut services to patients, ration care or
both.
Madam Speaker, has there ever been a government program that costs
less than projected? I don't think that has happened in the history of
the Republic.
If the goal is to make government-run Halloween health care more
efficient, the bill fails once more. The government is almost always
more inefficient because it has no competition, has no accountability,
and when it runs out of money, it just spends more money and taxes the
taxpayer.
However, if the real goal of this legislation is to have government
take control of our health care, the bill is a total success.
The Halloween health care nightmare on Capitol Hill is this specific
provision--government takeover of health care. So rather than let the
government take care of us all, Congress should reform specific
problems under our current system. Allow insurance to be purchased
across State lines, provide for a safety net for catastrophic injury or
illness, have a method to allow people with preexisting conditions to
obtain insurance, allow for health savings accounts so people can take
care of themselves and get a tax break, provide tax incentives and tax
breaks for businesses who take care of their employees rather than more
taxes on small businesses, which taxes them to death, and eliminate the
fraud, waste and abuse in the Medicaid system.
And, Madam Speaker, there are many other specific things Congress
should do. But turning over America's health to the Federal Government
is unhealthy for the American people. Such an idea is truly a Halloween
nightmare and a trick on the American people.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
U.S. DEFICIT BIGGEST SINCE 1945
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, I would like to share with the House
tonight some writings from the October 16, 2009, CNNMoney.com. The
title is, ``U.S. Deficit Biggest Since 1945.''
``The Obama administration on Friday said the government ran a $1.42
trillion deficit in fiscal year 2009. That made it the worst year on
record since World War II, according to data from the Treasury and the
White House Office of Management and Budget. Tax receipts for the year
fell 16.6 percent overall, while spending soared 18.2 percent.
Consequently, the annual deficit rose 212 percent to the record dollar
amount of $1.42 trillion, from $455 billion a year earlier.''
[[Page 25184]]
I continue to read from this article:
``As a result, the country is very near to breaching its so-called
`debt ceiling,' currently set at $12.1 trillion. Lawmakers, however,
are expected to vote to raise that ceiling this fall.''
I further share with the House:
``In August, the OMB projected a 10-year deficit of $9 trillion,
assuming President Obama's 2010 budget proposals are put in place. A
deficit of that magnitude means the debt held by the public would
approach 82 percent of gross domestic product. That's double the 41
percent recorded in 2008.
``The 10-year forecast as well as the longer-term outlook are
considered unsustainable. The GAO further cautioned that the yawning
deficit problems should be addressed sooner rather than later. The
longer action to deal with the Nation's long-term fiscal outlook is
delayed, the larger the change will need to be, increasing the
likelihood that they will be disruptive and destabilizing.''
Madam Speaker, I wanted to share that tonight with the House because
whether you be a Republican, which I am, or a Democrat, this country
needs to understand that no longer can it take care of the world,
because we can't even take care of our own Nation.
I want to make reference just briefly to a book that I read a couple
of years ago that I would recommend to each Member of Congress. And if
I could buy it for each Member of Congress, I would, but I cannot. It
is called ``Day of Reckoning'' by Pat Buchanan. The book ``Day of
Reckoning'' reminds America what has happened to other great nations,
whether it be England, Spain or France. These nations went down the
road where they believed in building empires around the world and
making everybody be like they are. They all collapsed in a matter of
years. Rome is probably the best example of a nation that felt that it
could go and create other entities around the world, and they failed,
as well.
Madam Speaker, I hope that we in Congress, as we debate not only the
health bill, but other bills, determine how we're going to pay for it.
Is it fair for our grandchildren to pick up the debt of those of us
today who are irresponsible to our responsibility of maintaining a
frugal government?
And with that, Madam Speaker, as I always do, I want to ask God to
please bless our men and women in uniform. I want to ask God in His
loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for
freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. And Madam Speaker, I want to ask God
to please give wisdom, strength and courage to the President of the
United States. And I ask three times, God please, God please, God
please continue to bless America.
[From CNNMoney.com, Oct. 16, 2009]
U.S. Deficit Biggest Since 1945
Obama administration closes the books on fiscal 2009: Falling revenue
plus soaring spending leads to a $1.42 trillion deficit
(By Jeanne Sahadi)
The Obama administration on Friday said the government ran
a $1.42 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2009.
That made it the worst year on record since World War II,
according to data from the Treasury and the White House
Office of Management and Budget.
Tax receipts for the year fell 16.6% overall, while
spending soared 18.2%. The rising unemployment, the economic
slowdown and the extraordinary measures taken by lawmakers to
stem the economic meltdown that hit in fall 2008.
Consequently, the annual deficit rose 212% to the record
dollar amount of $1.42 trillion, from $455 billion a year
earlier.
As a share of the economy, the deficit accounted for 10% of
gross domestic product, up from 3.2% in 2008. As breathtaking
as that may be, it's still not in the same stratosphere as
the 1945 deficit, which hit 21% of GDP.
Perfect deficit cocktail mix
Fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30, had all the right
ingredients for a recordbreaking deficit.
While tax revenue overall took a big hit, corporate
receipts led the way, falling 55%. Individual income tax
revenue fell 20%.
At the same time spending jumped in large part because of
the various economic and financial rescue measures
undertaken. The Treasury and the OMB noted that the $700
billion Troubled Asset Relief Program and the $787 billion
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, not all of which has
been used, accounted for 24% of the deficit total.
As a result, the country is very near to breaching its so-
called debt ceiling, currently set at $12.1 trillion.
Lawmakers, however, are expected to vote to raise that
ceiling this fall.
At the end of September, the country's total debt--which is
an accumulation of all annual deficits to date plus other
obligations--stood at $11.9 trillion.
The long-term view
In August, the OMB projected a 10-year deficit of $9
trillion, assuming President Obama's 2010 budget proposals
are put in place.
A deficit of that magnitude means the debt held by the
public would approach 82% of gross domestic product. That's
double the 41% recorded in 2008.
Most budget experts blanch at the thought, especially given
that the country's fiscal future was already a source of
concern before the economic crisis because of expected
shortfalls over time in funding for Medicare and Social
Security.
The financial and economic meltdowns of the past year have
accelerated the strain on federal coffers. So much so that
now the 10- year forecast as well as the longer-term outlook
are considered unsustainable, according to deficit experts
William Gale and Alan Auerbach.
In a report this week, the Government Accountability Office
noted that the deficits born from the financial crisis are
not the biggest crux of the problem.
``While a lot of attention has been given to the recent
fiscal deterioration, the federal government faces even
larger fiscal challenges that will persist long after the
return of financial stability and economic growth,'' the GAO
said.
The GAO further cautioned that the yawning deficit problems
should be addressed sooner rather than later.
``The longer action to deal with the nation's long-term
fiscal outlook is delayed, the larger the changes will need
to be, increasing the likelihood that they will be disruptive
and destabilizing.''
The Obama administration is promising to put a plan in
place to lessen the deficit when the economy recovers.
``It was critical that we acted to bring the economy back
from the brink earlier this year. As we move from rescue to
recovery, the president recognizes that we need to put the
nation back on a fiscally sustainable path,'' said OMB
director Peter Orszag in a statement. ``As part of the FY2011
budget policy process, we are considering proposals to put
our country back on firm fiscal footing.''
____________________
HONDURAS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to once again express
my strong support for the elections scheduled to take place in Honduras
on November 29. Though much of the recent news coming out of Honduras
has been focused on the current round of talks between the
representatives of Manuel Zelaya and the current Honduran Government,
one thing has remained constant through it all: The Honduran elections
that are scheduled to take place on November 29.
The most recent talks began with both sides agreeing that the
elections should proceed ahead as planned. Predictably, however, now
that Zelaya is realizing that he won't be able to jump back into his
throne of power as easily as he expected, he and his supporters have
started to call for boycotts and nonrecognition of the elections. Not
surprisingly, Zelaya's ALBA fan club, headed by Venezuela's Hugo
Chavez, got together this weekend in Bolivia. The ALBA league of
oppressors and dictators-in-waiting issued a statement stating that
neither the Honduran electoral process nor its outcomes should be
recognized by the international community unless Zelaya has been
restored to power.
The United States must have no part in these efforts. They are
undermining and delegitimizing the Honduran election. We have got to
make sure that we recognize the validity of this process, and we should
say to the world that we must recognize the free will of the Honduran
people to express their desires in the ballot box.
The United States cannot play wingman to tyrants who dismiss
fundamental civil liberties and forsake constitutional commitment. We
should be proud of our democratic standards and not fear standing
alone, if necessary,
[[Page 25185]]
against those who work against the freedom agenda.
Despite tremendous world pressure and punishment, the people of
Honduras have remained true to their democracy and their constitution.
And the November 29 elections are just one more testament to their
unwavering commitment.
Tomorrow I will be hosting a Members briefing, open to all Members,
Republicans and Democrats, with the members of the Honduran Supreme
Electoral Tribunal. This will afford an opportunity for Members from
both sides of the aisle to discuss the measures being undertaken in
Honduras to ensure that the November elections proceed as scheduled. I
invite all of my colleagues again to please join us for this important
discussion. Although we may have differing views regarding the approach
that the United States has taken to the situation in Honduras, I'm
hopeful that free, fair, clean and transparent elections is the way
that we can all unite.
{time} 1945
This is a concept that all Americans should agree. U.S. policy has
historically recognized and even encouraged the implementation of
elections as a necessary step to moving forward from an untenable
political situation. Just this past August, as a matter of fact,
Secretary of State Clinton visited Angola, where she emphasized
repeatedly the importance of holding timely, free, and fair
presidential elections in Angola.
Each year, the United States spends millions and millions of our tax
dollars to support elections through our democratic form of government
and to make sure that we promote governance programs around the world.
So why, then, does the U.S. commitment to and support of elections fade
away when it comes to Honduras? It should not. It must not.
A stable, secure, democratic Honduras is what is in the best interest
of the United States. This election that will take place on November 29
offers us the perfect opportunity for this to happen--free, fair,
democratic elections. I urge the State Department to encourage
international observers to participate in these upcoming elections, and
I encourage my fellow colleagues to go to Honduras for themselves. Go
now and go for the elections. See for yourselves what we are dealing
with and the impact that the U.S. policy is having on a democratic
ally, a friend of the United States.
Again, I welcome all of my colleagues to join me tomorrow for a
briefing with members of the Honduran Supreme Electoral Tribunal. Let
democracy take root once again in Honduras.
____________________
NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Madam Speaker, throughout my tenure in Congress,
I have worked to raise awareness about the devastating impact of
domestic violence. I rise again this evening to recognize the month of
October as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Each year I
visit the House floor to speak about this topic, I hope that there will
be some signs of progress in the fight against domestic violence, but
sadly, Americans still suffer from its effects.
As I have reminded my colleagues, often we assume that acts of
domestic violence don't occur in our own communities or to people we
know or families that live down the street. Last year, I shared the
story of a young woman from my hometown in Kansas named Jana Mackey,
and today I would like to provide you with an update of her story.
Jana was born July 20, 1982, in Harper, Kansas. She was an active
member of 4-H, an athlete, and a talented musician. Upon graduation
from high school, she completed a bachelor's degree, where she
discovered her passion--advocating for others. Jana went on to pursue a
law degree from the University of Kansas and fought for equality and
social justice through her work with countless organizations, including
volunteer work at Lawrence, Kansas' GaDuGi SafeCenter, a shelter that
aids victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. But on July 3,
2008, Jana's own life was ended by an act of domestic violence.
Since her death, Jana's parents, Curt and Christie Brungardt, started
the Eleven Hundred Torches campaign to inspire others to continue
Jana's admirable work. The goal was to encourage 1,100 people to carry
on Jana's torch through civic engagement and volunteerism. As of this
month, I am happy to report the campaign logged its 1,100th volunteer,
but Jana's work still remains unfinished.
Jana's story proves that no State, community or family is immune from
domestic violence. Domestic violence does not discriminate based upon
gender, race, age, education or social status, and its plague wreaks
havoc on our day-to-day lives within our communities and our
overflowing criminal justice system.
Every year, there are more than 4 million new incidents of domestic
violence reported in the United States, with many more unaccounted for
due to fear and intimidation. Of those 4 million reported cases, nearly
100,000 Kansans fall victim to domestic violence each year.
While we make gains in raising awareness about domestic violence and
providing assistance to affected victims, there is still much work to
be done. Whether we are part of a business providing a service, such as
refurbishing cell phones for women in domestic emergencies, or
volunteers donating time to local domestic violence centers, we all can
do more to end domestic violence. I encourage my House colleagues to
seek out a center, a shelter, or an organization in their district or
State and to further engage on this issue.
This October, let us remember the victims of domestic violence and
learn from their courage as we do our best to ensure that our
communities are a safe place to live, work, and raise families. I
encourage my colleagues to join me in recognizing October as Domestic
Violence Awareness Month.
Madam Speaker, I ask for continued support and assistance for
domestic violence prevention programs.
____________________
HALLOWEEN BUDGET SCARE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. INGLIS. Madam Speaker, tonight I want to talk about where we are
with the budget deficit.
Just in time for Halloween, we are looking at scary numbers: an
annual deficit of $1.42 trillion, accumulated debt of $13 trillion.
It's a real fright. So, what does it compare to in our history?
Well, here we have a chart that shows the historical debt levels of
the United States. This is debt owed to the public, not
intergovernmental debt. But what it shows is that after World War II
there was a substantial amount of debt owed to the public; in fact, it
was over 100 percent of our gross domestic product. Since then, it has
gone down nicely, and that's a good thing. But here, lately, you can
see the trajectory over there of where we're headed to, another
dangerously high level of debt; again, an accumulated debt right now of
$13 trillion, and this year will throw on 1.42 trillion from this
year's annual deficit.
But the historical debt level gives us a little bit of comfort
because it shows that after World War II we had a higher percentage of
debt than we do now. But there is a big difference between the debt
after World War II and the debt today. As you can see here, the
comparison of our creditors on this debt is what's really telling and
what, again, just in time for Halloween, is rather frightening.
In 1945, 95 percent of the debt was owed to the U.S. public; only 5
percent of it we were looking at back then was foreign investment. Now,
then, in 2009, that $13 trillion debt that I was just talking about,
the U.S. public owns only 54 percent of that debt. China
[[Page 25186]]
owns 11 percent, other foreign countries, 35 percent.
So the very scary thing is that, unlike World War II where we had a
higher percentage of debt compared to GDP but we owed it to ourselves,
now with this $13 trillion debt, we owe it to foreign countries, not to
ourselves.
The very sad thing for me as a member of the Republican Study
Committee is that if we had enacted the conservative budgets that we
proposed since 2005, we would be, right now, $613 billion to the
better, because over those years, we proposed here on this House floor
the most conservative budget alternatives offered. Had they been
enacted, we would have been looking at $613 billion less than what we
are looking at now by way of debt.
Now, from here, it gets even scarier, because this chart shows the
effect of President Obama's proposed budget in 2010. As you can see,
government spending as a percentage of GDP--that's what this chart is
showing is government spending as a percentage of GDP--you can see it
taking off at a trajectory that truly is frightening. The Republican
alternative budgets, as you can see there, show a trend line down so
that we would be moving away from government spending as a percentage
of GDP. It would actually be declining over the years to come.
So, the question for us as Americans is: How are we going to cope
with the fact that we've got a $13 trillion accumulated debt? First
thing we could do is cancel the unspent part of the stimulus package;
that's $787 billion. Only 13 percent of it has been spent. Surely we
can cut that out. The next thing we can do is make sure we do no harm
in health care, and that means avoiding yet another government program
like Medicare and Medicaid that involve cost shift. That means that
private sector employers and people covered by their own insurance will
have to make up for the shortfall created by the cost shift that comes
from these underpaying government programs. But even in their
underpayment, they create an enormous government deficit problem.
So, Madam Speaker, the message I think to all of us, Republicans and
Democrats, the President and the Congress, is to come together to
figure out a way to get this trajectory down, to not be looking at this
kind of government spending that takes off, but rather to bring that
down.
____________________
ENERGY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. BOCCIERI. Madam Speaker, today, we are going to highlight this
hour on energy and the needs of the United States in terms of enacting
a robust energy policy that is going to create jobs here in America,
move away from our dependence on foreign sources of oil, and make our
country stronger in the long term.
Now, I want to speak to you from a military perspective, having
served nearly 15 years in the United States Air Force. I think that
this issue has to be elevated from just a national debate to a matter
of national security. And it's not just Congressman Boccieri from the
16th District of Ohio saying this.
In fact, in 2003, the United States Department of Defense issued a
study and suggested that the risk of abrupt climate change should be
elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security
concern. The economic disruptions associated with global climate change
are projected by the CIA and other intelligence experts to place
increased pressure on weaker nations that may be unable to provide the
basic needs and maintain order for their citizens.
So, from my own perspective, having graduated with a degree in
baseball and minoring in economics, I didn't get into the whole
scientific debate on whether climate change was real or perceived, but
when the military experts and our intelligence experts speak, I'm going
to listen, and I have to tell you that America should be listening as
well.
I hope that over this next 60 minutes we will have a robust
discussion about how this energy policy is going to move our country
down the field so that we can end our dependence on foreign oil and we
can make sure that our country becomes energy independent. After all,
we did send a man to the Moon in 10 years, and I think and believe in
my heart of hearts that we can become energy independent in the next 15
to 20 years. I believe in the innovation of America, and I believe that
we can do this if we put our efforts on it.
Now, with the national energy debate comes a sense of trying to
correct the status quo. And I know those changes are difficult, but for
those who are against a national robust energy policy for the United
States, you hear them speak the rhetoric from those who delivered $4-a-
gallon gasoline to the United States of America. We listened to the
same talking points that delivered oil prices over $150 a barrel. We
listened to the same talking points who don't want us to end our
dependency on foreign oil.
{time} 2000
We import 66.4 percent of our oil from overseas; 66.4 percent of our
oil comes from overseas. Nearly 40 percent comes from the Middle East.
Forty percent comes from the Middle East.
History reminds us that, in 1944, when the United States and our
allies bombed the Ploiesti Romanian oil fields, we effectively cut off
the German supply of oil; but they quickly transitioned to a synthetic
fuel, which is a derivative of coal, and they fought on a lot longer.
So the single largest user of energy in the United States is the
Department of Defense. My friends, this is a matter of national
security, and that's why an energy policy that moves away from our
dependence on foreign oil is going to move us down the field to
becoming energy independent. I believe that the amount of alternative
energy our Nation is able to produce is only limited by the amount of
energy we are willing to invest in it, and that is why the United
States is moving down this track.
We find that our intelligence experts, over serious matters of
national security, have talked about this. In fact, General Anthony
Zinni, a retired military staffer, has weighed in on this. We find that
many of our military experts have weighed in on this as well as the
CIA, which last month just set up a national policy and an agency in
launching the center on climate change, with national security as a
focal point for its work on this subject. So this is not just a matter
of climate change but a matter of national security, and the impacting
phenomena of such certification is just giving emphasis to the fact
that we have got to address this as a matter of national security.
So we are going to talk tonight about energy. We are going to talk
tonight about health care. I am joined by some of my colleagues on the
floor, and we are going to be able to pivot in between these two
subjects tonight as members of the 30-somethings because there are two
topics.
There are two issues that confront us as a Nation that offer some
serious challenges for our long-term competitiveness. They are health
care and energy, health care in the fact that we spend more than any
industrialized country on health care. Yet we find that our outcomes,
our life expectancy, is on par with Cuba. With infant mortality and
with chronic diseases like diabetes, heart conditions and asthma, we
rank out somewhere around 38th in the world. So it's very clear that we
are spending more than any industrialized country on health care. Yet
our returns and outcomes, our return on investment, is not as good as
it needs to be. So tonight we are going to talk about those two
subjects as 30-somethings, energy and health care.
I am happy to be joined by my colleague from just a State away, Jason
Altmire from Pennsylvania. I would like to recognize him for this time.
Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentleman.
I did want to start by joining the gentleman in a discussion of
energy. I come from a region of the country
[[Page 25187]]
where we have an incredible amount of coal reserves and where we have
natural gas reserves that exceed anything available literally anywhere
else in the world. We have the international headquarters of nuclear,
with Westinghouse headquartered in my district, which employs 4,200
people currently; and it's growing literally every day. I have a lot of
energy in the district that I represent, and a lot of it is the fossil
fuels that you hear about.
When you hear about coal and natural gas, you say, well, that's the
old way of doing things. I would certainly take issue with that. I
think we can have clean coal and liquefied coal. I think we can use
natural gas to our advantage both from a homeland security aspect and
from an energy independence aspect as well. Coming from western
Pennsylvania, when you think about that, that does not mean we don't
think about new types of energies. I want to talk about solar and about
one way western Pennsylvania has taken a leadership role in solar
technology.
This week, for example, this House is going to consider Congresswoman
Gabrielle Giffords' Solar Technology Roadmap Act. That establishes a
committee to draft a solar energy roadmap for the Nation. Now, this
roadmap sets short-, medium- and long-term solar technology goals for
the United States of America, identifying research, development and
demonstration needs for this technology and identifying opportunities
to coordinate that effort all across the country. The bill creates a
solar technology research, development and demonstration program that
awards merit-reviewed grants for up to 50 percent of project costs to
organizations such as academic institutions, national laboratories,
industry, State research agencies, and nonprofit organizations.
Now, the reason I wanted to talk is I'm working with my colleagues to
incorporate into the bill for one of the fiscal year 2011 demonstration
projects a technology called ``organic solar technology.'' Many of us
think solar power is a rigid cell of large glass plates, but organic
solar technology turns solar cells into high-tech ink that can be
printed or sprayed onto surfaces using the same general idea as an ink-
jet printer. If you think about the way that works, that's the way
organic solar would work as well.
This technology leap allows us to turn lightweight, flexible films
into solar receptors, which open the door to using solar power for
items like cell phones, laptops and, perhaps, one day, as the gentleman
was talking about, for military equipment that can recharge in the
field or smart labels to track retail inventory. This technology will
potentially cost less than traditional silicon solar technology because
it's easier to process. Some manufacturers are confident that they can
bring the cost of organic solar technology to one-fifth the cost of
traditional silicon technology, making solar technology more attainable
for all Americans, certainly western Pennsylvania included.
Furthermore, organic solar cells would potentially be better for the
environment than traditional silicon solar technology. Not only does
organic solar technology use less energy in production because it
requires less processing, but the cells can be easily recycled.
Today, some estimates show that our Nation is falling behind in
bringing this technology to the market. Half of the world's organic
solar technology patent filings since 2004 came from the United States.
Yet the United States lags behind Europe and Asia in the actual
development of this technology in the field according to a Navigant
report on photovoltaic markets in 2007.
So two of the biggest barriers to organic solar technology today are
how long the cells last in the field and how efficiently they convert
sunlight into electrical energy. In closing, my provision would ensure
the opportunity for a demonstration project to pursue these and other
advancements.
The points of this, as the gentleman was talking about, are military
applications and the ways that we can achieve energy independence. This
is one example of how western Pennsylvania, which you think of as coal
country and as natural gas country--and I told you we have the nuclear
headquarters--this is one way that we're taking a leadership role in
solar technology as well.
Mr. BOCCIERI. Well, I couldn't agree with the gentleman from
Pennsylvania more in that we will find the courage to find what is
clean coal technology and what we can use clean coal technology for.
Let me just say this: The United States Air Force right now is
testing synthetic fuel in our airplanes, and it is using it for other
applications broadly across the military because they know that we have
more coal reserves in America than we have oil.
For those who may be out there who believe that we should drill in
America and should take every last drop of oil out of America, we are
going to expand drilling at some point. It's in the Senate version of
the bill right now; but we will always have less oil than the Middle
East, and right now 40 percent of our demand is supplied by the Middle
East. Many have said that we're funding both sides of this war on
terror, that we're sending money over to the Middle East and that they,
in turn, are sending money to rogue terrorist nations that are actually
looking to harm America.
So let's become energy independent. Let's use our resources. Let's
use nuclear. Let's use clean coal. Let's use solar. Let's use the type
of biofuels that are being researched right in our part of Ohio.
Now I want to speak to you because, if we end our dependence on
foreign oil from the Middle East, what will it take? many Americans
ask. What will it take to end our dependence on foreign oil?
There was a study issued that said if we put 27 percent of the
vehicles on the road in the United States which are gas electric
hybrids, like the Ford Escape or the Toyota Prius, we could end our
dependency on foreign oil from the Middle East. Isn't that an
achievable goal? Eighty percent of the worlds oil reserves are in the
hands of governments and of their respective national oil companies.
Sixteen of the twenty largest oil companies are state-owned-- nations
that want to seek harm to the United States.
In fact, we hear from our military leaders, from General Anthony
Zinni, a retired marine and former head of the Central Command, who
said that we will pay for this one way or another. We will pay to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we will have to take an
economic hit of some kind, or we will pay the price later in military
terms, and that will involve human lives. It is very clear that this is
a matter of national security.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOCCIERI. I will.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman for bringing this
up, and I would like to really put this in real terms for people.
When I went over to Afghanistan and Pakistan with a group of Members
of Congress earlier this year, I, frankly, was surprised to find out
that the two major funders, the two major governments putting money on
the ground in Pakistan, were the United States of America and Saudi
Arabia. Saudi Arabia has the second largest presence on the ground in
Pakistan with regard to the direct government funding of social service
infrastructure, of educational infrastructure, and of health
infrastructure. If you want a real example of how the money that we are
paying in gas prices and in home heating oil prices are directly ending
up contravening our national security interests, there is a perfect
example.
Saudi Arabia is taking the money that it makes off of American
consumers of oil, and they are putting that money on the ground in
Pakistan to fund the madrasas, the religious schools and many of the
efforts that are feeding this growing generation and generations of
people who have adverse interests to the United States. They are the
recruiting tools of the Taliban and of the al Qaeda funded on the
ground in Pakistan by countries that get revenues from the use of their
oil.
[[Page 25188]]
So, as we try to chart a path forward as to how we are going to make
sense of the very direct threat presented to this country by al Qaeda's
presence and by the Taliban's presence, giving them cover in Pakistan
and in Afghanistan, we can't lose sight of the fact that this isn't
just about how many troops we have there and what our role is vis-a-vis
direct military action or the training of Afghan troops. This is also
about the fact that, while we are funding all of those troops, as you
have said, Mr. Boccieri, we are also funding at the very same time the
efforts that are ongoing in both of those countries to undermine our
efforts.
There are, frankly, a dozen great reasons that we need to progress
towards energy independence, but with direct respect to the security of
this country and to the threats presented to it in the Afghanistan-
Pakistan region, we have immediate, immediate imperatives to get
ourselves off of the oil which is funneling the efforts against us.
Mr. Boccieri.
Mr. BOCCIERI. Mr. Murphy, you are exactly right. This is not a debate
that is new just to this year or to this Congress. In fact, every
Presidential candidate running for the highest office in this country
last year stated that it is a matter of national security.
So I remind some of our friends on the other side who need to be
reminded of the fact that some of their leaders who were running for
this office suggested that we need a national energy policy that moves
away from our dependence on foreign oil, that creates jobs in America
and that makes America stronger, not weaker. One of those was Rudolph
Giuliani.
To the gentleman from Pennsylvania's remarks about clean coal, he
said we need to expand the use of hybrid vehicles, clean coal/carbon
sequestration. We have more coal reserves in the United States than we
have oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. This should be a major national
project. This is a matter of national security. Every Presidential
candidate has suggested that. We'll revisit some of their remarks in a
few moments, but I want to go back to what some of our national
intelligence experts are saying here.
Peter Ogden, chief of staff to the State Department's top climate
negotiator, said the sense that climate change poses security and
geographical challenges is central to the thinking of the State
Department and the climate office. They're citing studies that were
done under the Department of Defense which suggested that our National
Intelligence experts are suggesting that this will be a breeding ground
for terrorists if we do not look at this very seriously.
We are finding that areas which are wiped out by tsunamis and which
have these cataclysmic events happening in their regions become
breeding grounds for terrorists. They can't fund the national or the
basic interests of their communities, of their countries. As a result,
the CIA has said that the economic disruptions associated with global
climate change are projected to place increased pressure on weak
nations which may be unable to provide basic needs or to maintain order
for their citizens.
That is critical, my friends. I didn't get into the whole scientific
debate of climate change, but I'm paying attention when our military
experts and when our Nation's intelligence experts are suggesting that
we have to elevate this to a matter of national security.
I know Representative Tonko, from New York, has a few words, and he
joins us in our 30-something hour.
{time} 2015
Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Boccieri, for bringing us
together this evening. I can't agree more with you and the
Representatives that have joined us here this evening, both
Representatives Altmire and Murphy, who have indicated that there is an
importance to looking at the big picture frame that should guide this
debate and discussion. It is certainly about energy transformation.
It's about energy security that's enhanced. It's about growing our
energy independence. But it goes well beyond that. It is a factor; it
is a huge argument that speaks favorably to our national security, to
our economic security. I think when we look at that bigger framework,
we're able to understand the ripple effect of benefits, of good, that
comes from the negotiated efforts here in this House to produce a
strong bill. For energy transformation, for climate change, for global
warming to be addressed in positive, progressive terms.
To have listened to some of the discussion and debate on this floor
that denounces some of the studies that were authored out there, where
the authors of those studies have suggested to us that you're
overstating, exaggerating, if not outright denouncing studies that have
been put together that speak favorably to these sorts of investments
have not stopped people from using misinformation and growing the
arguments out there that are unfounded, unfounded and unsubstantiated
by evidence and by truth and by documentation that has been
established.
I think it's important for us to look at the facts. If we're willing
to continue to invest hundreds of billions of dollars into foreign
treasuries, to continue to rely in a gluttonous measure on fossil-based
fuels for our energy agenda, shame on us as a nation. We have an
opportunity here to go forward with a green energy economy that can
create jobs of various disciplines, from Ph.D.s over to those with
bachelor's degrees, over to those who have associate degrees and skill
sets that have been developed with apprenticeship programs, with voc ed
programs. Across the board, we have an opportunity to invest in all
sorts of disciplines out there that strengthen our economy and
strengthen our comeback for job creation and job retention in this
nation.
Just the other day we were talking to people in my district from the
nanoscience arena. And in a generalization of that arena, what they see
from start-up businesses is that we have about 20 percent of Ph.D.s and
master's degree holders occupying jobs at those centers, at the various
start-up businesses that are being established; we have perhaps 20
percent with bachelor's degrees; and then some 60 percent occupied jobs
that are bringing to that table associate degrees and technical
training. So I think it's very evident, very obvious, by these
calculable sorts of outcomes that speak to what's happening in my
district that we're growing jobs in every sphere, in every dimension,
with all sorts of skill sets that are required.
It is important for us to go forward with this green energy race. And
we don't have a choice whether or not to enter in. We have a choice to
be as prepared in that race as possible. I liken this to the space race
of four decades ago, where this country vigorously pursued with a
degree of passion, a high degree of passion, the efforts to land a
person on the Moon. That was more than just a race to land a person on
the Moon. It was a growth of technology in all sorts of areas in our
life that define our quality of life: in communications, in health
care, in all sorts of technical advancements in our society. And it
allowed for us to think in bold and very noble terms about the
importance of science and technology.
Here today, many more nations are joining in a race, a global race,
on green energy, clean energy. And we don't have the luxury to stand
along the sidelines and watch other nations prosper and pass us by.
That's what will happen if we don't go forward with a plan, an energy
plan, that will calculate jobs, that will allow for us to invest and
reach to our intellect in this nation. Our intellectual capacity is
great. We can't just stop with the ideas. Many of those ideas are being
commercialized and deployed into the manufacturing sector in other
nations. They're using American patents, they're using American
ingenuity, American ideas to make things happen in their nations. We
need to invest vigorously in that sort of economy. We can do it by
putting together a progressive policy like that of ACES that was voted
upon in this House, where we put together the framework, the
blueprint--the green print, perhaps--as to how we're going to pursue
job creation
[[Page 25189]]
and responsiveness to our energy needs and a responsible approach to
the environmental stewardship that is assigned each and every one of us
as American citizens to this globe.
Mr. BOCCIERI. I couldn't agree with the gentleman from New York more,
that this is not only about creating jobs, it's a matter of our
national security and moving away from our dependence on foreign oil.
In fact, in September, the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA, is
launching the Center on Climate Change and National Security as the
focal point for its work on the subject. The Center is a small unit led
by senior specialists from the Directorate of Intelligence and the
Directorate of Science and Technology. And further, the National
Intelligence Council reports that the demands of potential humanitarian
responses may significantly tax U.S. military transportation and
support force structures, resulting in a strained readiness posture and
decreased strategic depth for our combat operations.
This is a telling remark of where this issue needs to be highlighted.
I'm a C-130 pilot. We provide humanitarian relief. We support our
troops. We will be flying humanitarian relief all over the world if
this issue is not addressed. And they are talking about our readiness
as a country. The CIA and others are talking about our readiness as a
country. And I think this is very, very important. We can use all the
resources that we have at our disposal. Can you imagine one day, my
colleagues, rolling into a fuel station and having a choice, between
using traditional gasoline, biofuels, biodiesel, ethanol; maybe we plug
in our electric hybrid or drive by the gas station or fuel station
altogether because we have a fuel cell that allows us to get a hundred
miles to the gallon. That is an achievable goal that we should strive
towards, having choices, not just using traditional gasoline but having
a variety of sources. And, in fact, we can end our dependence from Arab
nations and OPEC-producing nations if we put 27 percent of the vehicles
on the road that were gas-electric hybrids. That's an achievable goal,
to end our dependence from the Persian Gulf.
Would we bring our troops home? Would our national interests now be
so closely aligned and attached to what happens in Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait and Iraq and all those areas--Iran--that have all the oil, 40
percent of the oil that comes to this nation? We can use the resources
at our disposal, and I think that we ought to think about doing that.
This is about jobs. This is about national security.
Let me just relate to you something that some of our leaders who are
running for the highest office in this land have said. Mike Huckabee
himself said this:
A nation that can't feed itself, fuel itself or produce the weapons
to fight for itself is a nation forever enslaved. It's critical for our
own country and our own interest economically, and from a point on
national security, we commit to becoming energy independent and we
commit to doing it within a decade. We have to take responsibility for
our own house before we can expect others to do the same in theirs.
It goes back to his basic concept of leadership. Leaders don't ask
others what they are unwilling to do themselves. That right there, my
friends, is something that is very, very important.
We have been joined by one of our friends from Virginia, Congressman
Perriello, who has much passion about this topic.
Mr. PERRIELLO. Mr. Boccieri, thank you very much for continuing this.
Since the last time we had one of these discussions, China has made yet
another massive investment of tens of billions, hundreds of billions of
dollars in their energy future, in their energy independence. I am sick
and tired of us falling behind China. I'm sick and tired of importing
everything from there instead of building things and growing things
right here in the United States. We can do this better.
The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Energy came down to
my part of southern Virginia and the Secretary of Energy had just
recently gotten back from China. He was looking at the bio refineries
in my district and the potential for us to be growing our own energy
and keeping that wealth in our communities.
I asked him, How does this compare to what's going on in China?
He said, This is better than anything they have there right now.
But we are not investing and committing to this in the same way that
they are. We cannot afford to fall behind. That's why those quotes come
from leaders who are trying to show that they're leaders. But what
happens once it gets to governing? Leadership cannot stop on election
day. That has to be the beginning of a commitment, not the end, to
showing your patriotism, to showing that you will put this country's
interests ahead of the interests of the next election cycle.
For 30 years, both parties have talked about and understood the
importance of energy independence, importance to our national security,
importance to our competitive advantage. And yet nothing, year in and
year out. This Congress is different. We are not going to allow the
problems that have hackled us for a generation to continue to do so.
I was in a group with some regional planners the other day talking
about infrastructure investments. They said, Mr. Perriello, do you
think that we have an economic development strategy in this country?
I said, Unfortunately for too long we have not, because the
economists guiding the way have too often come only from the financial
sector, not from the economic development sector. We need to make the
commitments on infrastructure, on energy consumption, on efficiency, on
smart grid technology that will create the new competitive advantage
for the new American century. That is our obligation. And now is the
moment where we ask, Are we ready to lead or will we cower? I want to
acknowledge your leadership, not only in making difficult votes but
more importantly for being a tireless advocate for what we can do in
this country; advanced manufacturing of these new means of energy
production, producing the energy-efficiency technology. I just cut the
ribbon last week on a small business, four or five employees in my
district, in a town with over 20 percent unemployment, that is figuring
out how to sell the wind and solar and efficiency technologies to small
businesses to help make them more competitive and to middle-class
families to help them make that family budget that is so tight these
days.
Mr. Boccieri, I appreciate your leadership. Thank you for including
me in this; and we will not rest until we do what is necessary to
protect this country and make it competitive again.
Mr. BOCCIERI. Thank you. I agree that this is not only about national
security but creating jobs, too. We had a recent announcement last
month that Rolls Royce was moving the center for their research into my
district, for fuel cells. We are going to become a leader in fuel cell
research provided that we have the courage to invest in it.
You may have missed my earlier remarks because you just joined us,
but I said that the only thing that is holding us back in terms of the
amount of alternative energy our nation is able to produce is the
amount of energy we are willing to invest in it. We have got to find
the energy and the courage to make this happen.
I know Congressman Murphy has been trying to champion this in
Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Boccieri, we have the best-educated,
most highly trained, most productive, most innovative workforce in the
world. You go back over the history of major invention over the last
hundred years, almost every single one of them has come out of American
ingenuity. Yet today with respect to the global industry that produces
advanced battery technology, solar cells, solar technology and wind
turbines, in all three of those areas, the United States today has
either one or two of the top 10 producers in the world. We have lost
ground to Asia, to Europe, because we have been unwilling to be a
partner with those industries in getting them off the ground.
[[Page 25190]]
This place is obsessed with short-term thinking. Maybe it's because
everybody in this Chamber is up for reelection every 2 years. But this
is a problem. This is an opportunity that requires that vision that Mr.
Perriello is talking about, to extend beyond 2 years, to be able to see
payoffs that may not happen for 4 years, 5 years, 10 years. But the
fact is that this place, Washington, D.C., the United States Congress,
has been so focused on the short term, has been so focused on how we
get from this year to next year that we have caught ourselves in a
cycle, a downward spiral, with regard to energy and economic
development policy that we are now so far beyond and behind the rest of
the world.
This is absolutely about national security, but this is about putting
ourselves back on the mantle of leadership with regard to the
development of these technologies where we should be today. This is
growing jobs in everyone's district, but it does involve some
government help at the outset. To simply ask venture capitalists and
private investors to put up all of the seed money required to develop
these new technologies whose payoff may not come for another 5 or 10
years is unrealistic. And the reason why Japan and Germany and so many
other countries are so far out ahead of us with respect to the
development of wind turbines and solar panels and advanced battery
technology is because they have at the outset partners in government
who set market conditions that are hospitable to a public-private
partnership in the development of these technologies.
This is going to be part of the story of the regrowth and resurgence
of the American economy. But it only happens if we follow the example
that unfortunately has had to have been set by these other countries,
China included, as Mr. Perriello points out. We can get back to a
leadership place on this issue, but it is going to take a Congress and
a President and a House and a Senate that's willing to look out beyond
the 2-year time horizon, that's willing to make some sacrifices and
some tough votes right now in order to get us to that point of energy
sustainability and independence in the long run.
{time} 2030
Mr. BOCCIERI. Well, I couldn't agree with you more. The gentleman
from Connecticut is absolutely correct. This is about creating jobs. So
many jobs have been created already in our congressional districts, and
let me just highlight a few of those.
In Ohio, he is right about the private venture funds and the public
investment that is going to be required to get this started. Ohio is
going to see a $5.6 billion investment in new public and private
sources due to programs and incentives under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment and American Clean Energy and Security Act. These
investments will lead to nearly 70,000 clean-energy jobs in Ohio, even
assuming some potential setbacks with respect to how we transition to
those new technologies. Presently there are about 35,000 clean-energy
jobs in Ohio, and that was as of 2007.
So we can do this. We can create the jobs of tomorrow. We can stand
with the innovators and the entrepreneurs, and we can disregard the
gibberish and the talk that we hear, the talking points from the status
quo folks, who believe and are taking their talking points, quite
frankly, from the same people, the very people who gave us $4 a gallon
gasoline, $150 a barrel oil prices. We can do better than that, and I
think it is about our country.
Let me revisit, before we recognize Representative Altmire, what Mitt
Romney said. He said there are multiple reasons for us to say we want
to be less energy dependent on foreign energy and develop our own
sources. That is the real key, of course, additional sources of energy
here, as well as more efficient uses of energy. That will allow us and
the world to have less oil being drawn down from various sources where
it comes without dropping the prices too high to a level. It will keep
people, some of whom are unsavory characters, from having an influence
on our foreign policy.
Now, even Mitt Romney, who was running for the highest office in the
country, had suggested the fact that we get and we fund both sides of
this war on terror, because we buy so much oil from overseas. And I
believe that every presidential candidate running last year said that
this is a matter of national security, and it is time that we do this.
One last thing. I visited an industry this week in my district that
is leading the charge in trying to make our buildings more efficient.
We spend $400 billion a year on inefficient buildings across this
country, and I know Representative Perriello said this before, the
cheapest energy in our country is the energy that we never use.
To save energy, to reduce our consumption, is very important,
especially when you have 3 percent of the world's population and we are
consuming nearly 30 percent of the world's resources of energy. That
has got to change, and we have got to find our way away from this, and
that is what this means tonight.
Representative Tonko had a few words on that.
Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Boccieri.
I have heard all of our colleagues talking about leadership,
exercising leadership and putting a plan into action. I think what is
most regrettable is that we are still having this debate as to whether
or not to enter into a new energy economy, to address the climate
change issues that are so much an imperative these days.
All of this discussion is coming while other nations are now
investing and investing heavily in their country's economy, driven by
these new technologies, these emerging technologies, an innovation
economy. So our pace here needs to be sped up. But it has also got to
be preceded by a sound plan that is put together. So I would implore
this House and the Senate to work in a bipartisan, bicameral way with
the White House to make certain that that plan is in place in very
short order.
Let me just talk about some of the evidence that I have seen in my
district, again with advanced battery manufacturing. I am looking at
investments from GE that would allow us to address a number of dynamics
that are speaking to the empowerment of the energy transformation where
the battery is the linchpin.
We are talking about development at GE that will allow for multiple
purposes, for heavy vehicles for their fuel needs, for those heavy
vehicles to be empowered by this alternative, but a new format of
battery, advanced battery manufacturing. We are talking about creating
a power supply with this sort of battery.
We are also talking about their battery development, essential to the
storage of intermittent renewables, supplies from the sun, from the
wind, that may be intermittent in nature. The linchpin here is to
develop the battery manufacturing that will transition us. All of this
investment needs to be sped up.
We also need to look at what we can do with efficiency within
renewables. I have recently passed in this House a wind energy-
efficiency bill that allows us to take a closer look at the
manufacturing and the assemblage of those given sorts of power supply.
Those renewables can be done in a more efficient way. Citing the
materials that are used, we can reach to nanoscience to develop lighter
materials or durable materials. How we assemble the gearbox assemblage
is an important bit of R&D that needs to get done, how we develop
through manufacturing a better tower system for our renewable supply
from wind.
All of this needs to be a huge American investment. Again, we have
the energy intellect. We can emerge from this race as a winner, but the
time is passing us by. And whichever nation emerges the winner in this
race will be that go-to nation that will be the exporter of energy
intellect, energy ideas, energy innovation for generations to come.
So, we are going to fail the next generation of job holders, we are
going to fail this Nation's economy, we are going to fail the
environment agenda, we are going to fail the energy
[[Page 25191]]
transitioning if we don't move forward intelligently, thoughtfully,
progressively, in a way that allows us to capture the brain power of
this country that has driven invention and innovation in so many
measures, in so many dynamics.
We have it within our grasp. We need to go from research that is done
at our universities and the private sector and further deploy into the
commercialization zone, into the manufacturing efforts, those ideas. We
have failed after that research investment. We need to have that
``valley of death,'' as it is termed, where we don't get the seed money
that is necessary for a lot of this innovative spark to take its
presence in our American economy. We need that sort of commitment and
we need that sort of policy development.
We can do it. This House has offered a great bill. We challenge those
in this process to work with us to have an outcome that has a bill on
the President's desk that can sign us into a new era of energy policy.
Mr. PERRIELLO. I want to pick up on what Mr. Tonko and Mr. Murphy
said. Right now there are two types of countries around the world.
There are those that are looking back 20 years ago and crying over what
we have lost, and there are those who are looking 20 years ahead and
saying, what could we be?
Right now, this body has too often been a problem in focusing because
of the way our campaigns work and other things on how to try to protect
what has been, instead of how to promote what could be. We are falling
behind in competitive advantage. We still have the best workforce, we
have the best capital and innovation, we have the best entrepreneurs,
we have the best science. Yet we get out-competed. It is time for this
body to be part of promoting what could be.
I found a lot of folks talking during August and other times I have
been home about threats to capitalism and how great capitalism has been
for our system. It is truly the economic driver of innovation and
growth. But the threat to capitalism right now is not, in my mind, what
some people have seen as a secret agenda. It is that we reward failure
and we reward the status quo, instead of rewarding innovation. That is
what has worked in the past. That is what can work again.
This bill, fundamentally about energy independence, is about finally
getting us incentivizing and rewarding the next generation of
innovation. That is how we build jobs here. That is how we grow jobs
and middle class incomes in this country.
One thing we don't often do in this body is to give credit to our
friends across the building in the Senate, but I do want to commend the
work and the leadership of Senator Graham and Senator Kerry on a call
to action on that side, in the Senate; a call for whether there are 60
patriots ready to go in the Senate and pass this. In particular, I
appreciate that they are willing to put the issue of a more robust
nuclear agenda on the table.
I think we need to look at everything as part of this. This problem
is too serious for any side to dig in its heels to some ideological
purity. We must look at how energy efficiency and smart-grid technology
will be part of this. We must look at nuclear, wind, solar, biomass, we
must look at all elements, because this is that important to our
national security and our job creation.
So I hope that there will be a robust debate on that side; that they
will find ways to maybe even strengthen what we have done on this side
by blazing that trail. That is how we revive innovation,
entrepreneurship and job creation in the next generation.
Mr. BOCCIERI. The gentleman is correct that we spend an awful lot of
time often looking back at what was instead of looking ahead at what
could be. And I remember the words so clearly, reading and hearing
about what President Kennedy said: We do these things not because they
are easy, but because they are hard.
It is hard to break from the status quo. It is hard to let the folks
who have been delivering us $4 a gallon gasoline, let them go and break
our dependence on our consumption of oil that comes from overseas. The
opponents of a robust energy policy in this country have been
attempting to define this bill and define our movement towards
efficiency, towards creating jobs, towards protecting our national
security, about cap-and-trade. Cap-and-trade is one section of the
bill, one section of the bill that looks at addressing the climate
change issue that the CIA, that the Department of Defense and our
intelligence experts are looking at.
So, are we going to put our weight with the folks who have been
giving us $4 a gasoline and those big energy industries that have been
making a lot of money over the status quo years, or are we going to
stand with our intelligence experts and suggest that this is real? Our
intelligence experts are suggesting we need to do this.
Now, when this body was faced with the decision, the section of the
bill that deals with cap-and-trade, we had a decision to make. There
was a court case at the end of last year that said the EPA was going to
regulate emissions in this country. Well, do you want the EPA and
bureaucrats in Washington doing it, or do you want the free market to
do it? Because I believe, like so many of my colleagues, that the
Federal Government has a responsibility to set the out-of-bounds
markets, to set the goalposts, let the free market operate in between,
and then throw the flag like a good referee does when someone goes out
of bounds. That is what we should do. Let the free market drive
innovation; let entrepreneurial spirit, let the innovators in this
great country do that.
Let's do that. But attempting to define this as a national energy
policy, as cap-and-trade, is not only disingenuous, I think it
threatens our national security. And those aren't just my words. Those
are the words of a fellow who I have a great deal of respect for, John
McCain, Senator McCain.
I flew this gentleman, this honorable American, out of Baghdad when I
was flying missions over in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said it is about
cap-and-trade. There will be incentives for people to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. It is a free market approach. John McCain is saying it
is a free market approach. The Europeans are doing it. We did it in the
case of addressing acid rain.
He said if we do that, we will stimulate green technologies. This
will be a profit-making business. It won't cost the American taxpayer.
Let me repeat that. It won't cost the American taxpayer, he said,
because of the free market approach. Joe Lieberman and I, Senator
McCain introduced the cap-and-trade proposal several years ago that
would reduce greenhouse gases within a gradual reduction. He said we
did this with acid rain. This works. It can work--if we have the
courage to do it.
We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are
hard. That is what leadership does. But if we are worried about the
next election and not worried about where our future is going, the
gentleman from Virginia is absolutely correct that we are going to
continue to be enslaved, like the gentleman from Arkansas said. Like he
said, if we can't produce the weapons to fight our own Nation's wars,
if we can't find the energy here in our own country, if we can't feed
ourselves, it is exactly right that we will be forever enslaved. That
is why we have to make the decision now. That is what leaders do.
Mr. PERRIELLO. I have learned a lot from the hardworking folks in my
district, particularly in southern Virginia, where we have been seeing
job losses and negative economic growth for years. While the country
has been facing this for the past year in particular, we have seen it
for a decade-and-a-half while jobs have gone overseas.
One of the things that folks say to me over and over again is, stop
offering us quick fixes. We know they are not true. Stop focusing your
politics on who to blame for the problem instead of how to fix it. That
is what I hear from the hardworking folks of my district. It is time to
stop the politics of blame and the politics of lollipops falling from
the sky and everybody will be happy on a sugar high. What it is time
[[Page 25192]]
for is the tough work of tough solutions.
There is no quick fix for regrowing our economy. We have to recreate
America's competitive advantage. We are getting out-competed, and there
is no excuse for that. And too often Washington has been part of the
problem instead of part of the solution.
What we are looking at is things that can not only have some short-
term benefits through energy efficiency, but will be part of a long
term strategy, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, that keep America
on top. Every previous generation of Americans has been willing to step
up to the challenge of their times.
{time} 2045
They haven't said, What do I do to get to the next election cycle?
They say, What do we do to leave America stronger and better than we
inherited it? That is the sacred covenant that Americans pass from one
generation to the next.
Our generation must deal with these sorts of threats, energy
independence and how we compete in a global economy. It's a new thing
that we haven't had to face at the same degree in the past. And for me,
this is also a question of moral responsibility. We are paying the
price for a period of tremendous greed and irresponsibility, from Wall
Street and corporate CEOs to the people of this body to individuals
buying a home that they can't afford or consuming energy they know they
could preserve.
There's an irresponsibility there that we must translate into a new
period of accountability and innovation, and that's what this is about.
This is about living up to that sacred covenant that the Greatest
Generation passes on and on through American tradition to say we have
it in our DNA as Americans to not back down from a fight or a
challenge, to not do what's easy, but to do what's right. And that's
what I'm proud to say we have begun to do here in this body, and it is
a seismic shift towards responsibility, and I'm proud to have been a
part of it with you.
Mr. BOCCIERI. Well, I can agree with the gentleman more that this is
about tomorrow. This is about where we are as a Nation 10 to 15 years
down the road, 20 years down the road, where my children and their
children's children will be.
Let me just drive home this point on national security. There was a
report that came out in 2009 by the Center for Naval Analysis,
coauthored by 12 retired generals and admirals of the United States
military, and they found that our dependence on fossil fuels undermines
United States foreign policy. It involves us with the volatile and
unfriendly powers, endangers our troops in combat, undercuts our
economic stability, and drives climate change, which weakens and
threatens to destabilize countries and add to an already heavy American
military burden. Our military experts are saying this. Our intelligence
experts are saying this.
Now, we have to be leaders and say that enough is enough. We can
invest in the tomorrow because we have the energy, we have the
alternative energy at our fingertips, and we can make this happen. But
we have got to find the courage to do this.
I know Representative Tonko wants to speak one last word on some of
our colleagues and what they have said. A gentleman that we serve with
here in this body, who I have a great deal of respect for, Ron Paul,
Congressman Ron Paul, he said, ``True conservatives and libertarians
have no right to pollute their neighbors' property. You have no right
to pollute your neighbors' air, water or anything. And this would all
contribute to the protection of all air and water.''
Now, what he's saying in the broader context is that this issue of
climate change is our responsibility, too. We're great partners and
leaders in the world, and we have to lead by example, like Mitt Romney
said, like Mike Huckabee said, like the President is saying, like
Secretary of State Clinton is saying. We have to lead by example, and
that's what America has always done. We've led by example. So this is
about where we are reaching down within our own internal national
character and finding the courage to lead in this economic challenge
that we face as our country.
Representative Tonko.
Mr. TONKO. Representative Boccieri, I couldn't agree more. And we do
embrace, we can embrace that challenge, the challenge that has been put
forth by all of these individuals that you named here this evening and
quoted.
I heard you express the free market system and what it can do to
enable us to have a better energy and environment outcome. I heard
Representative Perriello talk about not accepting the status quo. I
heard there, Representative, a kind of a pioneer spirit, a challenge to
be those pioneers that we have been throughout our history.
You know, gentlemen, I have the great fortune of representing the
Erie Canal communities. Where that Hudson and Mohawk River meet gave
birth to an industrial revolution. This whole channel of the waterway,
which was seen as a folly approach, became the empowerment tool, not
only in developing this Nation and prospering in the process, but
changing the entire world in terms of their quality of life. For in
that Erie Canal channel developed a number of mill towns, a necklace of
mill towns, each mill town becoming that epicenter of invention and
innovation, and they sparked their genius in a way that really
transitioned not only America but the world.
We are at that same juncture. We are now at that opportunity moment
that can allow us to seize this moment and make a difference. There are
those in our country who are those intellects that are proposing these
wonderful product lines, these wonderful inventions, but they need to
transition from that hybrid, that prototype, into the commercialization
and manufacturing of that idea.
And today, that new birth of an industrial revolution, a new economy,
isn't about mass production, where they might have invented some
wonderful object, produced a few numbers within their garage and then,
as business grew, created a factory and mass produced. That is a
different spot today for us. It's about precision. It's about the
prototyping. It's about the testing, and it's about the evaluating. And
that, my friends, is a very pricey situation.
There are not a lot of the start-ups and emerging technologies that
have available cash at hand, and there is a huge risk factor, and there
are ways to reduce that risk or work through it to see if it is, in
fact, going to endure the process. But there are also opportunities for
the government to invest in high-risk, great opportunities, situations
that can take us into new opportunities with battery manufacturing,
with new product lines, emerging technologies, that will be shelf-ready
for energy efficiency, alternative technologies for producing power
supplies, American power needs that are addressed by the American
workforce. Think of that as a great, novel idea, growing our economy.
People have said time and time again, we hear it in our districts,
Why are the jobs leaving this country? We have an opportunity to create
jobs in this country that respond to our social and economic needs,
that respond to our environmental curiosity and our environmental
responsibility, but we need to seize the moment. We need to express, in
very bold measure, that we care about the energy transformation, the
innovation economy.
Let's be those epicenters of invention and innovation as those mill
towns I represent were in the heyday of the industrial revolution. It
is within our grasp, it is within our intellect, and it needs to be
within our political will. And being here this evening and expressing
with you gentlemen where we can go and where we believe we are growing
our way toward is an important statement to make here this evening, and
it's a pleasure to have joined with you in this special hour.
Mr. BOCCIERI. Thank you, Congressman Tonko.
We're going to wrap up here with the last 4 minutes just underscoring
what we're talking about here today, the fact that we're focusing on
our Nation's energy needs and the fact that
[[Page 25193]]
we have got to move away from our dependence on foreign oil, protect
our national security, and create jobs right here in America with our
investments in these technologies.
And how disingenuous to some who would use the arguments by the
status quo who suggest that we need to continue on the way that we
have, where we'll be dependent on foreign sources of energy, on the
Middle East, and on OPEC-producing nations when we want to put our
faith and our trust and our energy in the innovators and the great
thinkers here in America.
And how disingenuous that we attempt to define a national energy
policy on an issue of cap-and-trade that has been working in this
country since the 1990s, on an issue that really is just one small
segment of a national energy policy that will mean the difference of us
breaking our dependence and creating jobs.
This is a turning point, a tipping point for America. Are we going to
lead or are we going to block? Are we going to believe or are we going
to fear? And are we going to look forward or are we going to look back?
Those are the questions that we have to ask with the national energy
policy. That's what we can do.
Representative Perriello, why don't you finish this up tonight.
Mr. PERRIELLO. Well, I appreciate, again, your leadership on calling
us together on this.
It's a very simple question. Do we want to continue funneling our
dollars through our gas tanks to the petro-dictators around the world
that hate us or do we want to invest those dollars back in the kind of
innovation and job creation that has always made this country great? Do
we want to continue to support those who undermine our Nation's
security or do we want to create the kind of energy independence that
is necessary to secure this country and secure our competitive
advantage?
And I'll tell you what. It's kind of exciting. It's an exciting
moment to be at the forefront of a new industrial revolution and think
about just how much American businesses will be able to outcompete and
outcreate other countries if we unleash this, if we unleash the
innovation and the profit motive that is available through this system,
a system developed by Republicans. And more credit to them.
Cap-and-trade is a Republican idea whose time has come, which is how
do we use the free market to solve some of the greatest problems of our
generation. That's what this new kind of politics should be about,
taking the best ideas, whether they come from Republicans, Democrats,
or Independents, and using them to solve the problems for our
generation. This is that time. This is that moment with energy
independence, to recreate the competitive advantage of this country and
to reinforce our national security.
We can do it. We've led the way. We believe we can see this through
this year, and we are going to see an incredible amount of potential in
this country for job growth and security because of it.
Mr. BOCCIERI. Thank you, Mr. Perriello.
National security, creating jobs right here in America, moving away
from our dependence on foreign oil, that's what this bill is about.
Making America again the producers of wealth instead of just the movers
of wealth, that's what this bill is about.
I'm proud to stand with my colleagues today to talk about our
Nation's energy policy and how we move this country down the field. We
do these things not because they're easy but because they're hard, as
President Kennedy said.
____________________
HEALTH CARE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Peters). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra)
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about and take this
opportunity to address my colleagues about the issue of health care,
and let me just kind of frame this and put it in a context that I think
will make a difference.
This is, again, one of those opportunities where Washington says, We
are here to help, but what we may see is something very, very
different. Washington helps the State of Michigan today to about 41
percent of its budget, but what it's really doing is it's controlling
the State of Michigan. And along with some of the ill-advised decisions
that have been made in our State, Washington policy, antigrowth
policies in the State of Michigan, have resulted in Michigan lagging
the country. We're number 50 in employment, which means we are number 1
in unemployment, and we've been there for a long time.
Let me explain how this happens. Like I said, 41 percent of
Michigan's budget this year, the State of Michigan's budget, will come
from the Federal Government directly. It will come with strings
attached to it, Washington telling us and our State about how we need
to spend our money, what we can and cannot spend it on. And remember,
it's our money. It came from the State of Michigan in the first place.
It came from our taxpayers. It came from our citizens. Of course, when
you have a $1.4 trillion deficit, we also know that it came from our
kids and from our grandkids. But with that 41 percent of direct
infusion into our State budget, I think, at a minimum, what we see is
this affects another 20 to 25 percent of our budget.
So, roughly, out of Michigan's budget, more than 60 percent of our
spending in the State of Michigan is directed by the Washington
establishment, directed by Washington bureaucrats telling us how to
spend our money. And some of you may ask, Well, how does that happen?
Well, think about it. When you go to the pump and fill up your tank,
there's a Federal gas tax. That money comes to Washington. It goes into
over 110 different funds, and then it's distributed back to the States.
And many of those funds, to get our own money back, we have to put up
matching funds.
{time} 2100
Think about it, the State that has kind of the economic problems that
Michigan has right now.
To get back our own money, we have to put up our own money and we
have to put it up in such a way that we have to spend it the way that
Washington wants us to spend it, not the way that we need it and the
way that we might be focused on it to address the issues and the
problems that we are facing in Michigan.
It's disappointing, but Michigan is known as having some of the worst
roads in the country. Plain English: we've got lots of potholes.
So it was kind of surprising a few years ago when I found out that
the Michigan Department of Transportation was going to build a turtle
fence. Think about it. We were going to build a turtle fence. And if
you think what do you build a turtle fence for, it's pretty obvious.
You build a turtle fence to prevent the turtle from crossing the
highway. Over $400,000 to build a turtle fence, and of course to do the
expensive study beforehand to determined that we needed a turtle fence.
Remember, this is a State that has the highest unemployment in the
country; it has some of the worst, if not the worst, roads in the
country. We send our highway dollars to Washington and we put up our
matching funds, and then the Governor says, Well, Pete, the Federal
Government has told us that we need to build a turtle fence.
We got it stopped the first time, and I hope the money was used to
fill potholes, to build an interchange, or to help build an extra lane
in a busy place or perhaps to use it on a project that would improve
the safety of our highways. But, no, 2\1/2\ years later it came back.
So I am driving north through my district, and I am going through
some of the wetlands where they've constructed this highway, and I see
people working. I don't need to guess what they're doing. They are
constructing a turtle fence. It is a very nice fence. It's about, you
know, 2\1/2\, 3 feet high, got the plastic tube on it so that the
turtle can't climb the fence and then crawl over the top of it. I think
it works.
[[Page 25194]]
I think that for $400,000, MDOT, the Michigan Department of
Transportation, can build a very, very good and a very effective turtle
fence, and we can prevent the turtles from crossing the highway. I
applaud the efforts of the Michigan Department of Transportation to
construct that fence and to build it in such a way that it will be a
long-lasting fence and will not allow turtles to cross the highway.
I am frustrated with the leadership in Michigan that allows the State
to prioritize the building of turtle fences when we have so many other
high-priority needs.
We've also built rest areas that cost us in the millions of dollars,
rest areas that replace other rest areas that might be a little bit
old, they may not be the best or the nicest rest areas in the country,
but it's hard to get into the rest area because you have got to dodge
the potholes to get to them.
This is what happens when we send our money to Washington and put
this in the context of health care. We're going to get to health care,
but put it in the context of what happens. Michigan sends its money to
Washington, it goes into 110 different funds, it comes back to the
States with strings attached, and then they tell us how to spend the
money.
You know, back in 1998, 1999, even though I was a member of the
Transportation Committee where we have responsibility for doling that
money out, I said, This is the wrong way to do it. What we need to do
is we need to leave the money in the State, never send it to Washington
in the first place, so the people of Michigan can use their money to
spend it on the priorities that they have identified. It is their
money, and the money should stay in Michigan. And if there are some
national priorities for a national highway system, send a couple of
pennies out of every dollar to Washington, DC, but don't send all of it
and then go to Washington and beg to get some of it back.
For perhaps more than 50 years, Michigan and all of the other States
have been beggars to Washington to get their money back for the life of
the highway trust fund. Michigan has averaged about 83 cents. Think of
that. For the life of the highway trust fund, almost 50 years, we've
sent a dollar to Washington, and we've gotten 83 cents back. It's time
to embrace an approach that says that money stays in the States.
I was talking to a constituent the other day and they went on
vacation. They said, Where does all of that money go? They'd just gone
on vacation. They went to West Virginia. They now know where our
highway money went. They said, Pete, the highways and the roads in West
Virginia are absolutely gorgeous; they are in great shape. I would
hazard a guess that they've gotten a lot more money back than what
Michigan has.
So for 50 years, Michigan has been subsidizing other States because
perhaps our Members of Congress weren't the chairmen of the
Transportation Committee, weren't part of the elected leadership. So
they didn't get their fair share. Well, it's time to go back to where
we need to be, which is we need to make sure that States get their fair
share and we only give part of what we need for national priorities,
the Highway Interstate System. We leave the rest of the money here.
Like I said, I've been advocating for that since the late 1990s. That
argument back then was Washington is here to help build a highway
system, and it has now grown to Washington telling us we need to build
turtle fences in Michigan.
It was 2001 we had a new President. The President's priority was K-12
education. Washington once again was here to help. So we went through
the process. I was excited. I was on the Education Committee. I thought
that there was a small role for the Federal Government in K-12
education. My perspective is K-12 education, the education of our most
precious assets, our kids, is the responsibility of parents, local
schools, communities, the State. And then perhaps to address some
inequities and some very hardship cases and maybe to do some research
that would be used by all of the States and by all of our school
districts, you would have the Federal Government.
So I was excited because I saw us diminishing the role of the Federal
Government, rolling back Federal mandates. We'd done a study in the
1990s that showed that every Federal education dollar we spent in
Washington or that was allocated in Washington, only about 65 cents
made it to where it needed to be. It made it to a point where it was
helping educate a child in a classroom.
I came out of the business world. I worked for a company called
Herman Miller. If we were looking at it and said, Wow, we're eating up
35 percent of every dollar in bureaucracy and it's not enabling us to
serve our customer, we would have said we've got to go back and take a
look at the system. We've got to use every penny we can to serve our
customer, or our competition is going to beat us. But for Federal
education dollars--again, money that would come from Michigan, go to
Washington and then we'd have to beg to get it back--but only 65
percent of it would end up in a classroom, the place where the leverage
point was the most important place; 35 percent would go to bureaucracy.
And we'd have to fill out all kinds of reports and paperwork back to
the Federal Government telling them about what was going on in our
local schools.
A friend of mine and I, we would go over to the education department
consistently, and we would kind of walk through it and say, Who here in
the Department of Education might be from the Second Congressional
District of Michigan? Who might be from Holland, who might be here from
Ludington, who might be here from Manistee so they can understand the
unique perspectives of the Second Congressional District of Michigan?
Really couldn't find anybody. But I've got a passion for the State of
Michigan and believe that every child in the State of Michigan needs a
great education.
So we go around and say if we can't find somebody from the Second
Congressional District, who's here from Grand Rapids? Is there anybody
who works in the Department of Education from Flint? From Detroit? From
Ann Arbor? From Traverse City? From Manistee? From Marquette? Who is
here that understands the unique challenges or the financing of
education in Michigan and how education in Michigan runs that makes
education more challenging or provides more opportunities than other
States in the Midwest or other States in the country?
Who understands the challenges that we face in the winter for getting
our kids to school? Who understands the challenges that we have since
tourism is one of our biggest industries? Is there anybody from
Michigan here who can really understand all of this paperwork that
comes in? And we couldn't find those folks.
So I thought, Wow, this is a great opportunity to move and diminish
the Federal role, get that money back in a classroom where we could
leverage it and have an impact. And from a disappointing standpoint, we
went the over way. We passed a bill called No Child Left Behind. And it
was a lot of folks that were enticed and seduced by the promise of
Washington money and the simple solution that said, Don't worry about
your education; we'll take care of it.
There were only 41 of us that said ``no'' to No Child Left Behind.
Everybody else said, Washington is here to help. Don't worry about it.
Things will be fine.
We're now 8 years into No Child Left Behind, and as we go around, I
am finding a lot of my colleagues are now embracing a plan that we
called A-PLUS that says let's roll back No Child Left Behind, let's
leave the money in the States, and let's leave educating our kids to be
the primary responsibility of the States, local school districts, and
parents.
People say that is a novel idea. No, that's not a novel idea. Many of
us came into Washington in the 1990s, and that was the idea that we
promoted. Just like we did with highway funds, leave the money in the
States.
Why would we want to transfer money from the States for education
[[Page 25195]]
and for highways to a place like Washington, D.C. where they want to
control our lives, tell us how to spend our money, tell us how to
educate our kids? Under No Child Left Behind, what did they do? They're
telling us who are good teachers.
Excuse me, I don't need Washington, DC to tell me who are the good
teachers in the schools that my kids go to and who are the bad
teachers. Somehow Diane and I figured that out long before our kids got
to that grade.
How did we do it? Very simple. We talked to other parents who had
kids in the same school that we did. It's amazing. People at the
community level actually know what the strengths and weaknesses of
their schools are. It's amazing. People at the local level actually can
find their schools. They know where the various schools are in our
communities in Lansing and Hillsdale and Oakland County. We know where
the schools are. Bureaucrats in Washington can't. They can't tell the
difference between one community and the next.
So think about it. In the late 1950s, the interstate highway system.
Washington said, We are here to help. Fifty years later, they're
telling us to build turtle fences we don't need. 2001--actually the
creation of the Department of Education in 1979. It's Washington is
here to help. We're now in 2009, and they're telling us who are good
teachers and who are bad teachers. It kind of sets the context for
health care.
Think about it. This is now where we are with health care. ``Reid
offers docs a deal.'' At least this is what's reported in one of the
newspapers that we receive here in Capitol Hill. It's not about quality
and quantity, just like highways is no longer about building the roads
that are needed and are necessary. It's about who's got the power and
the authority in Washington to allocate those dollars that we send from
Michigan.
Think about it. It's the powerful in Washington that have taken that
power from the State, from a State legislature, and they've usurped it
and they've taken it to Washington and they're using it to demonstrate
their own power.
{time} 2115
It's not about what roads we need in Michigan. We don't need turtle
fences in Michigan right now. We have fundamental transportation
problems and issues that need to be addressed, but people in Washington
think they know better about how Michigan should spend its
transportation dollars.
We are reducing funding for K through 12 education. We don't need No
Child Left Behind, which is money from Michigan going to Washington and
then being allocated by the powerful in Washington so that some States
win and some States lose. In highways, Michigan has lost to the tune of
17 cents of every dollar that has ever been sent to Washington, D.C.,
in the highway transportation program. Think about how much better our
roads would be if we would have been able to spend that money on our
priorities. We might have the infrastructure that would be able to
support and attract a better business climate.
Think about education, where we are cutting funding for K through 12
education, yet the money is coming here to Washington and it's going
back to our local school districts under No Child Left Behind, and
we've got administrators hiring extra people to figure out how we need
the mandates. And a lot of this, as I look at it, ends up being what
some have called ``legalized Washington corruption'' because those
dollars come to Washington, and they are allocated not by priority or
need, but by who has the clout and who doesn't. So some States are
winners and others are losers. Some communities are winners and others
are losers. And when you get to education, it means that some kids are
winners and some are losers.
Then you get to health care. That's the kind of system we are moving
to in health care. You're going to have winners and losers in health
care because this health care debate is not about the quantity and the
quality of health care. It's about who is going to make the decisions.
We were promised all kinds of transparency as we were moving forward on
health care and health care reform. Where is the transparency? My
colleagues on the other side of this building voted on a health care
reform bill--think about it--they voted on a health care reform bill
based on an outline of what the author intended it to stand for and
intended it to be.
And finally, after they voted on it, they passed an outline. Is that
transparency? Yeah, it might have been more transparent than what we
got. It ended up being a 1,500-page bill after they voted on it. And
now people are starting to go through the bill and to find out what's
different between what was in the outline and now what is actually in
the legislative language. Surprise. We are going to have Senators who
found out that they thought they were voting for this and they actually
ended up voting for that. That is what we've got for transparency.
And now the next thing, ``Reid Offers Docs a Deal.'' Think about it,
America. Think about it. This is what health care has now amounted to.
``Reid Offers Docs a Deal.'' Here's the deal as reported in The Hill:
``The White House and Democratic leaders are offering doctors a deal.''
This is how we are going to reform health care? ``They'll freeze cuts
in Medicare payments to doctors in exchange for doctors' support of
health care reform.''
Some might call that bribery.
It goes on to say, ``At a meeting on Capitol Hill last week with
nearly a dozen doctors groups, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said
the Senate would take up separate legislation to halt scheduled
Medicare cuts in doctor payments over the next 10 years. In return,
Reid made it clear that he expected their support for the broader
health care bill, according to four sources in the meeting.''
I thought this was about improving the quality, the quantity and the
access to health care. But it's really not much different than what you
see in the highway bill and in education. And you're already starting
to see it in health care. The quality of your roads, West Virginia
versus Michigan, depends on the people and the positions that they have
moved into. Is that what health care is going to be, that you're going
to go to certain States because they get more money? We'll talk about
that a little bit more.
But this is what the process is for passing legislation. ``Reid
Offers Docs a Deal.'' It's a massive shift. Reid can offer that--
according to this paper--can offer that because if this legislation
becomes law, it will not be the individual American person, family, the
employer or the State who sets the framework for education. It will be
leadership in Washington determining who the winners and losers will
be. That's what H.R. 3200 is about. That's what the Bachus bill is all
about. It's not about quantity and quality of health care. It's about
who is going to have control of the decision. Who's going to be able to
say, you're the folks that are going to be paying the 18 percent of the
GDP, the gross domestic product, into Washington.
And then they're going to distribute it. They're going to distribute
it to those people within this Chamber and within the other Chamber
that are sitting in the right spot in the right chair to get more for
their State and more for their community than what others may. Some of
you may say, that won't happen; this is about everybody in America
getting quality, quantity and improved health care. Do you really
believe that that's what's happening in the highway bill? All those
States that are out there, you know who are the winners in the highway
formula bill, the donor States. You know who they are. We all know who
they are.
We are the ones that get less back than what we pay in, not because
we have fewer needs, but because someone else has made that
determination.
Just like for the highway bill and No Child Left Behind, we have
proposals to do it differently. For the highway bill, it's very simple.
Leave the money in the States. No Child Left Behind, it's very, very
simple--empower parents, don't empower Washington bureaucrats.
Highways, let States and communities make the decisions as to
[[Page 25196]]
where we're going to spend our money. As for education, let parents,
teachers, community leaders, and States decide where we're going to
spend the money. Heaven knows we've got enough other issues in
Washington that we could and should be spending our time on, national
economic issues and Afghanistan. Those deserve national priority. We
want roads and transportation decisions to be made in the States. We
want Michigan people to determine where Michigan dollars are going to
be spent. We don't like sending our money to other States. We will make
the decisions about how to educate our kids.
There's another vision that's out there for health care. It's written
by a colleague of mine and myself, ``How to Insure Every American.''
Just like the highway bill has caused many of the transportation
problems in Michigan, so government has caused many of the problems
that we face today in health care. Our tax code incentivizes employer-
provided health care, rewards health insurance companies by insulating
them from accountability and competition, and punishes those who lack
employer-provided care. It's an op-ed that John Shadegg and I wrote in
The Wall Street Journal published September 4 of this year.
We believe that there's a better way than going to what we have got
here, H.R. 3200, over 1,000 pages, one massive bill that takes power
from you, the American people, and moves it to Washington, D.C. Think
about it. Do you really want to know how this bill is going to get
passed, how it's going to change, and how it's going to be modified
over the coming weeks? ``Reid Offers Docs a Deal.'' How many other
deals are being cooked up to move this bill through the process and
move the power away from you, as individual consumers, to people in
Washington, D.C.?
Think about it. John and I, John Shadegg and I, we've outlined an
alternative vision, how to insure every American. We believe the
solution to this problem is what? Just like we believe that parents
ought to drive the education decision of their kids, we believe that
patients and consumers should have increased power in a new insurance
market because what we have today, what appears to be a free market
health care system, is not. We want to improve and increase
competition.
We want to empower people to have access to be able to afford health
care. And later on, I will talk about the specific solutions that we
have. But we have a vision that says we want consumers in charge, and
yeah, we don't really have a lot of faith in this process here being in
charge of health care, because they have done such a great job for some
of our States and for some of us when it comes to education and when it
comes to transportation.
Let me just read on. We believe that all Americans deserve the
ability to select health care coverage that meets their needs, not the
preferences of politicians. People versus politicians. Republicans in
Congress want to empower Americans to make their own choices by
providing a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for you to purchase the plan
of your choice. Those who cannot presently afford coverage would be
able to select and purchase their own plan using a health care voucher
provided by the Federal Government, empowering individuals in a market,
not the Federal Government, through mandates.
If we give citizens the ability to control their own care, cover
preexisting conditions, and provide resources to the uninsured, we will
have fixed health care in America. No bureaucrats. Guess what? No new
czars, no mandates, just choice and coverage for every American.
It's a very, very different approach, empowering individuals,
empowering States, and embracing the concept of the 10th Amendment to
our Constitution, which says we are going to reserve the rights to the
States, except for those things that are expressly given to the Federal
Government.
Where in the world have we gone so far wrong that we believe it's the
Federal Government's responsibility to get down to the point where it
will decide whether our teachers develop the framework, where it will
decide whether our teachers in our local schools are good teachers or
bad teachers, where it believes we need a clover leaf in our
transportation system, an on- and off-ramp. They don't know. These are
decisions best left for parents. And since when are they going to be--
if they can tell us who are the good teachers and the bad teachers, do
you really believe they aren't going to try to move on and try to tell
us who are good docs and who are bad docs, where our hospitals should
be and what they should be able to do? We've seen what happens when
they do that in education. Let's not let them do that in health care.
What does H.R. 3200 do besides moving all of this responsibility from
you, the American people, to Washington, D.C.? Think about what it does
to small business. Small business, the lifeblood of Michigan, the
lifeblood of the U.S. economy. Do you wonder why there's uncertainty in
the economy? If you're a small business and you're thinking about
investing today, it's kind of like, wow, let's see. Those folks in
Washington, they want to do cap-and-trade, which may put huge taxes on
me. Do you know what? I'm going to have to just kind of step back and
maybe reserve a little cash because I don't know what they're going to
do with cap-and-trade, cap-and-tax, massive new taxes on small
business, small and medium-sized business, I'd better wait.
{time} 2130
That doesn't help the economy, this uncertainty.
Massive new tax increases because we don't know what is going to
happen with the tax cuts that were passed and have been in law for the
last number of years. All indications are that the current
administration is going to let them expire, meaning more money for
Washington--at least in the short term--less money for businesses for
investment and for jobs because the money is going to be coming here
because, guess what, we're moving health care decisions here.
And now they've got this new tax through H.R. 3200. What will it do?
It mandates what businesses will have to ensure for their employees.
And if they don't, it has a sliding scale. It says you will pay zero
percent if you have payrolls of under $250,000; you will pay 2 percent,
4 percent, 6 percent, 8 percent, depending on what your payroll is. New
taxes for small business. Wow, when we're at record high unemployment
rates.
Now, I know that this is the strategy in the State of Michigan, that
when we are down, our Governor has decided that she will raise taxes
because the State will be taken care of first. We found out how good
that worked. They raised taxes. People looked at us from around the
country and said, That's kind of strange. They've got the highest
unemployment rate in the country, they've got budget problems, and they
believe that the way to grow the economy in Michigan is to raise taxes.
They laughed, and they were right. Michigan raised taxes, our
unemployment went up. Not really brain surgery; when you tax more of
it, you're going to get less of it.
So when we taxed jobs and businesses more, guess what? We got less
business activity and fewer jobs. Think about it. We are at 15.3
percent unemployment in our State. The scary thing is now we've
embraced that kind of mentality here in Washington, D.C. The President,
the leadership in the House and the Senate, they have said we're not
going to continue the tax cuts that were in place for job creation over
the last number of years.
They have also said that we are going to and we want to tax business
more for cap-and-trade, the carbon controlling mechanism. And now
they're saying the same thing with health care, an 8 percent payroll
tax. Even if an employer in good faith is offering health care to their
employees and an employee decides not to take it, the company will be
taxed 8 percent of that employee's salary. Penalties in here up to
$500,000 for unintentional failures on the part of the employer,
unintentional failures on the employer.
So, what do we see? That this health care bill is predicted to drive
the same kind of results that we have seen in
[[Page 25197]]
Michigan, that by raising taxes, we're going to get a vibrant economy;
right? No, wrong. That by raising taxes, we will smother our economy.
The National Federation of Independent Businesses says that they
expect that if this bill goes into law, we will lose perhaps an
estimated 1.6 million jobs. The Council of Economic Advisors, the
Chair, Christine Romer, found that an employer mandate could result in
the loss of somewhere between 4.7 and 5.5 million jobs.
This bill also has in it taxes, surtaxes on high-income individuals.
So in a State like Michigan, think about the top wage earners would be
paying taxes at the rate of about 52 percent, 52 percent. And remember
that about 42 percent of small business income would be subject to this
surtax. That's going to be really good for small business. In Michigan,
it's projected our tax rate, when you combine Federal and State taxes,
the tax rate would be 51.59 percent. Wow. That is going to be something
that is going to stimulate our economy. But that's the direction where
this bill is headed. There are lots of questions about this bill, but
let me go on.
I laid out for you that Congressman Shadegg and I and many of our
colleagues have a vision for where we want to go that says we want to
empower individuals to have a greater ability to have more choice in
selecting the kind of health insurance that they want.
Just recently, on October 14, John and I wrote another op-ed because
we were hearing all of these things about the Senator Baucus plan that
was working its way through the Finance Committee in the Senate. And in
this op-ed, people characterized it--the title was, ``Lies, Earmarks
and Corruption All in One Bill.'' Now, we didn't put the title on it,
but people read our content and the editors at the Investors Business
Daily said--they are kind of implying that they made that decision to
put those words at the heading of this bill. So it kind of tells you
how we feel about the Baucus bill.
Let me just read some of what is in the Investor Business Daily
editorial. ``We are nominating Senator Baucus' health care reform bill
for the Pulitzer Prize--for fiction.
``Like works of great fiction, writers such as Ernest Hemingway,
Joseph Conrad and F. Scott Fitzgerald, the story line of the Baucus
bill is not what it seems and is in fact a clever subterfuge of what
health care will mean for the American people.
``Hiding behind this facade is another story about a massive power
grab by the Washington political establishment.
``The bill is loaded with fiction. To begin with, it purports to
reduce the deficit. This is really an Enron-style scam with the bill's
massive new taxes starting on day one and dramatic new health care
expenditures, which will far exceed the tax revenues, beginning in year
four.''
You know, in the private sector, if Herman Miller did that type of
accounting when I was there, or if any company did that in the private
sector today, Enron-style accounting, people would go to jail. But in
the Baucus bill, what we see is tax revenue starting on day one,
massive new health expenditures starting on day one of year four, and
they come back and say, well, the 10-year window is going to help the
deficit. And it's like, yeah, I think you're right. You've got 10 years
of revenue and only 7 years of expenditures. What's going to happen
when you've got 10 years of revenue and 10 years of expenditures?
Excuse me. You are going to have a massive deficit. Some would call
that a lie.
The Baucus bill claims to treat all Americans equitably, but we find
that in the Baucus bill, ``Let's Make a Deal'' has been around and
alive and well in the crafting of this bill already. And how is that?
Well, just like Senator Reid, apparently, according to The Hill, was
willing to make deals with docs, someone in the writing of the Baucus
bill was willing to make deals with perhaps other Senators to maybe get
their support. Well, how would that happen? ``The Baucus bill claims to
treat all Americans equitably, yet four States receive Medicaid
exemptions--the Federal Government will pick up the State's share of
Medicaid costs,'' the increased Medicaid costs--``for 5 years.''
Interesting, one of those States is Nevada. Where is the majority
leader from? Oh, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a Democrat from
Nevada. Oh, okay. I think he may also be up for election. But it's
interesting, Nevada will get a 5-year exemption of expanded Medicaid.
Well, maybe they need it. This is the beginning of dealmaking that says
your health care will be determined by leadership and not by your
State.
Think about it. Sure, four States are going to get a Medicaid break.
That means the other 46 States are going to be paying for it. Remember
what we called that in the highway bill? You're going to have 46 States
that are donor States that are subsidizing the other four States. It's
already starting. And this is when people are watching. Four States are
going to get a better deal on health care than what 46 other States are
going to get. So now we've got, at least according to press reports,
docs maybe getting a deal, four States are getting a deal on Medicaid.
Does it stop there? No. It doesn't.
Again, Senator Chuck Schumer, according to the Investors Business
Daily, ``put in a little-noticed provision that exempts New Yorkers and
taxpayers from some other States from the bill's tax on gold-plated
insurance plans.'' The result? I guess there are going to be 17 States
exempted there. So 17 States, at least for a period of time, are going
to be exempted from paying the tax on gold-plated insurance plans.
Seventeen States are exempted. That means that 33 other States must be
subsidizing the health care of these 17. It means that these 33 States
will pay more in taxes and it will go to these folks in these 17 States
to improve the quality of their health care.
So now we know that there may be a deal for docs. In the bill, there
is a deal for four Medicaid States. There is a deal for 17 States on
gold-plated. It's starting to look an awful lot like how we do
transportation.
Then it goes on. Massive earmarks in the bill. Earmarks. That's
right, it's in the title there. Up to--I think in the House bill it was
$10 billion. Maybe in the Senate bill it's $5 billion for VEBA. What is
VEBA? Well, we found this about 3 or 4 weeks after the bills came out
of the committees in the House, a little-noticed provision said $10
billion. I think in the Baucus bill it may be $5 billion, an earmark
for VEBA. And people are saying what's VEBA?
VEBA is the retirement account underfunded for retired UAW workers.
This may be a very worthwhile investment and expenditure, but it
shouldn't be in a health care bill. Why is it in a health care bill?
I'm not sure. Is it another deal? I don't know. It may help get some
votes for this bill.
The bill will cover illegal aliens. It will cover adoption. No
American is going to be able to keep their health care plan. Maybe for
a period of time that they will, but when you take a look at the bill,
you know, what you find is that in the bill you can't have a Health
Savings Account.
If you're young, healthy, you're thinking about investing in a
business, a start-up business, and you say, You know what? I want to
have health care coverage, but I'm going to take a high deductible plan
so my premiums are low. I don't engage in high-risk activities, but I
want to put that money into my dream business. I want to go back to
Michigan. I want to open up a business and I need some of that money
myself, so I'm going to take the risk. I want a high deductible plan.
I'm going to cover myself so if something really bad happens, I know
I'm going to have the insurance coverage that I need, but I'm willing
to take a little bit of a risk because I have this dream of starting
this business and I want to put my money and I want to put my cash into
that. I want to create a job for me and a business for me, and I want
to take my job and I want that little business to grow to be two
employees, to be five employees, and in 5 years I hope it's 100. And
you know what? I have a dream that maybe I can be the next Apple.
[[Page 25198]]
{time} 2145
Remember, Apple and Hewlett-Packard started in back rooms. They
started in garages.
I've got an idea, and I've got a vision, and I've got a passion for
this new product. It may be in energy. It may be in technology. It may
be in ag, but I'm going to be the next Microsoft. I'm going to be the
next Apple. I'm going to be the next Hewlett-Packard, and I'm going to
do it right here in the State of Michigan, or I'm going to do it right
here in the United States, but to do that, I need some start-up
capital. Guess what?
The government is going to mandate that you buy a Cadillac insurance
plan. You're no longer going to have that choice. Guess what?
If you started a business in the last year, saying, you know, I'm
going to be able to take that money and I'm going to have that high-
risk plan and I'm going to have that catastrophic and I'm going to have
that high-deductible plan and I'm going to keep pouring that money into
my business, when this plan goes into effect, you'd better change your
business plan because the health care czar, the person whom we've told
181 times, will say you must, you shall, you will in terms of
establishing the rules and regulations have to follow the law. She will
say, Sorry, you cannot do that. You've got to buy a full plan. You
don't have that choice anymore.
When you take a look at it, this is why, I think, the folks in
Investors Business Daily said--and when we look at the content of this
editorial written by myself and Congressman Shadegg and when we see the
deal that was cut for 33 States on gold-plated insurance plans and the
deal that was cut for Medicaid for four States and the deal that Reid
is now looking at again, according to press reports, at cutting on
docs--they call it ``corruption,'' but in Washington, some would say
it's legalized Washington corruption. This is what leads many to
believe that this is not about the quality or the quantity of health
care; it's all about who has the power and the decision-making in
health care.
You know, our last line in this editorial--and I think this is why,
when I go home, I am somewhat energized by the response. I think that
the TEA party movement has been phenomenal because, if we're going to
leave the power with the American people on health care, if we're going
to restore the power to the American people and to parents on
education, if we're going to restore the authority back to States and
follow the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment, the American people
and the TEA party folks and the Tenth Amendment folks and others are
going to have to stand up and say, Absolutely no more because, as we
close: the American people need to stand up and say no, no to this
callous grab of power by Washington elites.
This is the first real test, the TEA party movement, to influence
public policy. Americans are counting on their elected Representatives
to protect them from a tragically flawed health care bill. Grass-roots
America needs to speak. They need to speak out before it's too late. If
you're not willing to fight on this issue, if not now, when? Time is
running out.
People say, well, we need health care reform. You know what? The
American people are absolutely right; but this bill, going through this
process in the dark of night and with no transparency--the President
promised us transparency and that the negotiations would be on C-SPAN.
We have yet to see that materialize.
So where do we go? It's a very simple alternative. It's a seven-
solutions plan.
At one of my town meetings early on, the process engineer said, you
know, Pete--and you probably did this when you were at Herman Miller--
you know, when you were in the business world, what you did is you
identified the problems, and you fixed the problems.
I said, Yeah, that's what we did at Herman Miller whether it was in
the engineering area, whether it was in customer service, whether it
was in marketing. You identified the problem. You brought together a
group of people to develop the solution to fix that problem, and you
left the other 85 percent of the company alone that was working pretty
well and maybe working really, really well.
You know, 83 percent of the American people today recognize there
need to be some fixes to health care. They have compassion for those
who cannot get it. They have compassion for those who cannot afford it.
They have compassion for those people who have preexisting conditions.
America is a compassionate country.
So they're saying, Pete--and I think they're telling a lot of my
colleagues this--they're saying, Address the problems that are out
there, but you know, I'm relatively satisfied with my health care.
Don't mess with mine, because you know what? We really didn't like what
you did with No Child Left Behind. The promises were all really good,
but the implementation has been terrible in No Child Left Behind.
It's just like after 50 years there are some things we really like
about the interstate highway system, but we really don't like where it
has evolved to today where you tell us to build turtle fences or where
the Washington government says take it and identify the pieces that are
broken and fix those.
So we came up with seven very simple bills--you can look these up--
which address the issues that are most frequently identified as being
the problem in health care. So, just like when I was at Herman Miller
in the private sector, we would go out, and we'd identify the problem.
We'd talk to our customers and say, What are the difficulties? What are
the issues that you have dealing with Herman Miller? They'd identify
them. We'd come back, and we'd fix them.
So, as we've done that and as we've talked about health care, people
have said, you know, well, cost is a problem. All right. So we've got
H.R. 2607, the Small Business Health Fairness Act, which are
association health plans. Create more competition.
Health savings and affordability. Expand health savings accounts. Our
elders may not want to use a health savings account. They've always
gotten health care in a different way. So our elders may not want to
use health savings accounts. Our family uses a health savings account.
Expand the access to health savings account. My kids love it. It
empowers them to make health care decisions. If they access health care
effectively, guess what? At the end of the year, they have money that
they have saved, and they now put that as a part of their retirement
plans. My daughter is planning this already, and she's 27. She has gone
through this for 3, 4 years. It works. It has made her a better
consumer of health care. Under H.R. 3200, that option is gone.
The Health Care Choice Act. Allow insurance companies to compete
across State lines. We can address the cost aspect.
Access. Community building access. This is a plan that we've used in
Michigan, in Muskegon. It's now being used. We've got a three-party
cost share of the business, the individual, and the community. Creating
access. Assuring coverage. Let's take care and help people with
preexisting conditions. Improving health care for all Americans. So we
can address the access issue.
Then let's make sure that we don't forget about tort reform. So we
can address cost, access, and tort reform.
We have seven different bills which, if passed, we could implement
all of them immediately rather than what this bill does. This bill goes
through and implements the taxes on day one and doesn't do the program
until year four. Simple bills singularly identifying a specific
problem. You could identify the bill. You could read the bill. You
could probably understand it. Not many people can go through this and
understand it. You won't have to go through this process of let's make
a deal to make it become law. Seven solutions.
It's just like we've got a vision and a plan for transportation that
says empower the States to make more of our transportation decisions,
leave the money in the State, and don't send it to Washington. A
vision, a strategy and a plan to make that happen. It's
[[Page 25199]]
just like we've got a vision for education that says we're going to
empower parents and local communities and school districts rather than
a Washington establishment, and we've got a plan to do that called A-
plus, a solution.
We've got the same thing in health care. Empower consumers and not
Washington bureaucrats to make decisions about their health care. We've
got the strategies, and we've got the specific bills that can make that
happen.
The bottom line is it's time for the American people to stand up and
to say, We've had enough of Washington taking our freedom and usurping
our authority and taking our decisions and having the decisions and the
quality, whether it's transportation or education or now health care,
be made by the Washington elites in a way that says some will win and
some will lose.
That is what we have found in transportation. It is what we are
finding in education. If we move the authority for health care to
Washington, D.C., we will be violating the Constitution. It is the
responsibility of individuals and States to deal with that. Nowhere in
the Constitution does it say that this is the authority of the Federal
Government, and we will be putting in place a system where the quality
of your health care is going to be dependent on ``let's make a deal''
potentially with the leadership in Congress.
I want control of my health care. I think that you want control of
your health care when you consider the alternative.
Take a look at the solutions that we have proposed: Empowering
individuals to have access and to have the means to buy health care and
to make the choices and to be held accountable and responsible for the
choices that they make. When they make great choices, they will
benefit. Yes, they will have the freedom to make, perhaps, some wrong
choices, but that is what makes America great. When we make wrong
choices, we will learn and we will improve, but let's make sure that we
fight for freedom.
The time to fight for freedom is today, and it is on this issue, and
we need to move forward. There is nothing more important for us to do
than to move forward and to reform health care, but to do it in such a
way that empowers individuals and not Washington.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
ENERGY AND TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Massa) is recognized
for 60 minutes.
Mr. MASSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to rise today
to discuss something that has become exceptionally important to me and
to many in my district. In fact, it has become exceptionally important
to individuals all over this country.
I ask the Speaker's indulgence tonight to engage both on a short and
technical historical discussion of a technology that not only holds
great promise for the United States but, in fact, for the world; and I
appreciate the Speaker's indulgence as I do so.
It was a pivotal time in history, just about 100 years ago, when
motorized transportation was, in fact, in its infancy, and our country
and its transportation industry faced a very important choice: Should
the energy for powering the newly developed horseless carriage come
from electricity and batteries, or should it come from the internal
combustion engine and petroleum fuels?
Remember, please, that both of these technologies--and it's hard for
us to imagine--were at that time brand new. Both technologies had been
established in the fledgling motorized transport industry from the
beginning. There were down sides to both choices.
Batteries were heavy; took up a lot of space and took a long time to
reenergize or, as we come to call it today, recharge. Whereas, internal
combustion engines were noisy. They scared a lot of horses; required
fuel that was both difficult to come by; they were scarce, smelly and
volatile. Our other choice, the electric drive, or the internal
combustion engine, would require a huge investment in the development
of a nationwide infrastructure.
Obviously, the choices taken then heavily favored the internal
combustion engine. By a large margin, the internal combustion engine
outperformed electric drive; carried more passengers; could carry more
cargo; could go farther while taking far less time to refill its on-
board energy supply. This was for the fundamental reason that, by both
weight and volume, more energy was contained in petroleum fuels, and
they could then be packaged in batteries.
Thus, for the last 100 years and continuing today, petroleum-
dependent internal combustion engines dominate every common mode of
motorized transportation, but some things have not changed in 100
years. Batteries, no matter how improved, are still heavy. They take up
a lot of space, and they require an awful long time to recharge.
{time} 2200
Internal combustion engines, however improved, still scare a lot of
horses, at least back where I am from, are still noisy, and require a
fuel that is both smelly, hard to come by and volatile.
Among the things that have changed is our realization of the long-
term consequences of our earlier choices. Increasingly in recent
decades we have come to realize that there are many compelling flaws in
our choices for internal combustion engines: The noise, the smell, the
volatility, the scarcity of the fuel. The overriding concern now and
the overriding environmental impact and national security
considerations dominate today's discussions.
But that is not all. In the complex and dangerous world in which we
live, international industrial competitiveness and domestic access to
advanced technologies are now paramount. So, as with 100 years ago,
much is at stake for our country and for the world in the decisions we
make now. And as we are consumed in internal domestic debates over
things like health care and other critical issues that we face, Mr.
Speaker, I pause tonight to talk about advanced technologies.
Fortunately, the automotive industry and governments around the world
have foreseen the present, what we face today, and they have been
making preparations. Clearly, solutions to the environmental impact and
energy security issues that we are facing have been embraced by the
automotive industry, and technologies to move us to a future of clean
environment and energy independence are now at hand and at the ready.
The automotive industry has proven its commitment by inventing and
investing in these technologies and products, and governments have
professed their support through statements such as the following from
our President, Barack Obama, just recently on March 19th of this year.
Mr. Speaker, please allow me to quote:
``So, we have a choice to make. We can remain one of the world's
leading importers of foreign oil, or we can make the investments that
would allow us to become the world's leading exporter of renewable
energy. We can let climate change continue to go unchecked, or we can
help to stop it. We can let the jobs of tomorrow be created abroad, or
we can create those jobs right here in America and lay the foundation
for lasting prosperity.''
National energy and environmental goals have already been set. We
must address America's incredibly and increasingly dangerous dependence
on petroleum and reduce the approximately 140 billion gallons of
gasoline that U.S. drivers use every year--140 billion gallons of
gasoline--and every year more and more of it imported from the very
countries who would both do us economic and national security harm.
To meet these challenges, we must embrace the ingenuity of our
national research community, an ingenuity and national research
community that took us to the moon and beyond, and we must take these
technologies from their cradle of infancy through commercial deployment
and development.
[[Page 25200]]
Understand that we are again at a pivotal point in history. We are
standing at the threshold of the greatest single paradigm shift in the
entire history of motorized transportation. It has only been since the
day we decided to shift from the horse and carriage to the horseless
carriage that we have the options in front of us today. And only one
phenomenon stands in the way of our accomplishing our national goals
through the automobile industry, the phenomenon known as, and may I
quote the automobile industry, ``the valley of death.''
The valley of death is an automotive industry reference to the
treacherous territory between proven feasibility in the research
laboratory and the commercially successful products in the marketplace.
Every single new technology that we have come to enjoy in automobiles,
from power brakes and power steering to factory air, has languished in
the valley of death until it became a commercially available product in
the mass market.
There are now four or five major technologies for us to choose from,
and they are, from the most straightforward to the most technologically
challenging, first, improved internal combustion engine technologies;
next, internal combustion engine technologies that use alternative
fuels, and we have already seen the increased deployment of things like
corn and mixed cellulosic ethanol and hopefully future biodiesel. After
that comes something we are somewhat familiar with, gasoline engine
hybrids that we see deployed in commercial vehicles like the Prius.
Next we will see electric hybrids, and, lastly, hydrogen fuel-cell
technologies.
The least difficult of these technologies is the refinements to
existing conventional engine technology, already discussed, and the
most difficult are the advanced technologies that are brand new to the
marketplace.
Automakers everywhere recognize that the technologies at the
difficult end are the ones that cannot cross this automotive valley of
death alone. Successful movement from research and development
successes to market successes require the cooperation and support of
national governments.
One of the most promising but highly threatened technologies is the
hydrogen fuel cell. This technology has an impressive history and
important implications for our Nation's energy portfolio. But we are at
a point where we must decide, is it worth saving this technology and
promoting a vast domestic hydrogen-fuel capability? I happen to believe
it is.
Let me be very clear, speaking as an individual who spent most of my
life in military uniform and the final years of my military career as a
senior advisor to the commander of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, where I witnessed firsthand the cooperation between the
governments of NATO and their industries, this is a national security
imperative.
In order for us to maintain our place in the world, we must maintain
our industrial competitiveness, and that means we must have robust
supply bases and parts manufacturing. We have let our ingenuity and
investments in industry fail before, only to be picked up by foreign
competitors, and then we pay the price for reimportation. It is
dangerous to rely on their industries and not on ours. We must focus on
maintaining a strong advanced-technology domestic industry, and we are
in a good position. In fact, we are in the lead with respect to
hydrogen fuel cells.
This is an energy issue involving national energy security. It
involves sustainability that couples the capabilities of fuel cells
with biofuels, hybrids, photovoltaic, wind. This is an entire
portfolio. It is not one over the other, but the synergy of all of
those technologies, and we cannot rely on foreign countries to power
America. We must embrace domestic energy technologies for both their
reliability and sustainability in the future.
If we are going to be a world leader with a strong domestic economy
and not rely on foreign countries both for technology loans and for
foreign loans, as we are today, we have to move forward in partnerships
with industry. We risk maintaining and repeating the mistakes of the
past.
In the late 1990s and the early 2000s, the United States Advanced
Battery Consortium worked on battery research and development. Today,
that battery technology has been commercialized and it is a market
dominated by both Japanese and Korean manufacturing giants, not
American.
From the early 1990s, the Department of Energy and General Motors
have developed a U.S. fuel-cell program into what is today a global
leadership position. Today, catching up quickly, there are announced
programs from Germany and Japan, China and Korea, with huge investments
to commercialize hydrogen fuel vehicles by 2015, and this will push the
United States to a number three or worse position. I think this sounds
all too familiar.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to a series of charts to help us
visually understand some of the challenges, the risks, and the benefits
that we face today.
Back in 1968, we had the Electrovan. It was completely filled with
fuel cells and hydrogen tanks and it was done in a van of that size
because this technology at that time could not be miniaturized. It was
so large, it required the entire interior volume of a van.
In 1997, the first Department of Energy and General Motors fuel
stack, not yet packageable for a vehicle, became an industrial reality.
In 2007, a complete hydrogen fuel-stack system was packaged into a
Chevrolet Equinox, and over 100 of these vehicles matched in their
capabilities were built and deployed all over the United States. They
are now on the road being driven by your neighbors and friends in test
and pilot programs and have accumulated over 1 million road miles of
research and development.
In the very near future and in the research and development centers
today--I have seen them with my own eyes--is a Generation 2 system
being readied for 2015, half the size of its predecessor, with
increased performance, and it will be both not only lighter and
smaller, but it will be progressively even smaller to fit into more
styles of vehicles.
{time} 2210
This, frankly, in this short of a period of time, is incredible
technology progress. From the humble roots of this technology and a van
full of equipment to today's Equinox fuel cells and beyond, the U.S. is
the country that has advanced automotive hydrogen fuel cell technology,
us, Americans, right here in the United States.
The Department of Energy Research and Development program, developed
in partnership with domestic automobile manufacturers, was one of the
best thought-out, most fully vested, periodically reviewed programs the
Department of Energy has ever deployed. And the DOE invested to help
advance this technology quickly towards production, and it set
difficult technical goals to measure the progress of that program. The
auto companies met or exceeded every single technology milestone placed
before them. These included the size and weight of hydrogen fuel cell
technology as both of those shrank significantly.
The technology was cold weather tested, and I cannot tell you, coming
from upstate New York, how critical that is. It proved to be extremely
versatile under multiple different environments. It was also done while
improving durability, and current hydrogen fuel cell vehicles increased
a mileage capability that before was unheard of, right now achieving
some 800,000 miles--let me rephrase that, some 80,000 miles of lifetime
between hydrogen fuel cell change-out, and the first commercial
vehicles available in 2015 will have 125,000-mile durability capability
between changing. That was unheard of just 10 years ago.
In the United States, billions and billions of dollars have been
invested in government and private partnership to make hydrogen fuel
cell vehicle technology a reality. The Department of Energy alone
invested $2.3 billion in vehicle-related research and development. And
General Motors, from their own coffers, invested $1.5 billion to
[[Page 25201]]
place this company and this country at the forefront of hydrogen fuel
cell research and development. Remember the goal, the billions and
billions of gallons of gasoline we burn every year that will some day
no longer be needed.
Hundreds of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are currently on the road.
Many major automotive companies have fleets. Preeminent among them,
General Motors, but catching up quickly, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, and
Daimler. These are not some laboratory curiosity. Several automobile
companies now loan or lease these vehicles to people just like you and
me that take them home, park them in their garage, get up and take them
to work the next morning. I know, because on my very first day as
Member of the United States Congress just some 10 months ago, on a very
cold January morning, I fired up a hydrogen fuel cell Equinox and drove
it and its companion vehicle to the steps of the United States Capitol
to demonstrate that this technology is no longer a laboratory miracle
but is on the cusp of commercial development and deployment. So we've
come a long way. And the question now is: Should we continue with this
technology? Is this technology essential?
Mr. Speaker, let me turn to the next slide if I might. I'd like to
talk for a moment about energy and technology options.
Energy security and the ability to reach emission gas reductions is
critical. On this slide, we see in green, blue, and yellow, a library
of our energy source portfolios: oil in its conventional, oil its
nonconventional formats, biomass, natural gas and coal, renewables of
many kinds, and nuclear. That's about what we have where we can go
shopping for today's energy sources.
In the center is the type of fuel that those energies provide from a
liquid fuel, and we know that to be diesel, gasoline, to gaseous fuels,
which have special uses in niche markets like agriculture, propane,
natural gas compressed, electric vehicles and hydrogen. And then we can
talk about propulsion systems. Today, we have conventional internal
combustion engines. We have internal combustion hybrids. That would be
what we call and have come to be known as the Prius, plug-in hybrids,
next generation, range-extended electric vehicles. We'll see those soon
in a product called the Volt. Battery electric vehicles that have been
around for quite a while are in use in many different ranges, and fuel
cell hydrogen electric vehicles.
This is the menu that we can choose from, and it's absolutely
critical that we maintain the broadest menu possible. So how do we
avoid potential conflicts, unexpected shortages, foreign countries that
will hold us hostage to a particular kind of energy, whether it be oil
or nuclear fuel? How do we strive to move forward? We maintain a full
menu of choices.
Now, some of these fuels have some limitations. We are very excited
about biofuels, and certainly, based on my agricultural-dominated
congressional district, I join in that. But they have a limitation. We
can't fully meet demand based solely on biofuels, if for no other
reason, because of land use requirements. We know and I've discussed
briefly and will discuss in more detail that batteries have cost and
weight problems. Let me illustrate this in the next slide, if I could.
There are different amounts of energy contained in different kinds of
fuel, and, Mr. Speaker, if you will indulge me just a brief discussion
of a technical nature. Today, if I want to drive 300 miles, it will
take me approximately 72 pounds of diesel fuel. Now, if you take that
amount of diesel fuel and you wrap it into the fuel delivery system,
the piping, the pump, and the fuel tank, the total weight of that
onboard device is about 94 pounds. If I want to do that with compressed
hydrogen, the amount of hydrogen that I want to use contains 13.2
pounds. Now, why is that? That's because hydrogen, pound for pound,
contains much more energy than does diesel fuel. It's an incredibly
more efficient energy delivering fuel. But because it's a gas, it must
be compressed and so its tank will weigh more. And the entire energy
delivery system for a vehicle will weigh about 275 pounds. Well, that
sounds like a lot more than the 94.8 pounds, but it's really only about
180 pounds heavier. That's about one passenger's worth. That's a very
manageable technical challenge to engineers in the automotive industry.
But when we talk about batteries, it will take 1,829 pounds of
Lithium ion batteries to allow me to drive 300 miles without
recharging, and the delivery system, the encasement, the battery,
cables, and the harnesses, will weigh about a total of 1,829, with
1,190 of that actually being the battery itself. Now, that has market
value. There are urban uses for battery-powered vehicles, but long-
range, high torque, high horsepower extended driving is not one of
them. It is only through a high density, high energy fuel, in this case
today, diesel or gasoline, and in the cars of tomorrow through
hydrogen, that you can achieve that. Lithium ion batteries technically,
because of the laws of physics, will never get us to where we have to
go across a broad spectrum of driving requirements. It is simply not
physically possible. In order to do this, I believe, and many experts
join me, we have to harness the power of hydrogen through advanced fuel
cell technology.
Now, petroleum and hydrogen have two other advantages. These vehicles
can be refueled every 300 or so miles, and it takes about 3 to 10
minutes to do it. A battery electric vehicle requires overnight
charging and it requires it to be done with a high-capacitance
recharging system. That's fine if you have 8 or 9 hours to recharge
your car. And there are many uses in urban America where that's
possible, but not in long-range, high horsepower transportation
requirements.
Let's talk, if I could, on the next slide, about the range, about the
requirements of driving as we see them today in the United States. This
brings the technology back to the consumer. On this chart, on a four-
way arrow, here we talk about high loads. Now, those of us who come
from farm country know that there's a lot of driving to be done
agriculturally that requires heavy duty pickup trucks.
{time} 2220
On the other hand, light-load driving for those in a much more urban
environment, like a Los Angeles or Miami or New York City, recognize
light-load small vehicles.
Then we go as far as range: Continuous highway driving down
Interstate 90 and Interstate 5, or short-burst driving as we go on
errands from store to store. Battery electric vehicles perform very
well in local light-weight driving, and they can do a great deal to
lesson our burden on imported petroleum in that market. Extended-range
electric vehicles can make that just a little bit better, but it's
still about a four-passenger car.
Fuel cell vehicles are the only vehicles that will be able to meet a
consumer demand for range; that's long-range highway driving--load
requirements--that's heavy pickup truck-type requirements--and quick
refilling time.
Diesel fuel for the near foreseeable future is probably going to be
the fuel required to move heavy buses and heavy trucks over long-range
routes. But imagine that they are a mere fraction of those billions of
gallons of gasoline that we burn and import every year from overseas.
There is a huge application for hydrogen fuel cells in meeting consumer
demand for vehicles that have long-range, high-load requirements, and
quick refilling time.
But can hydrogen fuel cell vehicles become a reality? Let's look at
the next chart just where we were in the year 2000.
There are four myths that are currently being discussed with respect
to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. One of them is fuel cells are too
expensive, and they're not durable enough. The reality is the cost
benefit of a hydrogen fuel cell is measured in something called dollars
per kilowatt. You measure the output in a kilowatt.
Now, just to bring this back to home, your average light bulb at home
is 100 watts. So 10 of those turned on at the same time is one
kilowatt. An Equinox extended-range hydrogen fuel cell vehicle today
produces about 120 kilowatts
[[Page 25202]]
of electricity, and significant cost reductions of this measurement
have already been made just in the past 10 years from a plateau of $275
per kilowatt all the way down to today at 61 kilowatts, well on the way
to the commercialized requirement of a 45-kilowatt vehicle. That's $45
per kilowatt.
Just last week the Department of Energy in its hydrogen program
released a document confirming a current $61 per kilowatt in 2009
dollars projection. As shown on this chart, this is a reality today.
Cost will be, and soon are, comparable to all other advanced
technologies at high volumes of production, a high volume of production
being 500,000 vehicles per year.
It was an incredibly difficult challenge put forth by the technicians
of the Department of Energy, and the goals have been met or exceeded as
developed by major automotive manufacturers right here in the United
States. In fact, GM is on track to release a commercial model that
meets or exceeds all durability and cost guidelines by 2015.
Myth two as shown on the next chart: Hydrogen from natural gas is not
an ideal source, and we don't have other options.
Let's go back to chemistry class when we were in high school.
Hydrogen gas comes from two main sources: either something called
reformatting natural gas or fundamental electrolysis. The reality today
when you measure the amount of CO2 that's expelled by a
vehicle per mile driven as it is today, today's gasoline engines
produce 540 grams, quarter of a kilogram, about half a pound, of
CO2 per mile. And we will be able to lower that to about 410
grams. If we just use and burn natural gas in a compressed tank, it's
about 320. If we go to hybrid electric vehicles, of which there are
four major types: gasoline, diesel, corn ethanol, and cellulosic
ethanol, we can get it down to about 65 grams.
If we're talking about plug-in hybrids, today we have a gasoline
hybrid that gives us a 240-gram-per-mile burn, and cellulosic ethanol
can get it down to 150. It is only hydrogen fuel cell vehicles that
meet the emissions requirements required for us to move forward.
If we take hydrogen and reformat it directly from natural gas,
technology available today, we achieve a 200-gram-per-mile equivalent.
That's half of the very best that we can get out of gasoline today. And
if we go to hydrogen made from central wind electrolysis, it's almost
untraceable. We actually achieve the goal of leaving nothing behind the
vehicle but water vapor.
Natural gas is an abundant, domestic resource. We have it in
quantity. Eleven billion kilograms of hydrogen already produced from
natural gas in North America and 60 percent of this, enough fuel to
power 21 million hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, is used to clean up
petroleum in refinery operations today.
Natural gas-based hydrogen used to power hydrogen fuel cell vehicles
is less than half of the greenhouse gas emissions of a conventional
gasoline-powered vehicle. And looking forward, hydrogen, with near zero
greenhouse emissions is possible, both from nuclear biomass and
renewable electricity. In fact, solar arrays are in operation today
that are producing hydrogen at generation efficiency twice of the
Department of Energy's 2015 goals. This is not future science. This is
science of today.
Myth number three--this is associated with hydrogen fuel cells--is
that no good storage mechanism is available for transportation.
Most companies today use a 10,000 PSI compressed hydrogen tank.
Vehicles use the storage tank, technology has been able to hook up to
300 miles. It was the technology that was in the vehicle that I drove
from my home in Corning, New York, all the way down to Washington, DC.
Compressed hydrogen offers all of the capabilities needed to begin
commercialization of vehicles today. This, like all continuing research
that goes on around the world, will progress. But it is a reality as we
know it today.
Let's talk about myth four, which is probably the most daunting issue
facing America. And, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence in what
is increasingly technological conversation.
Distribution infrastructure isn't there, and there are no plans to
establish it. That's myth number four. The reality is that the
infrastructure challenge is solvable. Stations are here now, and
according to the National Hydrogen Association of the United States, we
currently have 75 stations located around the country, most in New York
and California, with 44 more planned over the next 2 years.
Like the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System or the international
and national railroad systems, or our own aircraft and airport
infrastructure, this will require a national involvement, a national
government involvement, which will result in jobs and lots of them. It
will create entirely new industries, industries that cannot be
exported; and it will be a tremendous stimulus to the U.S. economy in
and of itself.
To roll out this infrastructure, all we need to do is start with
nodes and then connect them, and the work has already started. It
doesn't require a miracle. It only requires the will and the national
focus to do it.
Here we see to my right several of the stations that are already
being designed and implemented for commercial exploitation around the
world. In places like the University of California Irvine, in Germany,
right here in Washington, DC., where I refilled the hydrogen fuel cell
vehicle that I drove from Corning, and in Berlin, Germany, where they
have taken that design--and I will talk soon about its mass
introduction throughout their entire highway system.
Again, it doesn't require a miracle, only the national will to do so.
Let us take a look at the next slide and see how we can actually
manage this transformation and manage it quickly.
We start with select high-profile stations; and then we move to the
next stage, about 40 stations per large metro area. Here we see both
New York City and Los Angeles, just two examples.
Thirty metro stations for the entire metropolitan Los Angeles area
will provide a network where no matter where you are, you are only 3.6
miles from a hydrogen filling station. Add 10 stations outside of the
metro area, and that's what you need to allow consumers to meet their
average weekly and weekend needs. And in Los Angeles, by the way, it's
important to view the driving patterns of consumers.
{time} 2230
There are consumers who want to be able to drive to Las Vegas, San
Diego, Santa Barbara, Palm Springs and Big Bear, but they don't
necessarily transit north to that extended range, and so this has a
particular viability in southern California. Similarly, New York State,
my home State, has the potential for a ``hydrogen highway'' as
described in previous work by the New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority. You can build nodes and link them together along
roads like Interstate 90.
But NYSERDA, the New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority, recognizes that ``as with any vision, barriers to achieving
our goals exist. The support needed must come from collaborative
efforts among industry, as well as between industry and local, State,
and Federal Government. Communication and cooperation will be required
to overcome the technical, market, and policy challenges impeding the
implementation of hydrogen energy systems.''
As a proof that this technology is here now, we only have to look at
what is happening within the automotive industry, especially abroad
where foreign governments and car companies are teaming up to tackle
the challenges of commercializing hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles.
Let's take a look at some of those partnerships in the next slide. As
I have said continually, the technology is here and here now, and those
in the industry recognize the potential of hydrogen cars in the
commercial market. The global automotive industry says that at the
current pace, these vehicles will be on the road commercially by 2015.
Major world automobile manufacturers have signed a Letter of
Understanding as recently as September 9 of
[[Page 25203]]
this year between Daimler, and they recognize the requirement of the
synergy between hydrogen fuel cells and battery technologies. This
letter went to energy companies all over the world and government
organizations around their host countries.
To quote that letter, allow me to say, over the last decade,
governments, original equipment manufacturers and automobile
manufacturers and the entire energy sector have given special attention
to the introduction of hydrogen as a fuel for road transportation, and
they have given it the priority option to reach several goals
associated both with emission management and CO2 reduction.
Battery and fuel-celled vehicles complement one another and can move us
closer to the objective of sustained mobility.
Honda, Toyota, Renault Nissan, Opel and GM, Ford, Daimler, Kia and
Hyundai have all made significant investments and are moving ahead
aggressively, but it is here in the United States of America, quite
frankly with American ingenuity, that we have taken a leadership
position that today is being threatened by a lack of partnership and a
lack of vision. Let me quote further from the letter that was put out
by Daimler, in order to ensure a successful market introduction of
fuel-cell vehicles:
``This market introduction has to be aligned with the build-up of the
necessary hydrogen infrastructure. Therefore a hydrogen infrastructure
network with sufficient density is required by 2015. The network should
be built up from metropolitan areas via corridors into area-wide
coverage.''
Mr. Speaker, others get it. And many in this country understand it as
well. Foreign governments in Germany and Japan are listening to their
automotive manufacturers. They are collaborating with those
manufacturers to put production vehicles in the market and in the
marketplace by 2015 and explore simultaneously the need to overcome
infrastructure challenges. Working to blanket their countries with a
national hydrogen fuel-station infrastructure that will free their
countries from foreign oil. And we will be left side-lined, wondering
how this happened.
In our next slide, the flags tell the story. Our competitors are
passing us by. They will soon have government-supported fuel-cell
fleets on the road for research and development and prototype testing,
as well as the infrastructure to support it. China, Korea, Japan and
Germany are all in the fight competing with the United States, all
moving forward aggressively and, in fact, faster than we are to
commercialize technologies that we invented here in the United States.
Their industries and their governments are working together. In Japan
and Germany, long-term government industrial collaborations have
existed, and they are leveraging those collaborations and those
partnerships to leapfrog over the United States and the work that we
put in place initializing the very technologies that we may one day be
threatened with having to reimport into this country.
China is also learning a lesson and watching us carefully and
matching their incredible ability to literally reverse engineer
anything and everything that is developed and placing their massive
industrial strength behind it. There is no doubt that should they want
to and should we surrender the lead, they will overtake us.
The bottom line is if we don't move on hydrogen fuel-cell
technologies and the vehicles built from them and we do not move
forward, someone else will, and we will end up buying it from them just
as we have ended up buying hybrid technology from the very competitors
who took it away from us after we invented it and moved that technology
forward. We will be reliant on these foreign producers for this clean
technology in the same way that we rely on foreign oil right now to
power our automobiles.
Let's look at a specific on the next slide. Germany, an ally and an
industrial partner, has developed a logical plan with government
infrastructure developments and hydrogen fuel-cell automobiles to roll
out H2 fueling stations over a very short period of time. To the far
right we see in 2013 some 150 fueling stations, and by 2017, 1,000
hydrogen fuel-cell filling stations, allowing the Germans to access
hydrogen technology all over their country. In just four short House of
Representatives election cycles, they will be done. And we will be
wondering how did it happen? How were we left behind? This is because
countries all over the world have, or are developing, national hydrogen
plans.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to show you in the next slide who some of those
players on the global market are. Germany and Japan are leading
globally and leapfrogging ahead of the United States. China is coming
on strong and in the past has not respected other nations' intellectual
property rights. This will allow them to not only catch up quickly but
surpass us. And believe you me, they will and they are. Korea is also
stepping up with its manufacturing partnership with Hyundai. All over
the globe we see other countries realizing the promising future of this
technology. We invented it here. We developed it here. We are
manufacturing it here. And yet, we are at the cusp of surrendering it
here.
In the big picture, manufacturers from Germany, Japan, Korea and
China are now accelerating their movement forward, and they are doing
so quickly with a massive government research and development program.
They will likely soon have large fuel-cell fleets on the roads, even
larger than General Motors' current research and development 119-car
fleet. They are installing thousands of hydrogen fueling stations that
will relieve their countries from the burden of foreign oil and
establish a viable energy infrastructure that supports clean, renewable
energy production within their own countries independent of
importation. And they will be creating the tens of thousands of new
green jobs that should be created and kept here in the United States of
America.
We have seen this before. Not too long along ago, this country
invested in battery electric vehicle technology. And I'm not talking
about the investments that came out of the recent stimulus bill, but
rather the investments that were made back in the 1980s. The Department
of Energy invested to kick-start the technologies and advance them
towards production, and a large automobile manufacturer in the United
States built a small fleet of battery electric vehicles that were
placed on the road with real world drivers, sort of like where GM is
today with hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. The United States, in
particular one State in the United States, California, then shifted its
focus, and the programs became economically unviable and went away
quite dramatically.
Today, leaders in this technology, battery automotive technology, are
in Korea, China and Japan. And yet, the research and development was
done here in the United States of America.
By the way, this is not an anomaly. I could have told you the same
story but replaced ``battery'' vehicles with the word ``hybrid''
vehicles. And yet, last year, as the price of gasoline spiked and the
United States consumer market focused on hybrid vehicles, there were no
commercially available, mass deployable, domestically manufactured
hybrid vehicles. Why? Because we embarked on that technology and we
allowed foreign manufacturers to capture it, thus forcing us to
reimport it at significant capital costs to the United States. If all
the other major countries have a very specific program in place, what
do they know that we don't know?
Well, here is an aspect of it, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to
leave you with tonight. Allow me to conclude with one final slide. This
is not necessarily only an issue of commercial capabilities or of
industrial capabilities. It is an issue of national security. The
United States military sees a need for independent energy capabilities.
This was recently outlined in an independent report by the Defense
Science Board Task Force on DOD Energy Strategy. In recent letters from
senior DOD officials, one individual quoted ``domestic leadership in
advanced technologies such as fuel cells is of national importance.''
[[Page 25204]]
{time} 2240
The task force concluded that the Department of Defense faces two
primary energy challenges. Department of Defense energy operations
suffer from unnecessarily high growing battle space fuel demand. Let's
face it, an M1A2 Abrams tank powered by a gas turbine engine using
aviation fuel burns a lot of gas. And we have seen over and over and
over again in land, air, and sea warfare that the logistical
requirements of moving fuel is one of the most important battlefield
criteria.
In fact, in my own life, I learned at advanced war schools, such as
the National War College and the Naval War College, that amateurs talk
about bullets and guns and professionals talk about logistics. And
logistics harbor around the movement of petroleum products for our
aircraft, our tanks, and our ships. And we are increasingly and at
farther ranges dependent on that. In fact, Mr. Speaker, just recently
on the front page of a major Washington political newspaper the
headlines read that a gallon of fuel used by the United States military
in Afghanistan is costing the United States taxpayer $400.
Likewise, military installations both overseas and, of some
significant national security curiosity, right here at home are
completely dependent on a civilian electrical infrastructure grid. When
the lights go out in New York City, they go out on any military base on
the same electrical grid. There is no independent powering sources.
This is not a position that we want our military to be in.
Hydrogen fuel cells can help the military address its own petroleum
reduction requirements. Nontactical vehicle applications, these are the
everyday administrative vehicles used all over the United States by the
DOD, are a wonderful place to introduce this technology and move
forward. And stationary hydrogen fuel cell storage and requirements are
also a significant national security increase for our shoreside
installations.
Fuel cells and nontactical vehicles will later enable tactical
applications. And while it seems far fetched that we may one day have a
fuel cell-powered tank, Mr. Speaker, I offer for consideration that
those on the battlefield of the Civil War would have had a hard time
imagining a gas turbine power aviation fuel Abrams M1A2 tank. We simply
cannot rely on surrendering the promise of this technology and shipping
it overseas.
Now, Mr. Speaker, with total transparency, I must confess that one of
the reasons that I am so motivated and so passionate about this subject
is that for the past 15 years, out of sight and out of mind, in a
corner of my congressional district that most people did not even know
existed, some 400 engineers, technicians, and support personnel have
worked to bring the vision of petroleum-free transportation and
independence from imported petroleum to reality.
Tonight and tomorrow, and hopefully into the future, the engineers
and the technicians at the Honeoye Falls advanced fuel cell research
and development facility have brought the future today. Their leader,
Mr. Matthew Fronk, a man who will soon retire from his position and
seek a leadership role in academia, is to be commended for his vision
and for his leadership. And it is not he alone, because it is a classic
example of the ability of private industry, in this case, General
Motors, a company often maligned and much in the press, who has brought
to the Nation a unique, forward-looking capability that no other Nation
in the world today has, and yet we are at the cusp of losing them.
Right when we had the future in our hands, brought to us by hardworking
and highly educated, incredibly passionate and dedicated technicians
and engineers, we are about to surrender it as we surrendered battery
technologies, as we surrendered hybrid technologies.
So, Mr. Speaker, allow me to conclude by reading an article that
appeared in CNN Money magazine just last week. It is titled, ``The
Hydrogen Car Fights Back.'' President Obama is betting on biofuels and
batteries, but that isn't stopping some automakers from investing in
hydrogen fuel cars. As it appeared in Fortune magazine, I quote, ``The
valley of death is auto industry speak. It is a metaphorical desert
where emerging technologies reside while car executives figure out
which of the experiments ought to make their way into actual cars.
Every automotive leap forward has done time in the valley, turbo
chargers, fuel injections, even gasoline electric hybrids like Toyota's
Prius. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, the alternative energy flavor of
the month back in 2003, are the ones languishing today, along with
hovercraft and other assorted concept cars, but perhaps not for much
longer.
A number of automakers are now renewing their push for hydrogen, and
now it is looking as though hydrogen cars will make its way out of this
conceptual vehicular valley of death. Last month, Daimler, the German
Government, and several industrial companies announced a plan to build
1,000 hydrogen fuel cell stations across Germany. Days later, Daimler's
CEO, Dieter Zetsche, showed off Mercedes Benz's latest hydrogen fuel
cell effort, the F-Cell hatchback. Toyota, this summer, announced it
will put hydrogen fuel cell cars into production by 2015. Honda, GM,
and Hyundai all have hydrogen fuel cell programs running, and Honda has
actually put vehicles--heavily subsidized by the car maker to be sure--
in the hands of some real customers as opposed to its own engineers.
Parenthetically, GM, today, is focusing most of its energy on the plug-
in hybrid Chevy Volt, but the company still says it expects to have
fuel cell technology ready for commercialization by 2015.
Mr. Speaker, as we debate the great issues of the day, and there are
many to debate, we hear them on the floor of this House every afternoon
and every evening, be it national foreign policy issues that weigh
heavily on our minds in Iraq and Afghanistan, whether it be a
contentious debate about health care, allow us not to lose the vision
of the future. Allow us not to do what has been done before. Allow us
not to forget and give away the decades of advancement and work that
have accomplished so much in this very focused area of technological
development that holds so much promise not only for the automotive fuel
sector, but for energy independence. We speak on the floor of the House
in great and grand and umbrella arching metaphors, and yet now it is
time to speak of specifics.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I thank you that for this last hour I was given
the opportunity to highlight a specific technology that holds so much
promise, because back home at the Honeoye Falls research and
development facility it can truly be said that not often in history
have so few done so much for all of us.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
ENERGY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is recognized for
60 minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have the privilege to
address you here tonight on the floor of the House of Representatives.
And having been privileged to listen to the gentleman before me speak
of the energy issue, and not taking particular issue with the delivery
that he has given nor the facts that he has such a good handle on, I
would just make this point, Mr. Speaker, and that is that a little over
1 year ago, 1 year ago last August, many of us Republican Members stood
on the floor of the House of Representatives and argued that we needed
to expand the energy for the entire United States of America; all
energy all the time.
We started that debate before the adjournment for the August recess,
and the Speaker didn't want to hear the debate on energy. And so there
was a motion that was delivered to adjourn abruptly, which was passed
on a purely partisan vote. We kept debating energy. We were geared up
to come here and debate energy 1 year ago August. And as we debated
energy, the microphones were cut off, the lights were
[[Page 25205]]
shut down, and the House of Representatives would have been cleared by
order of the Speaker except we do have enough sovereignty here to bring
in the citizens of the United States and our constituents. And even
though Speaker Pelosi shut down the microphones, turned the C-SPAN
cameras off to the side and tipped them down and dimmed the lights--
didn't shut them completely off--we continued to debate energy every
single business day all the way through August and into September and
after Labor Day and back again.
{time} 2250
Our argument was not to reject hydrogen. Our argument was to expand
access to all energy in America. It was the case the American people
wanted. It remains the case of what the American people want, and the
American people want access to all energy all the time.
We are a country that's blessed with a tremendous amount of energy.
We can produce the nuclear energy that we need and more than we're
using by far right now. We're blessed with a lot of coal. We have a lot
of natural gas. If we would utilize the resources that we have, we
could expand our ethanol, our biodiesel, our wind energy as we're
doing. If we would develop the energy that we have, we would have a
surplus of energy.
It strikes me as a bit odd that the gentleman would focus exclusively
on hydrogen. I don't take issue with his hydrogen argument; but I will
say that, as the gentleman says, if we expand our hydrogen energy
instead of importing a large percentage of our energy, we will be
exporting renewable energy. That is a long, long way from a reality;
and we will never be to the point where we can export renewable energy
unless we're willing to develop all of America's energy.
Here are some of the answers: All energy all the time. Let's drill in
ANWR. Why would you leave hydrocarbons underneath Mother Earth? Why
would we not go out into the gulf and drill for the natural gas and for
the oil that's out there? Why would we not go up to ANWR and drill up
there where we have proven on the North Slope that we can drill
effectively and in an environmentally safe fashion and where the most
extreme environmentalists can fly over the North Slope or walk across
it or ride around on Todd Palin's snowmobile?
They couldn't find an oil well if you directed them to it because
they aren't big, wooden derricks with oil bursting into the air from a
gusher or a geyser. They are submersible pumps in casings that are
underground, and they are wells that are drilled on permafrost, and
they are roads that are accessed only during the time of the many
months when there's actually frost there for them to run on ice roads.
You can fly over that countryside, and you can't see the wells unless
you know exactly what you're looking for.
We need to drill in ANWR. We need to drill in the Outer Continental
Shelf, in all of our Outer Continental Shelf. We need to open up the
leases on it. We need to drill it for oil. We need to drill it for gas.
We need to expand our nuclear.
John McCain, in his Presidential campaign, said we need to build 45
new nuclear plants in the United States in a short period of time. Now,
I don't know if that's the right number, but I know that zero is the
wrong number. The people on the other side of the aisle, the Pelosi
majority, are opposed to nuclear; they're opposed to ethanol; they're
opposed to biodiesel. They argue some food versus fuel argument that's
completely specious, and they can't make the argument with me.
I'd be happy to yield to any one of you who thinks you can. I'll take
you on directly right now. The facts are in my head, and they're not
even in your data because they don't exist.
We need to expand more and more of this energy. They're opposed again
to anything that is petroleum. They're opposed even to the expansion of
natural gas, although the Speaker was informed a year and three or four
months ago that natural gas is actually a hydrocarbon. It isn't one
that puts as much CO2 into the air as burning oil or gas or
diesel fuel does.
I'm having trouble finding a source of energy that's suitable to the
liberals and to the environmental extremists in this Congress, Mr.
Speaker.
I look across the spectrum of the energy that we have, and I'll tell
you the energy that I'm for. I'm for hydroelectric. I'm for
hydrocarbons of all kinds. I'm for drilling every place that I have
said for gas and oil. I'm for coal. I'm for nuclear. I'm for wind,
ethanol, biodiesel, solar. There are a number of them I'm probably
forgetting. I want all energy all the time. I want the whole energy pie
to grow, and I want to be able to use American energy. We can be energy
independent. It doesn't necessarily have to be our goal, but we have to
be where we have the capability to be energy independent.
The idea that comes from the other side of the aisle is to make
energy more expensive. I mean, I listened to the gentleman talk about
let's follow the European model. Let's hurry up because the Germans are
going to be ahead of us. Well, they are all right. Their $9 gasoline is
ahead of us. They've had a policy that has been costly energy, fewer
cars and more bicycles for a long time; and the Germans aren't the
champions in Europe of bicycle riding. I will submit that the Danes may
well be the ones in the running for first place in bicycle riding in
Europe, but their idea is that there is no such thing as bad weather.
It's just bad clothing. It rains 170 days a year in Denmark, and they
ride bicycles 365 days a year in Denmark.
That's all right. Ride those bicycles, but you don't have a mountain
in that country, and you barely have a hill. In this country, we have
long distances between places. Grandma is not going to put chains on
her bicycle and ride it to town through the hills and through the
mountains in America. We have a different lifestyle. We have different
demands. We have different priorities.
Let's let the markets decide. Let's not drive up the price of gas as
they've done in Europe and make it scarce and costly, $7.50 to $9 a
gallon. Let's keep it competitive, because energy, like money, Mr.
Speaker, is fungible, and it takes energy to make anything that we
decide to make. Whatever we decide to manufacture takes energy. Even if
you sold a minimal amount of energy to manufacture it, it still takes
energy to deliver.
So every component of our economy is linked to the cost of energy;
and if we're going to compete against the rest of the world, it's our
responsibility to have a price of labor that's competitive, a lower
regulation so the burden of government is not too high on our
businesses that are producing products and services, and we have to
have an intellectual property and know-how and low energy costs so we
can compete with the rest of the world.
If you look at America's industrial might, a lot of it grew during
the period of time when we led the world in energy production. They
discovered oil in Pennsylvania; and shortly after that, they discovered
oil in Texas. They developed the ability to drill and to produce oil,
which was a cheap, compressed, concentrated form of energy; and it
remains that way. We developed the skills also, and those skills that
we market around the world, this source of energy and the knowledge
base that came from drilling and developing wells, is something we've
sold to the rest of the world. It has had great profit to the United
States.
We simply cannot be a Nation, a huge Nation as we are, that is
shifting over into this idea of green jobs. Green jobs are not green
jobs. They're government-regulated, -created jobs. That means that
they're not market-driven jobs, but they're jobs that are driven by
government regulation. When you drive jobs by government regulation,
that means they're more costly than the market would have them. The
costs go up because of the regulation that's produced by government. So
the argument that we will create green jobs is a false promise argument
because it's the government that sets the regulations that produces the
necessity to have green jobs.
Now, I want renewable energy. I want it to compete with the rest of
the energy in this country and on the planet.
[[Page 25206]]
It's clearly true, in looking at my record, that I have been a long-
time supporter of renewable energy. There are 435 congressional
districts in America. I have the privilege and the honor to represent
the Fifth Congressional District of Iowa. That is one of 435 districts,
the western third of the State, roughly speaking.
We raise a lot of corn and soybeans and cattle and hogs and eggs.
When you add up the BTUs that are generated from ethanol, from
biodiesel and from the wind generation of electricity and when you put
it into the common denominator of British Thermal Units, the 5th
District of Iowa, out of 435 congressional districts in America,
produces more renewable energy than any other.
Now, there are a few reasons that we've done that. One is to meet the
demand. We have the resources, and we've created the know-how, and now
we've become the knowledge base that can export that knowledge to the
rest of the country and, one day, to the rest of the world.
Even though I'm in the middle of renewable energy and even though
I've been engaged in it for many, many years and even though I've
watched, let me say, the successes, the victories and some of the
calamitous defeats that have taken place and the resurgence of the
business model that shows that they can compete against the other
sources of energy, at least given the structure that we're working with
today, I work with all of that.
Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you that we have to have all energy all the
time, not a simple focus on a single kind of energy, not a lockout of
petroleum because some people say that it produces more CO2.
I'll not argue the science of that, but this myopic belief that we can
limit the emissions of CO2s and that somehow or another we
can set the thermostat of the Earth is simply false.
The premise of the science is wrong. Some will say, Well, just argue
the economics because you can't win the argument on science. No, Mr.
Speaker. When you have a huge policy like cap-and-trade that's built
upon a flawed premise such as CO2 emissions by the United
States have dramatically increased the temperature on the planet and if
we significantly reduce the CO2 emissions in the United
States it will turn the Earth's thermostat down, it's a false
scientific premise, Mr. Speaker.
{time} 2300
And I have looked at this and asked some simple questions that aren't
answered very well by the people who claim to be the scientists, and
they fall into this category.
How much volume is the Earth's atmosphere altogether? So if you would
take the total metric tons of the volume of the Earth's atmosphere and
draw it into a circle, a graph that would describe how much that is,
and draw it into an 8-foot circle, because that is what fits on the
wall, a foot higher than my hand, an 8-foot circle in diameter, and
that represents all of the Earth's atmosphere, then Mr. Speaker, you
draw how big would the circle be, the circle of CO2, carbon
dioxide that has been emitted by U.S. industry into the atmosphere of
the Earth and that is suspended in the atmosphere that might--might,
but not certainly--but might affect the Earth's temperature, that
CO2, the cumulative level of all CO2 emitted by
the United States into the atmosphere since the dawn of the Industrial
Revolution, Mr. Speaker, how much is that?
What have we done? And my data goes back 205 years. What has the
United States industrial might and the totality of its emissions in
burning all the coal and all the natural gas and all the crude oil in
the form of gasoline and diesel fuel and other forms, kerosene and jet
fuel, the other forms, propane, all of those forms of energy that have
been burned and then the CO2 that has been emitted and
suspended in the atmosphere, how much in 205 years, as compared to all
of the Earth's atmosphere that you might draw in an 8-foot circle, how
big would that circle be, the cumulative total of all U.S.
CO2 in the atmosphere be in 205 years?
Mr. Speaker, it is shocking to boil these numbers down to the real
truth. An 8-foot circle of all the Earth's atmosphere, the cumulative,
and that means 205 years' worth of CO2 from the United
States put into the atmosphere, that circle is certainly not 8-foot,
that is all the atmosphere, or 7 foot or 6 foot or 5 foot or 4, 3, 2 or
1. We might think that circle is a couple feet, if we listen to the
environmental extremists.
But the real size in relation to all the Earth's atmosphere as drawn
in an 8-foot circle, the real diameter of the cumulative total of
CO2 is .56 inches, Mr. Speaker. That is about like this,
about the size of a bullet, the tip of my little finger. That is how
big that circle would be, .56, just a little over half an inch in
diameter. That is the cumulative total of all the CO2 in 205
years.
The Waxman-Markey bill proposes that if we would just reduce one year
of that, in annual figures that would be \1/205\ of the cumulative
total, by 17 percent for a few years and then raise that up a little
more and finally reduce it to 83 percent by the time we get to the year
2100, and by that year they believe that the Earth will have diminished
its increased temperature by let's say 1.5 degrees centigrade.
That is their calculus. And we here on the floor of the House of
Representatives would conclude and America would accept the leadership
of this Congress because they don't know and they don't have access to
the truth, and they are certainly not hearing it from both sides of the
aisle, they accept the idea that surely no person in this Congress and
certainly not a majority would be cynical enough to advance some idea
of science that was bogus in an effort to try to create a plan called
cap-and-trade, which would be the largest and most insidious tax
increase in the history of the world. And for every dollar it
collected, only about one out of five would get into the United States
Treasury, and the rest of it is wasted in the process like friction in
a motor.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what we are dealing with with cap-and-trade.
And when I listened to the gentleman talk about hydrogen, I don't take
issue with his data or his argument. I will just add that there is much
more that we need to do to see the big picture. The big picture means
all energy all the time, and let's go ahead and use it.
There is no reason to store a lot of hydrocarbons underneath the
crust of mother Earth in the territory of the sovereign United States
of America and not use it. The only reason I have heard, and it is not
a very good one, is the Speaker of the House's statement, ``I am trying
to save the planet. I am trying to save the planet.'' And, yes, it was
a broken record delivery, Mr. Speaker.
So, that is the energy issue that needed to be talked about for a
long time. We have talked about health care for so long we have about
forgotten to take up the energy issue.
I would take us then to a contemporary issue that emerged today in
the news, and it is something that the American people do need to know
about, Mr. Speaker, as any subject matter that comes up here on the
floor, the American people need to know. There are more subjects than
we can possibly have time to address.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of my talk I will introduce this article into
the Record, The Washington Times published at 4:45 a.m. and updated at
7:25 a.m. today, October 20, 2009, by Ben Conery entitled ``Justice
Concludes Black Voters Need Democratic Party. I will make that
available at the conclusion.
Here is the article. The Justice Department concludes that black
voters need the Democratic Party. This is a Washington Times article,
and I will go through some of the highlights here and then seek to
summarize it, Mr. Speaker.
Voters in the small city of Kinston, North Carolina, have decided
overwhelmingly to do away with party affiliation for their local
elections for mayor and city council. They didn't want them to be
labeled as Democrats or Republicans or Libertarian or Communist or
whatever they might be--I don't know if there are any down there in
Kinston, actually--but they wanted to eliminate the party label and
just
[[Page 25207]]
run candidates in a nonparty way. But the Obama administration
overruled the overwhelming majority of the electorate of the city of
Kinston, North Carolina, and decided that they couldn't offer ballots
and elect their local candidates unless they had a party label.
The Justice Department's ruling, and it affects the races for city
council and mayor, went so far as to say this: Partisan elections are
needed so that black voters can elect ``candidates of choice''
identified by the Department as those who are Democrats and almost
exclusively black.
The Justice Department--I would say they are questionable in the way
they are currently named--the Department ruled that white voters in
Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats. What that
means, that is veiled language for, white voters that aren't Democrats
are racists. That is what it says in this article. It is a conclusion
drawn by the Justice Department. And I will say their conclusion and
their decision on its face is racist, Mr. Speaker.
It says, therefore, that the city cannot get rid of party
affiliations, this is a Department of Justice ruling, for local
elections because that would violate black voters' rights to elect
candidates they want.
What does this possibly mean? It doesn't fit the logic where I come
from. It says that several Federal and local politicians would like the
city to challenge the decision in court, and I would too.
Mr. Speaker, I would call upon the city of Kinston to challenge this
Justice Department decision in court. They have a right to hold their
local elections, and the Department of Justice should not be making the
presumption based on the racist presumptions that they are.
The voter apathy, they say, is the largest barrier to black voters'
election of candidates they prefer. A little code word, ``candidates
they prefer.'' How do they know who these candidates are who are
preferred? The way you have to register who you prefer is, go to the
polls and vote. Voter apathy cannot be fixed by a wrongly made decision
on the Department of Justice.
There is some language here by Mr. Steven LaRoque, who led the drive
to end the partisan local election. He called the Justice Department's
decision ``racial as well as partisan.'' And he went on to say, ``On
top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C.,
overturning a valid election. That is un-American.'' Steven LaRoque,
Kinston, North Carolina.
Continuing on, the point is made that this is the Justice Department,
the Eric Holder Justice Department, that ended and dismissed the voting
rights case against the New Black Panthers Party in Philadelphia.
{time} 2310
Now, I have seen this film, and I've examined this case, at least to
a respectable depth, where they have, let me say, as the New Black
Panthers in Philadelphia, there is videotape that's in the possession
of the Department of Justice, unless somehow they have destroyed the
evidence on their hands, of four members of the Black Panther Party in
Philadelphia in quasi-paramilitary garb standing before the polling
places in Philadelphia, one of them at least wielding a billy club and
intimidating white voters that came in to vote in the polls, and the
video that I heard, one of those Panthers called a white voter a
``cracker.'' This was the most open-and-shut case of voter intimidation
in the history of the United States of America, Mr. Speaker, and the
Eric Holder Justice Department cancelled the case and dropped it even
though there was, and I'll go down through some of the details of this,
a judgment that was, I believe, agreed to.
Now, going on, then in Kinston, here are some comments that come from
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and this is Abigail Thernstrom,
whom I know and whose judgment that I respect tremendously. She said,
the Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when
black voters are locked out because of racism. This is Abigail
Thernstrom, Civil Rights Commission, U.S. Civil Rights Commission. She
continues, and I quote, ``There is no entitlement to elect a candidate
they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic
candidates''; Abigail Thernstrom, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
So Kinston, the city that decided they didn't want to have partisan
elections, now is essentially ordered by the Department of Justice to
have partisan elections on the assumption of the Department of Justice
that apparently black voters won't know who to vote for if they go to
the polls and they don't have a Democrat label on the names of the
candidates that are apparently black Democrat candidates.
And that's been the history of what's going on in Kinston. They
should have the right to select candidates without regard to race, and
this is a decision that is based on race at its core. It says that the
city had uncommonly high voter turnout in the last election with more
than 11,000 of the city's 15,000 voters casting ballots, but Kinston's
blacks voted in greater numbers than whites the last election,
presumably because Barack Obama was on the ballot, where he won in that
city by a margin of 2-1, and that was--excuse me. He won a victory in
that city, but the election, the vote to determine that they would be
electing their local candidates on a nonpartisan ballot passed by a 2-1
margin in Kinston, and yet the Justice Department overturned that
decision because they concluded that black candidates--or, excuse me,
black voters wouldn't know who to vote for unless they had a D beside
their name.
That is pandering. That is a racial decision on its face, Mr.
Speaker, and America can't tolerate that kind of thinking from a
Justice Department that shut down the most open-and-shut voter
intimidation case in history, Philadelphia.
And so I go on. One of the statements made is in a letter dated
August 17. The city received this letter from the Justice Department.
Their answer was elections must remain partisan because the change's
effect will be strictly racial. In other words, if you don't label the
candidates as Democrats or Republicans and you look at the anticipated
result of the elections, there might be somebody that's not black that
gets elected to office. This is the logic of the Justice Department.
What happened to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s ``I Have a Dream''? What
happened to the content of the character rather than the color of the
skin? We have come 180 degrees, Mr. Speaker, from the time when Martin
Luther King, Jr. stood down here in front of the Lincoln Memorial and
gave his ``I Have a Dream'' speech and inspired a people of this
Nation, the people of this Nation and the people of the world when he
talked about content of character, not color of the skin. That's the
dream that I've had for America. I was inspired by that speech, and I
don't know any American that wasn't inspired by the speech.
But I'm now watching Americans in positions of significant power that
have forgotten the philosophy of Martin Luther King, Jr., and they have
fallen back to a purely partisan philosophy. This is an Attorney
General that declared people that were Republicans as not being willing
to discuss the issue of race and being cowards when it comes to the
issue of race. Well, Mr. Speaker, I've shown no reticence to discuss
that. I think it's important for us to have those open discussions, and
if we don't have the open discussions on race, we'll never get to the
point where we can actually joke and laugh with each other and be
people that are God's children pulling together in the same country for
the same cause, which I believe we can and must do, and I think it's
God calling to us.
Continuing on in the article, and I will quote Loretta King, who made
this, issued this statement from the Department of Justice, and she
said, and I quote, ``Removing the partisan queue in municipal elections
will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black
candidates to be elected to office''; Loretta King, who at the time was
the Acting Head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division,
wrote in a letter to the city of Kinston, North Carolina.
[[Page 25208]]
She also wrote that voters in Kinston vote more along racial than
party lines, and without the potential for voting a straight Democratic
ticket, I quote again, Loretta King, ``The limited remaining support
from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even
more.''
Purely a bald-faced racial decision coming from the Department of
Justice, and, by the way, from the very DOJ official that formerly
killed the case of voter intimidation that was already made in
Philadelphia with the new Black Panthers and their billy clubs out in
front of the polling places in Philadelphia. That's tolerated by this
Justice Department, but being able to go to the polls and vote for
someone in a local city election like city council or mayor and not
having a party label on them, Democrat and Republican, is not tolerated
because this Justice Department does the calculus that somehow it will
diminish the elections of Democrats if they're not labeled as
Democrats, and they presume that African Americans can't make that
decision without the label.
And actually, looking at the Presidential results, you have to
wonder, if 96 percent of African Americans voted for Barack Obama, one
would be able to draw that as an indication that certainly ethnicity
was a factor when they went to the polls. I don't think that can be
denied. But again, Loretta King's statement that the limited remaining
support from white voters for the Democratic candidate will diminish
even more. Now, she is, as I said, the same official that put the
brakes on the New Black Panther case of voter intimidation.
And then we have a situation where, after a judge ordered a default
judgment against the Panthers who refused to answer the charges or
appear in court, the Justice Department dropped the charges against all
but one of the defendants saying, and I quote, this is very likely
Loretta King's statement, ``The facts of the law did not support
pursuing them.''
Really? The most open-and-shut case in the history of the United
States of America of voter intimidation, videotaped witness after
witness, what facts were not there to support pursuing a case of voter
intimidation?
I recall the cases in Florida during the Presidential election of the
year 2000 when the case was argued that a mile and a quarter away a
traffic check was voter intimidation because some people were going to
drive through the traffic stop and show up at the polls. That was the
argument made by the party of the same people that have decided that
you have to have a label of Democrat on the ballot so that African
Americans know who to vote for.
{time} 2320
That's what's said here. That's Loretta King's decision. She's in the
Department of Justice. Eric Holder is her boss; President Obama is his
boss. And they are all accountable for this breach of a constitutional
concept, if not the Constitution itself.
Ms. King's letter in the Kinston statements said that because of the
low turnout, black voters must be viewed as a minority for analytical
purposes and that minority turnout is relevant to determining whether
the Justice Department should be allowed to change election protocol.
Really.
Can't we get back again to the content of the character? Is it not
possible for someone of good conscience and good character and good
judgment to represent other people of good conscience, good character,
and good judgment? It had better be, Mr. Speaker, because if we can't,
if somehow skin color trumps good conscience, good character, and good
judgment, this country is in a very sad shape indeed. How in the world
with this logic did this Nation then elect Barack Obama as the
President of the United States?
And that would be my question. And I don't think it can be answered
by the logic, if you call it that, that's been delivered in this
decision that's imposed upon the City of Kinston, North Carolina.
Continuing. Loretta King wrote: ``Black voters have had limited
success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal
elections.'' Again, that's candidate of choice. Who's to determine what
a candidate of choice is? That would be the candidate that was voted
for by the people who went to the polls. And if people of one color
show up in a lower percentage than people of another color, that
doesn't mean that they're unrepresented; it doesn't mean that you're
supposed to jigger the game in order to produce a different result.
If you don't like the results, look at the way you're represented,
make a decision upon the people that are elected to the city council
and to the mayor's position in Kinston, North Carolina, and everywhere
else in America. But don't base it on skin color as the basis.
This is so un-American, so unconstitutional, and it echoes back to
the majority decision that was written by Justice O'Connor in the
affirmative action cases at the University of Michigan where Justice
O'Connor looked at the formulas that were used to produce the proper
color and gender of the people that got into the school in Michigan, be
it the broad student body at the University of Michigan or the
University of Michigan School of Law. And in her decision, her majority
opinion, she wrote that, you know, the Nation wasn't--and I am
paraphrasing here--the Nation wasn't quite ready for a colorblind
admission process, that we really needed to have a quota system as long
as that quota system was based on individual analysis of individual
applicants rather than a broader application that would be used as a
formula.
And Justice O'Connor also wrote, and again this is paraphrasing, she
also wrote that but even though that is the case today, perhaps we
should come back and revisit this in 25 years or so. Maybe America will
be ready for the kind of a policy that allows for merit rather than
skin color or gender to be the qualifications that allows people into
law school, Mr. Speaker.
That is breathtaking to me to think that a Supreme Court Justice of
the United States, with the support of a bare majority, but a majority
of the Supreme Court, could write, could put in print something so
utterly illogical that only one could conclude that the decision was if
we're going to go back and revisit this in 25 years and determine if
the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment actually will apply
if society is ready for equal protection in 25 years, Justice O'Connor
concluded that the Constitution itself needed to be suspended for 25
years and maybe we could come back and adhere to the Constitution if it
was convenient at a later date in a subsequent generation.
This is the rationale of Justice O'Connor that opens the door for
this kind of rationale and Department of Justice, civil rights
division, and you could have Loretta King write, Black voters have
limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent
municipal elections--even though the city is about 2-1 black in
turnout--doesn't reflect that and she needs to rig the game so the
candidates of her choice are more likely to be elected without regard
to justice. And this is the Justice Department of the United States of
America.
Abigail Thernstrom of the Civil Rights Commission blasted the
Department's interpretation of the law. And I would agree with Abigail
Thernstrom when she said, ``The Voting Rights Act is not supposed to be
compensating for a failure of voters to show up on Election Day.''
And she continues, ``The Voting Rights Act doesn't guarantee an
opportunity to elect a candidate of choice. My candidate of choice
loses all the time in elections.'' So does mine.
Are we really going to rig the game because our candidate of choice
didn't win?
And then also continues, ``The decision that employs similar
reasoning and language as in other cases of the Kinston ruling''--and
here's the decision--"implementation of nonpartisan elections appears
likely to deprive black-supported candidates of meaningful partisan-
based support and to exacerbate racial polarization between black and
white voters.''
What could more exacerbate racial polarization between black and
white
[[Page 25209]]
voters than a decision by the Department of Justice, Mr. Speaker, based
strictly upon skin color that's designed to give an advantage based
upon skin color that disregards the idea that a man or a woman can
represent another man or a woman with logic and character and
understanding and decency without regard to skin color?
Martin Luther King has got to be rolling over in his grave to see
where racial politics have taken the United States of America, Mr.
Speaker.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I would shift on to a few more subject matters.
As I spoke about the energy issue and the Kinston, North Carolina,
issue, I'll take up the issue of Kevin Jennings.
Kevin Jennings, the appointee of President Obama to be the safe and
drug-free schools czar. Now, paint that image out in one's mind's eye.
All of the schools in America got along fine without someone who was in
charge of safe schools. That was a local issue. Drug-free schools,
local issue. Nancy Reagan said, ``Just Say No,'' and that got published
through our schools and that was a good thing. But we didn't need a
safe and drug free schools czar.
Well, now we have one, one of 32--maybe as many as 47 czars--that
have been appointed by President Obama. And, Mr. Speaker, these czars
have not come under the confirmation hearings, open hearing scrutiny of
the United States Senate even though a number of them have power that
eclipses that of the Cabinet members themselves. No, these czars are
appointed to sometimes circumvent the confirmation process and the
vetting process that takes place and just simply give them a job and
grant them a power and authority eclipsing, in some cases, that of the
Cabinet members who have been vetted and had hearings and had been
confirmed in the United States Senate.
So we have Kevin Jennings, the safe and drug-free schools czar. Kevin
Jennings, the man who--and I will go through a list of things--but the
part that caught my attention the most and first was as a teacher in
Massachusetts--and by law, Kevin Jennings, as a teacher in
Massachusetts, was a mandatory reporter, which means under the laws of
Massachusetts--and they may have had a different name for it--that is
the name for people in Iowa who have to report--if a child that is in
your care and custody and responsibility in the class is being abused
mentally, physically, or sexually, it's the obligation of the mandatory
reporters, which are listed, and all teachers are mandatory reporters,
to report to--in Massachusetts, I believe it's their equivalent of HHS,
Health and Human Services Department.
Kevin Jennings had a student come in, whom he has written in his book
in 1994 and addressed it in the speech in the year 2000. This is Kevin
Jennings' words and his analysis, not mine, Mr. Speaker; but his speech
and his writings are about a 15-year-old boy who came in and sought the
counsel of teacher Kevin Jennings.
{time} 2330
He said, Well, I have been having sexual relations with an adult male
in the restroom at the bus stop, and I want to talk to you about it.
Kevin Jennings' advice was, I hope you knew to use a condom. It seems
to be the sum totality of his advice, Mr. Speaker. And that is the
focus of his repeated narrative of the 15-year-old boy.
Now here are some problems. As a mandatory reporter, this child was
being abused. It was a violation of the law. It was statutory rape
under Massachusetts law. Kevin Jennings was compelled by law to report
this as a teacher, a mandatory reporter. He did not. But he wrote about
it in his book. He talked about it in his speeches. And some have
argued, after the fact, that the young man was actually 16, not 15. But
as long as Kevin Jennings argues that he is 15, then what he knew or
what he thought he knew is a controlling factor, and he was obligated
to report the sexual abuse of a child, the intergenerational sexual
abuse, statutory rape of a child. He did not do that.
And he has repeated himself up until recently, by my documentation,
and probably after that, by the year 2000. Now he has been appointed
the ``Safe and Drug-Free Schools'' czar, a man with such a colossal
lack of judgment that he couldn't follow the law in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts to protect the safety of the children. The legislature of
Massachusetts, as leftwing as they are, saw fit to put into the law
guidelines for their teachers and their other mandatory reporters. And
Kevin Jennings, the czar of ``Safe and Drug-Free Schools,'' couldn't
see fit to even follow the law in Massachusetts, let alone possess a
moral compass that would have been a prudent one. He has since said he
could have made a better decision.
Now I wouldn't argue that a man that made a single mistake in, I
believe the year was 1988, should be punished for that in perpetuity. I
would argue, though, that a man that made that mistake, that saw fit to
highlight it in his book in 1994 or 1995 and highlight it in at least
one speech in the year 2000--it happened to be in Iowa, by the way, Mr.
Speaker--a man that has that kind of flawed judgment that is standing
in front of groups that promote homosexuality and making the case that
he has been a protector and advocate of that lifestyle was pretty proud
of his decision to advise this young man whom he referred to as
``Brewster, `` I hope you knew to use a condom.''
That is a colossal lack of judgment. The momentary flaw in his
judgment in his advice to Brewster, the colossal lack of judgment and
repeating it as if it were a merit rather than a demerit in his book
and in his speech in Iowa in the year 2000, and I would suspect many
times before and after until he has been called on it, a single
incident is not enough to judge a man by and not enough to disqualify
him by, but it is something to get our attention.
And then, Mr. Speaker, we can look at Kevin Jennings in a broader
view. What has been the totality of his record as an adult
professional? And his focus has been on the promotion of homosexuality.
In at least four books and perhaps five that he has written, every
single one at a very minimum touches on the issue. Most of the material
focuses on the issue. He has written the foreword to a book called
``Queering Elementary Education.'' Now I will submit that kids that are
in kindergarten, first-, second-, third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade in
elementary school don't need to be burdened with those kinds of
decisions. They don't need an advocate for homosexuality or any kind of
sexuality in those years. They need to be left alone to find their way,
to study academically, to go outside at recess and play sports, and get
to make friends and build an understanding of parental, adult and
teacher guidance. They don't need to be burdened with the idea of
trying to queer elementary education, to quote the title of the book
that Kevin Jennings has written the foreword to. And by the way, on the
back cover is William Ayers' comments on the value of that book,
``Queering Elementary Education.'' This is Kevin Jennings.
Now, we can continue with Kevin Jennings, the hostility towards
religion that he has demonstrated clearly. He has written about it in
his book, ``Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son.'' He has written cavalierly
about his own drug abuse. And rather than put that into the
Congressional Record, Mr. Speaker, I will just say that if students
read the language, the narrative that Kevin Jennings writes about his
own drug abuse and being at the airport watching the planes land, they
can only draw one conclusion: That it's all right to use drugs and
probably won't end up in a bad result. In fact, if you use drugs, you
can end up the ``Safe and Drug-Free Schools'' czar in the United States
of America. That is the model that is there if Kevin Jennings remains
as the czar of ``Safe and Drug-Free Schools.''
So what does he have to offer? What does he have to offer about
school safety? Well, the only thing he has to offer is his relentless
advocacy to pass anti-bullying laws in the State legislatures across
the land. About 20 States have adopted some legislation to that effect.
Anti-bullying laws are designed to exclusively protect kids who are
viewed as homosexual kids. Now I want to protect all kids. And I don't
want any
[[Page 25210]]
children bullied. By the same token, I don't believe that we need to
have special laws that are based upon the perceived notions that go on
in people's heads. We can punish the overt acts that are used as
violence or intimidation against these kids in school, and we can
protect all kids.
Kevin Jennings' advocacy has only been to protect those kids he views
as homosexual. He has been offended by what he called the ``promotion
of heterosexuality.'' And for want of finding the actual text, Mr.
Speaker, I will paraphrase this, Kevin Jennings, in one of his
speeches--and I actually typed this up with my hands from the YouTube--
said that every time kids read ``Romeo and Juliet,'' they are being
aggressively recruited to heterosexuality. Kids are being aggressively
recruited to heterosexuality by reading ``Romeo and Juliet.''
So here is a man who is now today the ``Safe and Drug-Free Schools''
czar who is opposed to ``Romeo and Juliet'' because the implication is
it's a young man and a young woman who are attracted to each other and
who are in love. And he objects because he believes they are being
aggressively recruited to heterosexuality. What would please and
satisfy Kevin Jennings if ``Romeo and Juliet'' are anathema to his
beliefs?
This goes on. But the lifetime career of 20 years and the totality of
his professional engagement has been the promotion of homosexuality,
much of it within our schools, and much of it that was within our
schools was focused on elementary education. And some of the pamphlets
that they handed out, one called ``Little Black Book,'' at Brookline
schools in Massachusetts was referred to by then-Governor Romney as
something that should never fall in the hands of school kids. This man
would be a czar of ``Safe and Drug-Free Schools.''
And when I asked one of the top principals in the United States of
America with the medal commemorating his achievement hanging around his
neck if a man of the resume, the bio, of Kevin Jennings had been hired
by his school inadvertently and the resume had been discovered and
reviewed, could he continue to teach on the faculty of this top-notch
principal's school? And the principal's answer was, No way. No way we
could keep someone like that on our faculty.
So, Kevin Jennings, Mr. Speaker, at least in the mainstream schools
in America, couldn't teach in the classroom because he has been such a
proponent of activism when it comes to dealing with a narrow component
of sexuality in America. And he has been pushing it on our kids in this
country.
He has also been a supporter of and an admirer of Harry Hay. We saw
the White House official just a few days ago who said she was inspired
by Mao Tse Tung, the murderer of 70 million Chinese. Kevin Jennings has
been inspired by Harry Hay, who is the cover boy for NAMBLA magazine,
the North American Man Boy Love Association.
{time} 2340
That organization that promotes intergenerational sex between men and
boys and says it's all right and it doesn't hurt them--in fact, it may
give them pleasure and be healthy for them--this person who has been on
the cover of their national magazine was lauded by Kevin Jennings, and
Jennings said of Harry Hay, I am always inspired by Harry Hay.
Astonishing.
A man of this caliber and this philosophy cannot be the safe and
drug-free schools czar in the United States of America. Surely, out of
306 million people, we can find one--can't there be one that has lived
an exemplary life? One who wouldn't be objectionable to any parents?
One who has advocated for the safety of all of the kids, not a narrow
view of those whom he would label as a homosexual kid? Couldn't we find
somebody that at least hasn't been public about their drug abuse so as
to tell these kids to stay away from drugs, that drugs will ruin your
potential, if they don't kill you and end your potential, they will
ruin your potential? Can't we have somebody that hasn't been obsessed
with sexuality, but someone who has been obsessed with the well-being
of our children on the whole? Yes, we should. And the kids in this
country do not have the ability to discern on a judgment call when you
have an activist like Kevin Jennings as the czar of safe and drug-free
schools. And those kids trust the adults that put people in positions
of authority and power; they only discern that adults have made the
decision to approve Kevin Jennings.
The President of the United States needs to fire Kevin Jennings and
put someone in place who is an example for parents and children or else
eliminate the position entirely, Mr. Speaker.
And now I have vented myself on that particular issue. I continue
onward. And in my pocket, as I will carry for a long time until we get
to the bottom of this, Mr. Speaker, is, out of one of the trees right
here outside the United States Capitol, another acorn. Now, never fear,
Parliamentarian, I'm not going to ask to introduce this acorn into the
Record. I just point out that this is something that America needs to
be focused upon.
The ACORN organization and their 361 affiliates, headquartered at
2609 Canal Street in New Orleans, Louisiana, originating in Arkansas
and having powerful influence in cities such as Chicago, Philadelphia,
New York--Brooklyn, for example--Baltimore, Washington, D.C., San
Diego--name your city, 120 cities in the United States, ACORN has a
presence; ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform
Now. And these are the people that started out advocating for bad loans
in bad neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act, shaking down
lenders and intimidating lenders to make those bad loans in bad
neighborhoods; the people that came to the Capitol building and lobbied
to reduce and lower the standards of underwriting for a secondary
mortgage market for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, lowered their
capitalization, their regulatory standards so that they could push
these lenders into making more bad loans in bad neighborhoods.
They criticized lenders for red-lining neighborhoods and refusing to
loan into these neighborhoods that they had a red line drawn around.
And then they had the audacity--that's the President's word, isn't it,
Mr. Speaker? Then ACORN had the audacity to go back to these lenders,
shake them down, demand a check so that they would move their
demonstrations away from the doors of the banks so people would come in
and do business. Once they were paid off, they left, but then they came
back with another ruse, which is, you need to make more bad loans in
these bad neighborhoods--that's the shorthand version. They didn't use
that language, I'm sure.
And ACORN got to the point where they drew their own red line.
Instead of the lenders drawing a red line around areas and communities
and refusing to make loans, ACORN drew a red line around areas and
communities and demanded that the lenders make loans into that area,
and they demanded specific dollar amounts of loans on real estate, in
particular, going into those areas. And so then they positioned
themselves to actually broker the loans.
And ACORN Housing opened up, and people walked into those doors like
Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe. They walked in with a video camera, and
there they posed themselves as a pimp and a prostitute and said that
they wanted to borrow some money to buy a home so they could set up a
house of ill repute to put teenage girls in as prostitutes, 13-, 14-,
15-year-old girls from El Salvador, obviously illegal kids, in a sex
slave arrangement being organized and facilitated by workers at ACORN
in Baltimore, to start out--the film is in sequential order--then
Washington, D.C.; then Brooklyn, New York; then San Bernardino,
California; then San Diego, California.
All of that unfolded, and what we saw inside the doors of ACORN was
essentially the same thing. We saw the face of a criminal enterprise
that was set up to draw down tax dollars of all kinds, primarily
Federal tax dollars, in a corrupt criminal enterprise to help
facilitate child prostitution and gaming the IRS for child tax credits,
for--I didn't
[[Page 25211]]
hear him say first-time homeowners credit, but I did hear them say
earned income tax credit.
And so the taxpayers of America are writing checks that are being
brokered by ACORN in any way that they possibly can, passing that
through into the hands of the individuals who are the beneficiaries of
government largesse. And the administration of it is that it's ACORN
that takes a cut out of the dollars that go through.
Five cities we saw the film. I believe, tomorrow, we will see the
sixth city, the film from the sixth city. And I believe that there are
more beyond that yet, Mr. Speaker.
And so this country has got to clean this up. We have an ACORN that
has corrupted the home mortgage loan process. They have demanded and
maneuvered for bad loans in bad neighborhoods. They have precipitated
the decline, and the toxic mortgage component of this economic decline
very much traces back to ACORN.
ACORN has admitted to over 400,000 fraudulent or false voter
registration forms turned in in the last election cycle. They have
denied that that turns into fraudulent votes, Mr. Speaker. Now, why
would anyone spend millions of dollars to register hundreds of
thousands of fraudulent voters and at the same time argue, well, we
paid for all of that--on commission, by the way, so many registrations
per pay day--but we didn't get anything out of it because these 400,000
were fraudulent or false, so don't worry, nobody voted illegally? Not
true. It is unconceivable, Mr. Speaker. And I have made that argument
for months, but here and a couple of weeks ago the story hit the news
about Troy, New York, bringing prosecutions against ACORN because of
dozens of fraudulent votes that were introduced in Troy, New York, and
the ones that I read about were absentee ballots.
So we have the convictions of 70 ACORN employees. We have ACORN under
indictment in the State of Nevada as a corporation to be in violation
of the election laws in Nevada, and 361 affiliates. All of this we've
got to get to the bottom of, Mr. Speaker.
I do appreciate your attention and your indulgence, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
[From the Washington Times, Oct. 20, 2009]
Justice Concludes Black Voters Need Democratic Party
(By Ben Conery)
Kinston, N.C.--Voters in this small city decided
overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party
affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama
administration recently overruled the electorate and decided
that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without
the Democratic Party.
The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for
City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan
elections are needed so that black voters can elect their
``candidates of choice''--identified by the department as
those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.
The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote
for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the
city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections
because that would violate black voters' right to elect the
candidates they want.
Several federal and local politicians would like the city
to challenge the decision in court. They say voter apathy is
the largest barrier to black voters' election of candidates
they prefer and that the Justice Department has gone too far
in trying to influence election results here.
Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led
the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice
Department's decision ``racial as well as partisan.''
``On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in
Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election,'' he said.
``That is un-American.''
The decision, made by the same Justice official who ordered
the dismissal of a voting rights case against members of the
New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, has irritated other
locals as well. They bristle at federal interference in this
city of nearly 23,000 people, two-thirds of whom are black.
In interviews in sleepy downtown Kinston--a place best
known as a road sign on the way to the Carolina beaches--
residents said partisan voting is largely unimportant because
people are personally acquainted with their elected officials
and are familiar with their views.
``To begin with, `nonpartisan elections' is a misconceived
and deceiving statement because even though no party
affiliation shows up on a ballot form, candidates still
adhere to certain ideologies and people understand that, and
are going to identify with who they feel has their best
interest at heart,'' said William Cooke, president of the
Kinston/Lenoir County branch of the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People.
Mr. Cooke said his group does not take a position on this
issue and would not disclose his personal stance, but
expressed skepticism about the Justice Department's
involvement.
Others noted the absurdity of partisan elections since
Kinston is essentially a one-party city anyway; no one among
more than a half-dozen city officials and local residents was
able to recall a Republican winning office here.
Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar denied that
the decision was intended to help the Democratic Party. He
said the ruling was based on ``what the facts are in a
particular jurisdiction'' and how it affects blacks' ability
to elect the candidates they favor.
``The determination of who is a `candidate of choice' for
any group of voters in a given jurisdiction is based on an
analysis of the electoral behavior of those voters within a
particular jurisdiction,'' he said.
Critics on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights are not so
sure. ``The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against
situations when black voters are locked out because of
racism,'' said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. ``There is no
entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the
assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic
candidates.''
Located about 60 miles from the Atlantic Coast in eastern
North Carolina, Kinston has a history of defying governmental
authority. During Colonial times, the fledgling city was
known as Kingston--named for King George III--but residents
dropped the ``g'' from the city's name after the American
Revolution.
In Kinston's heyday of manufacturing and tobacco farming,
it was a bustling collection of shops, movie theaters and
restaurants. Now, many of those buildings are vacant--a few
have been filled by storefront churches--and residents are
left hoping for better days.
In November's election--one in which ``hope'' emerged as a
central theme--the city had uncommonly high voter turnout,
with more than 11,000 of the city's 15,000 voters casting
ballots. Kinston's blacks voted in greater numbers than
whites.
Whites typically cast the majority of votes in Kinston's
general elections. Kinston residents contributed to Barack
Obama's victory as America's first black president and voted
by a margin of nearly 2-to-1 to eliminate partisan elections
in the city.
The measure appeared to have broad support among both white
and black voters, as it won a majority in seven of the city's
nine black-majority voting precincts and both of its white-
majority precincts.
But before nonpartisan elections could be implemented, the
city had to get approval from the Justice Department.
Kinston is one of the areas subject to provisions of the
landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires the city to
receive Justice Department approval before making any changes
to voting procedures. Kinston is one of 12,000 voting
districts in areas of 16 states, almost exclusively in the
South, that the Voting Rights Act declared to have had a
history of racial discrimination.
In a letter dated Aug. 17, the city received the Justice
Department's answer: Elections must remain partisan because
the change's ``effect will be strictly racial.''
``Removing the partisan cue in municipal election will, in
all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black
candidates to be elected to office,'' Loretta King, who (at
the time) was the acting head of the Justice Department's
civil rights division, wrote in a letter to the city.
Ms. King wrote that voters in Kinston vote more along
racial than party lines and without the potential for voting
a straight Democratic ticket, ``the limited remaining support
from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will
diminish even more.''
Ms. King is the same official who put a stop to the New
Black Panther Party case. In that case, the Justice
Department filed a civil complaint in Philadelphia after two
members of the black revolutionary group dressed in quasi-
military garb stood outside a polling place on election day
last year and purportedly intimidated voters with racial
insults, slurs and a nightstick.
After a judge ordered default judgments against the
Panthers, who refused to answer the charges or appear in
court, the Justice Department dropped the charges against all
but one of the defendants, saying ``the facts and the law did
not support pursuing'' them.
Ms. King's letter in the Kinston case states that because
of the low turnout black voters must be ``viewed as a
minority for analytical purposes,'' and that ``minority
turnout is relevant'' to determining whether the Justice
Department should be allowed a change to election protocol.
Black voters account for 9,702 of the city's 15,402
registered voters but typically don't vote at the rates
whites do.
As a result of the low turnout, Ms. King wrote, ``black
voters have had limited success in electing candidates of
choice during recent municipal elections.''
[[Page 25212]]
``It is the partisan makeup of the general electorate that
results in enough white cross-over to allow the black
community to elect a candidate of choice,'' she wrote.
Mrs. Thernstrom of the civil rights commission blasted the
department's interpretation of the law.
``The Voting Rights Act is not supposed to be compensating
for failure of show up on Election Day,'' she said. ``The
Voting Rights Act doesn't guarantee an opportunity to elect a
`candidate of choice.' . . . My `candidate of choice' loses
all the time in an election.''
When asked whether Justice had ever ``either granted or
denied'' requests either ``to stop partisan elections or
implement partisan elections,'' Mr. Miyar, the department
spokesman, said it was impossible to retrieve past decisions
on that basis.
But he did provide, based on the recollection of a
department lawyer, a single precedent--a decision during the
Clinton administration denying a bid from a South Carolina
school district to drop partisan elections.
That decision employs similar reasoning and language as the
Kinston ruling: ``Implementation of nonpartisan elections . .
. appears likely to deprive black supported candidates of
meaningful partisan-based support and to exacerbate racial
polarization between black and white voters.''
But the 1994 decision doesn't mention the necessity of the
Democratic Party and doesn't mention low turnout among black
voters in that school district as a factor affecting their
ability to elect candidates they prefer.
Kinston City Council member Joseph Tyson, a Democrat who
favors partisan elections, said nothing is stopping black
voters in Kinston from going to the polls.
``Unfortunately, I'm very disappointed with the apathy that
we have in Kinston among the Afro-American voters,'' he said.
Mr. Tyson, who is one of two black members of the six-
member City Council, said the best way to help black voters
in Kinston is to change the council's structure from citywide
voting to representation by district. Kinston voters
currently cast as many votes in the at-large races as there
are council seats up for election--typically three, or two
and the mayor.
``Whether it's partisan or nonpartisan is not a big issue
to me, whether or not the city is totally represented is what
the issue is to me,'' he said. ``If you have wards and
districts, then I feel the total city will be represented.''
Partisan local elections are a rarity in North Carolina.
According to statistics kept by the University of North
Carolina School of Government in Chapel Hill, only nine of
the state's 551 cities and towns hold partisan elections.
The City Council could take the Justice Department to court
to fight decision regarding nonpartisan elections, but such a
move seems unlikely. The council voted 4-1 to drop the issue
after meeting privately with Justice Department officials in
August.
``What do I plan to do? Absolutely, nothing,'' Mr. Tyson
said. ``And I will fight, within Robert's Rules of Order,
wherever necessary to make sure that decision stands.''
The Justice ruling and Kinston's decision not to fight it
comes in the wake of a key Voting Rights Act case last year.
In that decision, the Supreme Court let a small utility
district in Texas seek an exemption from the law's
requirements to receive Justice Department approval before
making any changes to voting procedures. But the court
declined to address whether the law itself is constitutional.
Critics of the law argue it has changed little since its
1965 inception and that the same places the law covered then
no longer need Justice Department approval to make changes to
voting procedures.
Proponents, including Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.,
said the law is still necessary to ensure equal voting rights
for all Americans.
In Kinston, William Barker is the only City Council member
who voted to continue discussing whether to challenge the
Justice Department's ruling.
He said he voted against eliminating partisan elections
because the proposed new system would declare a winner simply
on who received a plurality of votes instead requiring
candidates to reach certain threshold of votes based on
turnout.
``Based on the fact that the voters voted overwhelmingly
for it, I would like to see us challenge it based on that
fact. My fight is solely based on fighting what the voters
voted on,'' he said. ``It bothers me, even though I'm on the
winning side now, that you have a small group, an outside
group coming in and saying, `Your vote doesn't matter.'''
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Carter (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today on account of
illness.
Mr. Shadegg (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today and the balance
of the week on account of a death in the family.
Mr. Walden (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today on account of
illness.
Mr. Young of Alaska (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today and the
balance of the week on account of attending a memorial service in
Alaska for his late wife.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED
By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Quigley) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Defazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Murphy of Connecticut, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Stupak, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Grayson, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Jones) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Poe of Texas, for 5 minutes, October 23, 26 and 27.
Mr. Jones, for 5 minutes, October 23, 26 and 27.
Mr. Burton of Indiana, for 5 minutes, October 23.
Mr. Posey, for 5 minutes, today and October 22.
Mr. Inglis, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Deal of Georgia, for 5 minutes, October 21.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for 5 minutes, October 26 and 27.
Mr. Burgess, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Moran of Kansas, for 5 minutes, October 23, 26 and 27.
Mr. McHenry, for 5 minutes, today, October 21, 22 and 23.
____________________
ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
Lorraine C. Miller, Clerk of the House, reported and found truly
enrolled a bill of the House of the following title, which was
thereupon signed by the Speaker:
H.R. 3183. An act making appropriations for energy and
water development and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 48 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, October 21, 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:
4160. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- C10-C18-Alkyl dimethyl amine oxides;
Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-
2009-0690; FRL-8437-3] received October 1, 2009, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
4161. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Pyraclostrobin; Pesticide Tolerances
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0713; FRL-8793-2] received October 1, 2009,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
4162. A letter from the Director, Office of National Drug
Control Policy, transmitting a letter on how the office will
obligate the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 HIDTA discretionary funds;
to the Committee on Appropriations.
4163. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Department of
the Navy, transmitting a letter notifying Congress of a
performance decision by the Department of the Navy to convert
to contract the training and administrative support functions
performed by 78 military personnel at various locations; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
4164. 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; Indiana; Extended Permit Terms
for Renewal of
[[Page 25213]]
Federally Enforceable State Operating Permits [EPA-R05-OAR-
2008-0031; FRL-8963-4] received October 1, 2009, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
4165. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Operating Permit Programs; Flexible
Air Permitting Rule [EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0087; FRL-8964-8] (RIN:
2060-AM45) received October 1, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4166. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Standards of Performance for Coal
Preparation and Processing Plants [EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260; FRL-
8965-3] (RIN: 2060-AO57) received October 1, 2009, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
4167. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Transmittal No.
DDTC 102-09, certification of a proposed manufacturing
license agreement for the manufacture of significant military
equipment abroad, pursuant to section 36(c) and 36(d) of the
Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4168. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Transmittal No.
DDTC 097-09, certification of a proposed technical assistance
agreement for the export of technical data, defense services,
and defense articles, pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms
Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4169. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Transmittal No.
DDTC 070-09, certification of a proposed agreement for the
export of defense services or defense articles, pursuant to
section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4170. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Transmittal No.
DDTC 079-09, certification of a proposed amendment to a
manufacturing license agreement for the manufacture of
significant military equipment abroad, pursuant to section
36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
4171. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Transmittal No.
DDTC 101-09, certification of a proposed manufacturing
license agreement for the manufacture of significant military
equipment abroad, pursuant to section 36(c) and 36(d) of the
Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4172. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Transmittal No.
DDTC 126-09, certification of a proposed amendment to a
manufacturing license agreement for the manufacture of
significant military equipment abroad, pursuant to section
36(c) and 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4173. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Transmittal No.
DDTC 107-09, certification of proposed issuance of an export
license pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control
Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4174. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Transmittal No.
DDTC 100-09, certification of proposed issuance of an export
license pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control
Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4175. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Transmittal No.
DDTC 106-09, certification of proposed issuance of an export
license pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control
Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4176. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Transmittal No.
DDTC 026-09, certification of proposed issuance of an export
license pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control
Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4177. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Transmittal No.
DDTC 116-09, certification of proposed issuance of an export
license pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control
Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4178. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Transmittal No.
DDTC 096-09, certification of proposed issuance of an export
license pursuant to section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control
Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4179. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Transmittal No.
DDTC 114-09, certification of proposed issuance of an export
license pursuant to section 36(c) and 36(d) of the Arms
Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4180. A letter from the Acting Associate General Counsel
for General Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform
Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
4181. A letter from the Acting Associate General Counsel
for General Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies
Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
4182. A letter from the Acting Associate General Counsel
for General Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies
Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
4183. A letter from the Solicitor, Federal Labor Relations
Authority, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
4184. A letter from the Chief Administrative Officer,
transmitting the quarterly report of receipts and
expenditures of appropriations and other funds for the period
July 1, 2009 through September 30, 2009 as compiled by the
Chief Administrative Officer, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 104a
Public Law 88-454; (H. Doc. No. 111--68); to the Committee on
House Administration and ordered to be printed.
4185. A letter from the Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Justice, transmitting first annual report
entitled, ``Prioritizing Resources and Organization for
Intellectual Property Act of 2008'', pursuant to Public Law
110-403; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
4186. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Drawbridge Operaton Regulations; Raritan River, Arthur
Kill and their tributaries, Staten Island, NY and Elizabeth,
NJ [Docket No.: USCG-2009-0202] (RIN: 1625-AA09) received
October 6, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4187. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Safety Zone; Parker US Open Nationals; Parker, AZ [Docket
No.: USCG-2009-0474] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received October 6,
2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4188. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Safety Zone and Regulated Navigation Area, Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL [Docket No.: USCG-
2009-0884] (RIN: 1625-AA11) received October 6, 2009,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4189. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Office of
Regulations and Administrative Law, Department of Homeland
Security, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Special
Anchorage Areas; Henderson Harbor, NY [Docket No.: USGC-2009-
0854] (RIN: 1625-AA01) received October 6, 2009, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4190. A letter from the Administrator, FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's report on
the Preliminary Damage Assessment information on FEMA-1852-DR
for the State of Maine; jointly to the Committees on
Appropriations, Transportation and Infrastructure, and
Homeland Security.
4191. A letter from the Administrator, FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's report on
the Preliminary Damage Assessment information on FEMA-1853-DR
for the State of Nebraska; jointly to the Committees on
Appropriations, Transportation and Infrastructure, and
Homeland Security.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
Mr. POLIS: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 846.
Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3585) to guide and provide for United States research,
development, and demonstration of solar energy technologies,
and for other purposes (Rept. 111-304). Referred to the House
Calendar.
Mr. WAXMAN: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 3792. A
bill to amend title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act to
revise and extend the program for providing life-saving care
for those with HIV/AIDS (Rept. 111-305). Referred to the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions of the
following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. Nadler of New York,
Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Harman, Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas, and Mr. Johnson of Georgia):
[[Page 25214]]
H.R. 3845. A bill to extend and modify authorities needed
to combat terrorism and protect civil liberties, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in
addition to the Committees on Intelligence (Permanent
Select), and Financial Services, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. Nadler of New York,
Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas, and Mr. Johnson of Georgia):
H.R. 3846. A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 to provide additional civil
liberties protections, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee
on Intelligence (Permanent Select), 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. CONYERS:
H.R. 3847. A bill to provide appropriate authority to the
Department of Justice Inspector General to investigate
attorney misconduct, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. CONYERS:
H.R. 3848. A bill to amend the Inspector General Act of
1978 to provide authority for Inspectors General to subpoena
former agency employees, agency contractors, and employees of
contractors for testimony, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. CONYERS:
H.R. 3849. A bill to amend the National Security Act of
1947 to require notice to Congress of certain
declassifications of intelligence information, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent
Select).
By Mr. KRATOVIL (for himself and Mr. Boustany):
H.R. 3850. A bill to provide for the eradication and
control of nutria in Maryland, Louisiana, and other coastal
States; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. GORDON of Tennessee (for himself, Mr. Wamp, Mrs.
Bono Mack, and Mr. Kind):
H.R. 3851. A bill to direct the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to publish physical activity guidelines for
the general public, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. CUMMINGS (for himself, Mr. Connolly of Virginia,
Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Moran of Virginia,
Ms. Edwards of Maryland, Ms. Norton, Mr. Scott of
Virginia, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Oberstar, and Ms. Eddie
Bernice Johnson of Texas):
H.R. 3852. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to improve and reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay
Program; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Ms. KOSMAS (for herself and Mr. Posey):
H.R. 3853. A bill to provide for the establishment of
Commercial Space Transportation Cooperative Research and
Development Centers of Excellence, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Science and Technology.
By Mr. SCHRADER (for himself, Ms. Velazquez, Mrs.
Halvorson, and Mrs. Kirkpatrick of Arizona):
H.R. 3854. A bill to amend the Small Business Act and the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to improve programs
providing access to capital under such Acts, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Small Business.
By Mr. BACA:
H.R. 3855. A bill to amend title 13, United States Code, to
make clear that each decennial census, as required for the
apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the
several States, shall tabulate the total number of persons in
each State, and to provide that no information regarding
United States citizenship or immigration status may be
elicited in any such census; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
By Ms. BERKLEY (for herself, Mr. Burgess, Mrs. Davis of
California, Mr. Higgins, Ms. Lee of California, Ms.
Kilpatrick of Michigan, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Klein of
Florida, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Ms.
Titus, Ms. Tsongas, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Lewis of
Georgia, Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Ms.
Schakowsky, Mr. Donnelly of Indiana, Ms. Schwartz,
Mr. Doggett, Ms. Matsui, Ms. Hirono, Mrs. Napolitano,
Mr. Farr, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Gene Green
of Texas, Ms. Watson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Hare, Mr.
Cleaver, Mrs. Halvorson, Ms. Pingree of Maine, Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Sires, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Davis
of Illinois, Mr. Nadler of New York, Mr. Matheson,
Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Kagen, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Ms.
Harman, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Thompson of
California, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Engel,
Mr. Wexler, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mrs. Christensen,
Ms. Richardson, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Yarmuth,
Ms. Markey of Colorado, Mrs. Maloney, Ms. Fudge, Mr.
Payne, Mrs. Lowey, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, and
Mr. Bilirakis):
H.R. 3856. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide for osteoporosis and related bone disease education,
research, and surveillance, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia (for himself, Mr. Wolf, Ms.
Norton, and Mr. Reyes):
H.R. 3857. A bill to amend subchapter III of chapter 83 of
title 5, United States Code, to make service performed as an
employee of a nonappropriated fund instrumentality after 1965
and before 1987 creditable for retirement purposes; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Ms. KAPTUR:
H.R. 3858. A bill to amend the Federal Reserve Act to alter
the terms and conditions applicable to members of the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Ms. KAPTUR:
H.R. 3859. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 to prohibit contributions and expenditures by
multicandidate political committees controlled by foreign-
owned corporations, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on
the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3860. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Propanenitrile, 3-[[4-[(substituted)azo]phenyl]
(substituted)amino]-; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3861. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 9,10-
Anthracenedione, 1,1'-[(6-phenyl-1,3,5- triazine-2,4-
diyl)diimino]bis[3-acetyl-4-amino-; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3862. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Benz[cd]indolium, 1-ethyl-2-[1,2,3,4- tetrahydro-1- (2-
hydroxyethyl)-2,2,4-trimethyl-6-quinolinyl]-,chloride; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3863. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Chromate(3-), bis[3-(hydroxy-kO)-4-[[2- (hydroxy-kO)-1-
naphthalenyl]azo-kN1]-7-nitro-1-naphthalenesu fonato(3-)]-,
trisodium; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3864. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
(Alkylamino-hydroxyphenyl)azo-hydroxysubstituted benzene,
substituted [(hydroxy-naphthalenyl) hydroxybenzene], chromium
complex, sodium salt; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3865. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1-
Propanaminium, 3,3'-[(9,10-dihydro-9,10-dioxo- 1,4-
anthracenediyl)diimino]bis[N,N,N-triethyl-, bis(ethyl
sulfate); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3866. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1H-
Pyrazole-3-carboxylic acid, 4-[[4-[[(2,3-dichloro- 6-
quinoxalinyl)carbonyl]amino]-2-sulfophenyl]azo]-4,5-dihydr -
5-oxo-1-(4- sulfophenyl)-, trisodium salt; to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3867. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Cuprate(4-), [2-[[3-[[substituted]-1,3,5-triazin- 2-
yl]amino]-2-hydroxy-5-sulfophenyl](substituted)azo], sodium
salt; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3868. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 9,10-
Anthracenedione, 1,5(or 1,8)-diamino-2-bromo- 4,8(or 4,5)-
dihydroxy-; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3869. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Ethanol, 2,2'-[ [6,13-dichloro-3,10-bis[[2- (sulfooxy)ethyl]
amino]triphenodioxazinediyl]bis(sulfonyl)] bis-, bis(hydrogen
sulfate) (ester), potassium sodium salt; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3870. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 9,10-
Anthracenedione, 1,5-diamino-4,8-dihydroxy(4- hydroxyphenyl)-
; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3871. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-
Naphthalenesulfonic acid, 5-[[4-(acetylamino)-2-
(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]azo]-6-amino-4-hydroxy-, monosodium
salt; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3872. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Substituted cyan acetic acid pentyl ester; to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
[[Page 25215]]
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3873. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-
Anthracenesulfonic acid, 1-amino-9, 10-dihydro-4-[ [4-
[[methyl[(4-methylphenyl) sulfony]amino]methyl]pheny] amino]-
9, 10-dioxo-, sodium salt (1:1); to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3874. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-
Anilino-5-cyano-(3-(substituted)-6- (substituted))-4-
methylpyridine; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3875. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 100
percent cotton woven color wall fabric, dyed; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3876. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 100
percent cotton narrow woven fabric; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3877. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 100
percent cotton dyed knit fabric; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3878. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 9,10-
Anthracenedione, 1-amino-2-[4- [(hexahydro-2-oxo-1H-azepin-1-
yl)methyl]phenoxy]-4-hydroxy-; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3879. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 100
percent dyed cotton single knit fabric; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3880. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on b-
Alanine, N-[3-(acetylamino)-4-[(2,4-
dinitrophenyl)azo]phenyl]-N-(3-methoxy-3-oxopropyl)-, methyl
ester; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3881. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 7H-
Benzimidazo[2,1-a]benz[de]isoquinolin-7- one, 9(or 10)-
methoxy-; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3882. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1H-
Indene-1,3(2H)-dione, 2-(4-bromo-3-hydroxy-2- quinolinyl)-;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3883. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Ethanol, 2,2'-[[4-[(3,5-dinitro-2-thienyl)azo]
phenyl]imino]bis-, diacetate (ester); to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. WATT:
H.R. 3884. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 9, 10-
Anthracenedione, 1-amino-4-hydroxy-2-phenoxy-; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. WATERS:
H. Res. 844. A resolution honoring Dr. Earnestine Thomas-
Robertson for 31 years of service in Academia at Los Angeles
Southwest College (LASC), in the Los Angeles Community
College District, the largest community college district in
the Nation; to the Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. NEUGEBAUER:
H. Res. 845. A resolution recognizing the United States Air
Force and Dyess Air Force Base for their success in achieving
energy savings and developing energy-saving innovations
during Energy Awareness Month; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
By Mr. BUCHANAN (for himself, Mr. Lance, Mr. Roe of
Tennessee, Mr. Lee of New York, Mr. Rogers of
Michigan, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. McCarthy of
California, Mr. Boozman, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Mack,
Mrs. Bono Mack, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Lucas,
Mr. Cole, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Buyer, Mr.
Westmoreland, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr.
Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Calvert, Mr.
Gingrey of Georgia, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Wittman, Mr.
Issa, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr.
Jones, Mr. Paul, Mr. Latta, Ms. Fallin, Mr. Blunt,
Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Roskam, Mr. Jordan
of Ohio, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Shuster, Mrs.
Emerson, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Young of
Florida, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Petri, Mr.
Lamborn, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Herger, Mr. Terry, Mr.
Camp, and Mr. Hoekstra):
H. Res. 847. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that any conference committee or other
meetings held to determine the content of national health
care legislation be conducted in public under the watchful
eye of the people of the United States; to the Committee on
Rules.
By Mr. GRAVES (for himself, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr.
Cleaver, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Schock, and Mr. Blunt):
H. Res. 848. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that Congress should support repairing and
rehabilitating United States national transportation
infrastructure, including bridges not located on a Federal-
aid highway; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Ms. KAPTUR:
H. Res. 849. A resolution recognizing the 16th anniversary
of the Future Leaders Exchange (FLEX) program, a program
funded by the Government of the United States to provide an
opportunity for high school students from the countries of
the former Soviet Union to study and live in the United
States in order to promote democratic values and institutions
in Eurasia, and supporting the mission, goals, and
accomplishments of the FLEX program; to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
By Ms. KAPTUR:
H. Res. 850. A resolution supporting the establishment and
full funding of a staff exchange program between the House of
Representatives and the Parliament of Ukraine, the Verkhovna
Rada, as soon as possible; to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
By Ms. MATSUI:
H. Res. 851. A resolution recognizing and honoring the 40th
anniversary of SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice
Information and Statistics, headquartered in Sacramento,
California; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 211: Mr. Delahunt.
H.R. 275: Mr. Pastor of Arizona and Mr. Rogers of Kentucky.
H.R. 333: Mr. Jones and Mr. Cleaver.
H.R. 422: Mr. Wittman, Mr. Souder, and Ms. DeGette.
H.R. 460: Mr. Berman.
H.R. 471: Mrs. Dahlkemper.
H.R. 482: Mr. Franks of Arizona.
H.R. 503: Mr. Roskam and Mr. Coffman of Colorado.
H.R. 504: Mr. Boucher.
H.R. 510: Mr. Arcuri and Mrs. Kirkpatrick of Arizona.
H.R. 558: Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
H.R. 571: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Guthrie, Mr.
Langevin, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Cummings.
H.R. 616: Mr. Posey.
H.R. 635: Mr. Filner.
H.R. 644: Ms. Hirono.
H.R. 678: Mr. Arcuri, Mr. Michaud, and Ms. Berkley.
H.R. 739: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
H.R. 745: Mr. Luetkemeyer and Mr. Melancon.
H.R. 776: Ms. Lee of California.
H.R. 847: Ms. Baldwin and Mr. Ellsworth.
H.R. 855: Ms. Eshoo.
H.R. 932: Mr. Holt and Mr. Holden.
H.R. 950: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts and Ms. Baldwin.
H.R. 953: Mr. Aderholt.
H.R. 988: Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, Mr.
Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Mr.
Posey, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. Hare.
H.R. 1017: Mr. Rodriguez.
H.R. 1019: Mr. Franks of Arizona.
H.R. 1030: Mr. McHenry, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Connolly of
Virginia, and Ms. DeGette.
H.R. 1168: Mr. Buchanan.
H.R. 1175: Ms. Matsui.
H.R. 1177: Mr. Etheridge.
H.R. 1189: Ms. DeGette and Mr. Sires.
H.R. 1207: Mr. Ruppersberger.
H.R. 1215: Mr. Kennedy.
H.R. 1245: Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 1255: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida.
H.R. 1298: Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Paul, Mr. Duncan, Mr.
LaTourette, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Mitchell.
H.R. 1324: Mr. Towns.
H.R. 1326: Mr. Kennedy, Ms. DeLauro, and Mr. Connolly of
Virginia.
H.R. 1428: Mr. Jones.
H.R. 1458: Mr. Smith of Washington.
H.R. 1523: Mr. Tierney, Mr. Kagen, and Ms. Speier.
H.R. 1526: Mr. Peterson and Mr. Latham.
H.R. 1549: Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Ruppersberger,
Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, Mr. Andrews, Ms. Fudge, Mr.
Kildee, Ms. Chu, and Ms. Waters.
H.R. 1552: Mr. Skelton.
H.R. 1677: Mr. Cohen, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Cuellar,
and Mr. Meek of Florida.
H.R. 1681: Mr. Levin.
H.R. 1685: Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Delahunt, and Mr.
Michaud.
H.R. 1690: Mr. Price of North Carolina.
H.R. 1719: Mr. Larson of Connecticut.
H.R. 1721: Mr. LaTourette.
H.R. 1751: Mr. Rush.
H.R. 1766: Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 1792: Ms. Shea-Porter.
H.R. 1835: Mr. Lujan.
H.R. 1846: Mr. Rodriguez.
H.R. 1849: Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Wilson of Ohio, Mr.
Taylor, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. McMahon, and Mrs.
Christensen.
H.R. 1908: Ms. Fallin, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, and Mr.
Marchant.
H.R. 1916: Mr. Childers.
H.R. 1925: Mr. Fattah.
H.R. 1927: Mr. Farr.
H.R. 2002: Mr. Cummings.
H.R. 2017: Mr. Buchanan.
H.R. 2024: Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
H.R. 2030: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H.R. 2046: Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Olver, and Mr. Grijalva.
[[Page 25216]]
H.R. 2057: Mr. Conaway and Mr. Miller of North Carolina.
H.R. 2084: Mr. LaTourette.
H.R. 2106: Mr. Delahunt.
H.R. 2107: Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California.
H.R. 2109: Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Berman,
Mr. Hinchey, Ms. Markey of Colorado, and Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 2138: Mr. Cleaver.
H.R. 2177: Mr. Bishop of Utah.
H.R. 2205: Mr. Kennedy.
H.R. 2214: Mr. Rothman of New Jersey.
H.R. 2246: Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 2251: Mr. Van Hollen.
H.R. 2254: Mr. Barrow, Ms. Markey of Colorado, Mr. Meeks of
New York, Mr. Upton, and Mr. Clay.
H.R. 2256: Mr. Marshall and Ms. Baldwin.
H.R. 2266: Mr. Pascrell.
H.R. 2269: Mr. Moore of Kansas and Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
H.R. 2329: Mr. Moore of Kansas and Mr. Shuster.
H.R. 2339: Mr. Rothman of New Jersey.
H.R. 2361: Mr. Bilbray.
H.R. 2381: Mr. Payne and Mr. Olver.
H.R. 2452: Mr. Polis, Mr. Connolly of Virginia, Mr.
Guthrie, and Mr. Coble.
H.R. 2478: Mr. Fortenberry.
H.R. 2480: Mr. Pierluisi, Ms. Schakowsky, and Mr. Murtha.
H.R. 2490: Mr. Carson of Indiana.
H.R. 2502: Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Boucher, Mr. Griffith, Mr. Murphy of Connecticut, Mr. Ortiz,
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Gordon of Tennessee,
Mr. Hill, and Mr. Space.
H.R. 2541: Mrs. Biggert.
H.R. 2548: Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 2567: Mrs. Capps.
H.R. 2573: Mr. Cao.
H.R. 2672: Mr. Skelton and Mr. McKeon.
H.R. 2736: Mr. Price of North Carolina.
H.R. 2753: Mr. Smith of Nebraska.
H.R. 2777: Ms. Berkley.
H.R. 2807: Ms. DeGette, Mr. Lance, and Mr. Ellison.
H.R. 2866: Mr. Graves and Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California.
H.R. 2874: Mr. Nye and Mr. Perriello.
H.R. 2894: Ms. DeGette.
H.R. 2906: Mr. Murphy of Connecticut and Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 2937: Mr. Rothman of New Jersey.
H.R. 2964: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
H.R. 2995: Mr. Kind.
H.R. 3010: Mrs. McCarthy of New York and Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 3069: Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 3075: Mr. Filner.
H.R. 3100: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 3126: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
H.R. 3202: Mr. Young of Alaska and Mr. Sablan.
H.R. 3226: Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Gerlach, and Mr. Olson.
H.R. 3227: Mr. Peters.
H.R. 3238: Mr. Capuano.
H.R. 3245: Mr. Berman.
H.R. 3264: Mr. Holden.
H.R. 3276: Mr. Inslee.
H.R. 3286: Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Cao, and Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
H.R. 3328: Ms. Waters and Mr. Holt.
H.R. 3355: Mr. Shuster and Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 3359: Ms. Lee of California and Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 3365: Mr. Taylor, Ms. Markey of Colorado, Mr. Carney,
and Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
H.R. 3375: Mr. Franks of Arizona.
H.R. 3421: Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Holt, and Mr.
Reyes.
H.R. 3457: Ms. Markey of Colorado.
H.R. 3458: Mr. Doggett.
H.R. 3463: Mr. Nye.
H.R. 3485: Mr. McGovern and Mr. Holt.
H.R. 3545: Mr. Delahunt and Ms. Sutton.
H.R. 3554: Mr. Hodes, Mrs. Kirkpatrick of Arizona, and Mr.
Ross.
H.R. 3560: Mr. Gene Green of Texas.
H.R. 3564: Mr. Jackson of Illinois.
H.R. 3569: Mr. Calvert.
H.R. 3586: Mr. Driehaus and Mr. Terry.
H.R. 3589: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Hodes, Mr. Braley
of Iowa, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Delahunt, and Mr.
Hinchey.
H.R. 3596: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Welch, Mr. Nadler of New
York, Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr. Shuler.
H.R. 3602: Ms. Richardson.
H.R. 3611: Mr. Calvert.
H.R. 3613: Mr. Conaway, Mr. Alexander, Mr. McCaul, Ms.
Jenkins, Mrs. Blackburn, and Mr. Brown of South Carolina.
H.R. 3633: Mr. Weiner and Mr. Rogers of Michigan.
H.R. 3636: Mr. Schiff.
H.R. 3644: Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
H.R. 3654: Mr. Cao.
H.R. 3677: Mr. Smith of Texas.
H.R. 3683: Mr. Boehner, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, and Mr.
Westmoreland.
H.R. 3691: Mr. Castle.
H.R. 3700: Mr. Price of Georgia and Mr. Hunter.
H.R. 3712: Mr. Carney, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, and Mrs.
Lowey.
H.R. 3723: Mr. Skelton.
H.R. 3724: Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California and Mr.
Gerlach.
H.R. 3728: Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Towns, Mr. Rush, Ms.
Norton, Ms. Clarke, Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan, Mr. Fattah,
and Mr. Cleaver.
H.R. 3731: Mr. Holt, Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Costello, and Mr.
Carson of Indiana.
H.R. 3734: Ms. Lee of California.
H.R. 3749: Mr. Space, Mr. Peterson, and Mrs. Miller of
Michigan.
H.R. 3766: Ms. Moore of Wisconsin and Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania.
H.R. 3772: Ms. Matsui and Mr. Filner.
H.R. 3789: Mr. Issa, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr.
Bonner, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Austria, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr.
Posey, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Jordan of
Ohio, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Campbell, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr.
Cole, Mr. Harper, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Mrs. Schmidt, Mr.
Marchant, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mr. Broun of
Georgia, and Mrs. Lummis.
H.R. 3790: Mr. Posey, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr.
Turner, Mr. Barrow, Ms. Markey of Colorado, and Mr. LoBiondo.
H.R. 3791: Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Courtney, and Mr.
Pierluisi.
H.R. 3792: Mr. Matheson, Mr. Al Green of Texas, and Ms.
Harman.
H.R. 3797: Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Lee of New York, and Mr.
Jordan of Ohio.
H.R. 3800: Mr. Filner.
H.R. 3820: Mr. Gordon of Tennessee.
H.R. 3837: Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Carney, Mrs.
Kirkpatrick of Arizona, and Mr. Reyes.
H.J. Res. 11: Mr. Forbes, Mr. King of Iowa, Mrs. Emerson,
and Mr. Upton.
H.J. Res. 47: Mr. Alexander and Mr. Minnick.
H. Con. Res. 97: Mr. Delahunt.
H. Con. Res. 161: Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Coffman of Colorado,
Ms. Fallin, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, Mrs.
Blackburn, Mr. Harper, Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mr. Cole, Mr.
Franks of Arizona, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. McClintock, Mr.
Rooney, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Posey, Mr.
Luetkemeyer, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Brown of
South Carolina, Mr. Akin, and Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas.
H. Con. Res. 177: Mr. Calvert and Mr. Cohen.
H. Con. Res. 198: Mr. Sullivan.
H. Res. 22: Ms. Speier.
H. Res. 89: Mr. Berman and Mr. Courtney.
H. Res. 159: Ms. Hirono.
H. Res. 213: Mr. Cuellar.
H. Res. 236: Mr. Minnick.
H. Res. 255: Mr. Rothman of New Jersey.
H. Res. 558: Ms. Clarke.
H. Res. 615: Mr. Forbes.
H. Res. 619: Mr. Manzullo.
H. Res. 648: Mr. Grayson, Mr. Reyes, Ms. Velazquez, and Ms.
Shea-Porter.
H. Res. 656: Mr. Wolf and Mr. Rooney.
H. Res. 660: Mr. Clyburn.
H. Res. 672: Mr. Pitts, Mr. Lamborn, and Ms. Chu.
H. Res. 699: Mr. Blunt and Mr. McKeon.
H. Res. 700: Mr. McGovern.
H. Res. 704: Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Hunter, and
Mr. Hinchey.
H. Res. 711: Mr. Blunt, Mr. Tiberi, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Moore
of Wisconsin, Mr. Holt, Ms. Kilroy, Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Ms. Foxx, and Mr.
McCaul.
H. Res. 716: Mr. Perriello.
H. Res. 727: Mr. McMahon, Mr. Kline of Minnesota, and Mr.
Cohen.
H. Res. 729: Mr. Wittman.
H. Res. 736: Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Luetkemeyer,
Mr. Calvert, Mr. Skelton, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Duncan, Mr.
Thompson of Pennsylvania, and Mrs. Dahlkemper.
H. Res. 740: Mr. Aderholt.
H. Res. 749: Mr. Manzullo.
H. Res. 752: Mr. Braley of Iowa.
H. Res. 756: Mr. Reyes and Mrs. McMorris Rodgers.
H. Res. 761: Mr. Engel.
H. Res. 764: Ms. Speier.
H. Res. 773: Mr. Conaway, Mr. Arcuri, Mr. Smith of New
Jersey, Mr. Carney, and Mr. Coble.
H. Res. 780: Mr. Conyers, Mr. Wolf, Mrs. Christensen, Mr.
McDermott, and Ms. Titus.
H. Res. 783: Mr. Pastor of Arizona, Ms. Bordallo, and Mr.
Rogers of Michigan.
H. Res. 787: Mr. Barrow, Mr. Pallone, and Mr. Ackerman.
H. Res. 796: Mr. Wittman.
H. Res. 797: Mr. Carney, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr.
Ehlers, Ms. Bordallo, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Gonzalez,
Mr. Massa, Mr. Coble, and Mrs. Kirkpatrick of Arizona.
H. Res. 801: Mr. Filner, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Markey of
Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern, and Mr. Honda.
H. Res. 811: Mr. Foster.
H. Res. 817: Ms. Chu, Mr. Fattah, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr.
Peterson, Mr. Posey, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and Ms. Schakowsky.
H. Res. 819: Mr. Lee of New York.
H. Res. 823: Mr. Scott of Georgia.
H. Res. 831: Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Hoekstra,
Ms. Berkley, and Mr. Cao.
H. Res. 838: Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart of Florida, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Rothman of New
Jersey, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr.
Courtney, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Royce, Ms. Berkley, Mr. McGovern,
Mr. McMahon, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Wexler, Mr. McCotter,
Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, and Mr. Carnahan.
[[Page 25217]]
H. Res. 840: Mr. Cao and Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
____________________
CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, OR LIMITED TARIFF
BENEFITS
Under clause 9 of rule XXI, lists or statements on congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits were
submitted as follows:
The amendment to be offered by Representative Gordon, or a
designee, to H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act of
2009, does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited
tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause
9 of rule XXI.
The Amendment No. _ to be offered by Mr. Oberstar, of his
designee, to H.R. 3619 contains the following earmarks as
defined in clause 9(e) of rule XXI:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of
Section provision Requested by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1302............................ Certificate of Thomas E. Petri
Documentation for Bart Stupak
St. Mary's Cement.
1302............................ Certificate of Don Young
Documentation for
Dry Dock #2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the manager's amendment contains no limited
tax benefits or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause
9(f) or 9(g) of rule XXI.
____________________
DELETIONS OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were deleted from public bills
and resolutions as follows:
H.R. 874: Mr. Schrader.
____________________
DISCHARGE PETITIONS ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS
The following Member added his name to the following discharge
petition:
[Omitted from the Record of October 16, 2009]
Petition 5 by Mrs. BLACKBURN on H.R. 391: John A. Boehner.
[[Page 25218]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
A PROCLAMATION HONORING THE TUSCARAWAS COUNTY COUNCIL FOR CHURCH AND
COMMUNITY
______
HON. ZACHARY T. SPACE
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. SPACE. Madam Speaker:
Whereas, Tuscarawas County Council for Church and Community has been
faithfully serving the community of Tuscarawas County since 1966; and
Whereas, the Tuscarawas County Council for Church and Community has
participated in ``Character Counts! Week,'' a character building
program meant to instill essential character values in children from
October 18-24, 2009; and
Whereas, the ``Character Counts!'' program promotes trustworthiness,
respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship in young
people; now, therefore, be it
Resolved that along with the residents of the 18th Congressional
District, I commend the Tuscarawas County Council for Church and
Community on their commitment to citizenship and respect for themselves
and one another. I also commend those involved in the program for their
dedication to the youth of our community and preparing them for lives
of thoughtfulness, respect, and civic responsibility.
____________________
THE PINEY WOODS SCHOOL CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION
______
HON. GREGG HARPER
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. HARPER. Madam Speaker, one hundred years ago deep in the
Mississippi woods, Dr. Laurence Jones agreed to teach a half-grown,
barefoot boy to read. The next day, the young boy not only arrived
eagerly for his second lesson, but was accompanied by two of his
friends. Dr. Jones welcomed the newcomers and began the lesson by
singing the well known doxology, Praise God, from Whom All Blessings
Flow. Thus, The Piney Woods School legacy was born.
Dr. Laurence Jones did not stop simply with teaching a few boys while
using a fallen log for a desk, but he also eventually built a modest
facility in rural Rankin County, Mississippi to provide underprivileged
black students with a ``head, heart and hands'' education.
News of the developing black school angered many local Ku Klux Klan
members. After capturing Dr. Jones and forcing him to give a final
speech, the members of the Klan released ``The Little Professor'' after
he expressively compelled them by stating, ``There is not a man
standing here who wants to go to his God with the blood of an innocent
man on his hands.''
Founded in 1909 in a corn shed and, today The Piney Woods School is a
nondenominational, Christian-oriented school that has grown into what
U.S. News & World Report has named one of the finest boarding schools
in the country. As the flagship of the four remaining historically
African-American boarding schools in the United States, The Piney Woods
School provides an academic core of mathematics, history, science,
English and social studies to black high school students on a campus
covering 2,000 acres. The beautiful Rankin County campus is comprised
of lakes, farmland and towering pine trees, which creates an
educational experience far beyond the classroom.
Comprised of nearly 230 students in grades 9 through 12 from over 20
states, Mexico, the Caribbean and several African nations, all of the
students attend on a scholarship, and at all times at least 60% of the
student body come from a low socio-economic background. Additionally,
to help defray the cost of tuition, each student is responsible for
working 10 hours a week.
The Piney Woods School has continued to rely on individual,
foundation and corporate support for funding in addition to assistance
from religious institutions. Building on the basis of this support, the
school has established a goal of at least 1,000 churches, synagogues
and other religious institutions contributing $1,000 a year. Among
prominent figures that have advocated for the school over the years,
are actor Morgan Freeman, television personality Oprah Winfrey, author
Bebe Moore Campbell and famed American cartoonist, the late Charles
Schultz.
On behalf of this body, I would like to congratulate The Piney Woods
School as they celebrate one hundred years of ``changing America, and
the world, one student at a time.'' Britton Smith, a young African
American intern who serves today in my Washington office and who is a
graduate of Piney Woods, is a genuine example that the legacy of Dr.
Jones and his wife, Grace, still pulsates through the campus,
attracting Christian students eager for an opportunity to grow and to
be successful.
____________________
CONGRATULATING RICHARD L. BOALS FOR RECEIVING THE ANTI-DEFAMATION
LEAGUE'S TORCH OF LIBERTY AWARD
______
HON. HARRY E. MITCHELL
of arizona
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Richard
L. Boals, who has been selected to receive the Anti-Defamation League's
Jerry J. Wisotsky Torch of Liberty Award. The ADL is a national non-
profit organization committed to combating all forms of prejudice and
discrimination, as well as defending democratic ideals and protecting
civil liberties for all. The Jerry J. Wisotsky Torch of Liberty Award
recognizes outstanding leaders who have demonstrated a serious
commitment to the social, economic, cultural, and environmental well-
being of their communities.
Mr. Boals is an exceptional community leader who epitomizes the
ideals of the Torch of Liberty Award. As president and chief executive
officer of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona, Mr. Boals is in charge of
the state's leading health insurer. His long history of service to his
community includes serving on the board of directors for Greater
Phoenix Leadership, the Translational Genomics Research Institute, the
Arthritis Foundation Greater Southwest Chapter, the Arizona State
University (ASU) W.P. Carey School of Business Center for Services
Leadership, the ASU President's Club, and the ASU Dean's Council of
100. Mr. Boals is also co-chair of the Phoenix Police Reserve
Foundation board of directors and is currently working with the
Salvation Army as their Capital Campaign Committee Chairman. In
addition, Mr. Boals has served in the past as chairman of the Greater
Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, the Arthritis Foundation Greater Southwest
Chapter, the Arizona Quality Alliance, the Arizona Affordable Health
Care Foundation, and Teach for America.
Through his contributions to his community, Mr. Boals also serves as
a great role model to all of us. Again, I congratulate Richard Boals on
this award, and I thank him for everything he has done for his fellow
community members.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. ROB BISHOP
of utah
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, consistent with the Republican
Leadership's policy on earmarks, I am submitting the following earmark
disclosure information regarding project funding I had requested and
which was not originally included in the House reported version, but
which was included within the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2892.
To the best of my knowledge, funding for this project: (1) is not
directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting
Member of Congress; (2) is not intended to be used by an entity to
secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent
with the specified purpose of the earmark; and (3) meets or exceeds all
statutory requirements
[[Page 25219]]
for matching funds. I further certify that neither my spouse, nor I,
have any personal financial interests in this request.
Project Title: Distributed Environment for Critical Infrastructure
Decision-making Exercises (DECIDE)
Amount: $3 million
Requesting Member: Rob Bishop (UT)
Bill Number: H.R. 2892
Account: DHS Science & Technology -
Address of Requesting Entity: Utah State University
Location: Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah 84322-1400.
Matching Funds: Not applicable
Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable.
Description and Justification of Funding: Funding is needed to
continue efforts begun last year to develop digital and informational
technology tools to help private financial institutions and other
private sector institutions vital to the U.S. economy to coordinate
defenses against increasingly sophisticated and growing cyber attack
threats that, if not defended against, could have devastating
implications for our economy as well as homeland security interests.
Utah State University is a participant in a consortium of higher
educational research institutions called the ``Cyber Conflict Research
Consortium'' (CCRC) which also includes Miami University (Ohio);
Norwich University Applied Research Institutes; Potomac Institute for
Policy Studies; and the University of Nevada Reno.
____________________
HONORING THE MEMORY OF FALLEN U.S. MILITARY HEROES, THE SACRIFICE OF
THEIR FAMILIES, AND THE WORK OF THE SNOWBALL EXPRESS ORGANIZATION
______
HON. JEB HENSARLING
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I honor the memory of our fallen
military heroes, recognize the sacrifice of their families and laud the
excellent work of the Snowball Express Organization and its many
partners, sponsors and volunteers.
Freedom is not free--it comes at an incredible cost. Throughout our
nation's history, whenever our country is attacked or when the enemies
of freedom threaten peace in our world, American men and women in
uniform, from all backgrounds and all walks of life, have answered the
call to defend our nation. From the American Revolution to Operation
Iraqi Freedom, many of America's best and brightest have paid the price
of our freedom with their lives.
The families of these brave men and women also make tremendous
sacrifices. Military families play a vital support role to our troops
in harm's way and are left to carry on life without their wife,
husband, mother, father, brother or sister. As much as we remember the
men and women who lay down their life to protect us, we should also
remember and support their families and the incredible sacrifice they
make on a daily basis, as they seek to continue on with their life,
remembering and honoring their departed loved one. My son and daughter
live in a better, more free and more secure America because of the
sacrifices of these families and their heroes.
Snowball Express was founded with the goal of providing ``hope and
new memories to the children of our fallen military heroes who died
while on active duty since September 11, 2001.'' I can only imagine how
hard it must be to carry on with holidays, birthdays and normal life
with your loved one missing. The outstanding staff, partners, sponsors
and volunteers at Snowball Express are committed to providing rays of
sunshine for children whose worlds have been rocked by incredible loss
and they are to be commended.
As Ronald Reagan said, ``We will always remember. We will always be
proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.'' Madam
Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am humbled and
honored to recognize our nation's heroes, their families and Snowball
Express.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO THE REVEREND DR. CHERYL G. ANTHONY
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of The Reverend
Doctor Cheryl G. Anthony, a visionary leader and inspiration to all.
Reverend Doctor Anthony is an anointed Woman of God. She holds a
Master's degree in Theology and Religious Education, as well as a
Doctoral degree in Sacred Theology. She is an alumnus of Harvard
University Divinity School Leadership Institute. She is also a graduate
of Cornell University's Family Development Institute, and a certified
trainer providing specialized services to underserved populations
throughout New York City. The Doctor Anthony realizes that all of her
accomplishments have been made possible by the Almighty Father.
Not only an artisan and visionary, Dr. Anthony is the Founder, CEO
and Pastor of the renowned and awarded JUDAH International Christian
Center, Inc. (JUDAH), in Brooklyn, New York. A twenty-five year veteran
committed to community and human development, Dr. Anthony and JUDAH
have been recognized nationally by former President Bill Clinton as
well as former President George W. Bush as a progressive and cutting-
edge leader and outstanding organization in the faith-based community,
addressing holistic faith-based development and empowerment.
Dr. Anthony's stellar leadership includes holding the exclusive
distinction as the first and only woman elected as chairperson of the
Board of the Central Brooklyn Churches, Inc. Her passion for addressing
the needs of women and girls has led her to establish and organize the
``Women of Faith Advocating Change (WFAC)'' partnership comprised of
clergy, elected officials and community leaders in Brooklyn. WFAC's
mission is to provide clergy-led leadership in developing faith
strategies to combat health disparities for African American women and
girls. She is vice president of the Labor-Religion Coalition of New
York State; past chair of the Bedford-Stuyvesant/Crown Heights HIV Care
Network steering committee and member of the Board of Directors of the
Fordham University Bertram M. Beck Institute on Religion and Poverty.
She is the creative force behind the award winning ``Wholistic Approach
to Community Wellness Program'' (WACW), a national faith-based best
practice model, which assists religious leaders, government
representatives and community stakeholders grappling with social
challenges. Dr. Anthony possesses the unique ability to gracefully and
skillfully blend professional ethics, business acumen, social and
cultural activism in order to proclaim a living Gospel.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing The
Reverend Doctor Cheryl G. Anthony, a woman called into the Kingdom to
serve her generation through the power of God.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DR. EUGENE C. GED
______
HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR.
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I would like to call to your attention
the deeds of an outstanding American, Dr. Eugene C. Ged, who was
recognized by the St. Joseph's Regional Medical Center Foundation with
the 2009 William F. Johnson Award for his decades of service to his
community.
Eugene was born in St. Joseph's Hospital, Paterson, and has spent the
majority of his life in the city and its surrounding areas. He attended
grammar school at St. George's, and went on to high school at St.
John's. He received his undergraduate degree at the University of
Pennsylvania and then earned his medical degree from Georgetown
University School of Medicine. He served his internship and residency
at St. Vincent's and a fellowship in cardiology at St. Michael's
Medical Center. Soon, he was back to serve his hometown and the
surrounding communities, joining St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical
Center as an attending physician in cardiology. He also practiced at
North Jersey Internal Medicine Associates.
Dr. Ged has worked hard to stay at the forefront of new practices in
his field, and to help St. Joseph's to do the same. He performed the
first-ever angiogram at St. Joseph's. He has served as a respected
member, and later as vice president, of the medical board.
After his retirement from private practice, Dr. Ged sought to
continue to give back to the Paterson community, his patients and his
colleagues. Working with the late Don Alois, Dr. Ged spearheaded the
creation of a non-profit entity for the hospital so that funds could be
raised for crucial programs and facilities. In 1982, he worked with the
other founding members to create the St. Joseph's Foundation, of which
he would later serve as president. He was also the founder of the
annual Charity Ball. Thirty-three years ago, the Charity Ball was held
at Westmount Country Club and
[[Page 25220]]
raised $50,000. Now, the Charity Ball is still the most important
benefit for St. Joseph's and raises more than one million dollars
annually.
After his retirement from practicing medicine, Dr. Ged joined his
brother George at Travel Forum, Inc., a full service travel business
located in Totowa, New Jersey. He has since retired from the company.
He now resides in Wyckoff, New Jersey and Naples, Florida with his
wife, Erika. They have seven children and nine grandchildren.
The job of a United States congressman involves much that is
rewarding, yet nothing compares to working with and recognizing the
efforts of dedicated community servants like Dr. Eugene Ged.
Madam Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, everyone involved
in the St. Joseph's Foundation, Eugene's family and friends and me in
recognizing Dr. Eugene C. Ged's outstanding service to his community.
____________________
THE FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2009 SECTION-BY-SECTION
______
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, the FISA Amendments Act of 2009 would
amend FISA to protect the constitutional rights of Americans while
ensuring that the government has the powers it needs to fight terrorism
and collect intelligence.
Section 1--Short Title
This Act may be cited as the FISA Amendments Act of 2009.
Section 2--Telecommunications Immunity
The bill would repeal the retroactive immunity provision in
the FISA Amendments Act, leaving it to the courts to
determine whether any telephone companies that complied with
the illegal warrantless wiretapping program acted properly
under the laws in effect at the time and therefore deserve
immunity. It would retain limitations on liability for acting
in compliance with FISA, the criminal surveillance laws, the
Protect America Act and the FISA Amendments Act.
Section 3--Bulk Collection
The bill retains the new authorities provided in the FISA
Amendments Act but builds in additional safeguards to protect
the rights of innocent Americans. The bill would prevent the
government from using the warrantless collection authorities
of the FISA Amendments Act to conduct ``bulk collection,''
which could include the collection of the contents of all
communications between the United States and the rest of the
world. It would do so by requiring that the government have
some foreign intelligence interest in the overseas party to
the communications it is collecting. Bulk collection raises
serious constitutional questions, and it could permit data
mining of massive quantities of communications of Americans.
Section 4--Reverse Targeting
The bill would place additional limits on the warrantless
collection authorities of the FISA Amendments Act to ensure
that they are not used as a pretext when the government's
real goal is to target the Americans with whom the ostensible
foreign target is communicating. It would require a FISA
Court order if the government is wiretapping a person
overseas but ``a significant purpose'' of the surveillance is
to collect the communications of the person in the United
States with whom the person overseas is communicating.
Section 5--Use of Unlawfully Obtained Information
The bill would limit the government's use of information
about U.S. persons that is obtained under FISA Amendments Act
procedures that the FISA Court later determines to be
unlawful, while still giving the FISA Court flexibility to
allow such information to be used in appropriate cases. This
provides a basic incentive for the government to target
foreign agents overseas rather than innocent Americans here
in the United States. It is similar to the existing law that
limits the use of information collected pursuant to FISA's
emergency authority if the FISA Court determines after the
fact that the FISA standard was not met.
Section 6--Protections for International Communications of Americans
The bill would permit unfettered acquisition of foreign-to-
foreign communications and of communications of suspected
terrorists into or out of the United States, while creating
safeguards for communications not related to terrorism that
the government knows have one end in the United States.
Specifically:
When the government knows in advance that a foreign target
is communicating with someone in the United States, it can
acquire that communication if it involves terrorism, if
someone's safety is at stake, or with a court order.
When the government does not know in advance with whom a
foreign target is communicating, it can acquire all of that
target's communications, without individualized court review.
If the government later realizes that it has acquired a
communication with one end in the U.S., it must segregate
that communication in a separate database. It can then
access, analyze and disseminate that communication if the
communication involves terrorism, if someone's safety is at
stake, or if the government has obtained a court order.
____________________
HONORING PAUL WILEY OF TAYLOR MILL, KENTUCKY
______
HON. GEOFF DAVIS
of kentucky
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Paul
Wiley of Taylor Mill, Kentucky. Mr. Wiley is a former U.S. Army aviator
who now dedicates his time to organizing programs and events to benefit
active-duty service members, veterans, and their families.
In 2007, Mr. Wiley joined forces with the Moose Riders Club of Moose
Lodge #1469 in Covington to raise funds for the A/101 Aviation
Association Memorial Scholarship Fund. With support from local military
units and the Sikorsky Helicopter company, their first fundraiser
raised more than $16,000 for the scholarship fund.
Mr. Wiley and the Moose Riders also sponsor the members of the 4th
Battalion, 101st Aviation Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, a unit
that deployed to Afghanistan in 2008. Over the summer, Mr. Wiley and
his friends worked with residents and local businesses throughout
Northern Kentucky and the Cincinnati area to help the soldiers have a
little extra fun with their families while home on their 2-week
furlough from Afghanistan. Through fundraisers and generous donations,
Mr. Wiley's initiative ensured six soldiers and their families enjoyed
a ``mini-vacation'' complete with donated hotel rooms, dinners, and
tickets to amusement parks and museums.
Currently, Mr. Wiley is busy spearheading plans for a January welcome
home celebration to mark the return of the unit from Afghanistan.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Mr. Paul
Wiley, the members of Moose Riders Club, and all the people in the
Northern Kentucky region who have contributed to this local effort to
support service members, veterans, and their families.
____________________
HONORING ROBERT ZWEIMAN, JEWISH WAR VETERAN
______
HON. JOHN H. ADLER
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. ADLER of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this
opportunity to express my gratitude to Mr. Zweiman for his dedicated
and tireless service to the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of
America.
Mr. Zweiman selflessly and bravely served this country in the
Philippines during World War II. Upon returning home, he took advantage
of the Montgomery G.I. Bill and received a bachelor's degree and juris
doctorate from New York University. With this educational foundation,
Mr. Zweiman became an exceptional attorney-at-law, specializing in
corporate and family law.
Even with his busy professional life, Mr. Zweiman always found the
time to contribute his time and talents to the Jewish War Veterans of
the United States of America (JWV). He began with the organization as
editor of his local JWV Post Newsletter and currently serves as a
member of the JWV Policy Committee as well as a member of the
organization's Executive Committee. Mr. Zweiman has made numerous
contributions throughout his prestigious 61-year career with the JWV,
including developing the JWV's Allied Veterans Mission to Israel
program, creating and developing a direct mail program to provide
funding for JWV programs, and designing and coordinating renovations of
the Jewish War Veterans Museum in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Zweiman's continued exemplary service to this nation is
rightfully honored today. Thank you for all you have done and God bless
the United States of America.
[[Page 25221]]
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO DEACON WILLIAM DEWALT
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Deacon
William Dewalt.
Deacon William Dewalt was born in Galveston, Texas in 1930. He
attended Dixon High School in Shepherd, Texas, where he played
basketball. During his school days, he was voted ``All-Around Boy'' by
his fellow basketball teammates. While in high school, he met Gloria
Jean Mitchell, who later became his wife, and together they had seven
children.
After school, William joined the United States Army and served for
two years. He was stationed in Korea. William and Gloria settled in New
York City in the mid 1950s. He secured employment with the United
States Postal Service as a Letter Carrier. After thirty years of
service, he retired in 1989.
In 1954, Deacon Dewalt joined the Union Baptist Church under the
leadership of Rev. Dr. Aaron A. Wood and was ordained to the Deacon
Ministry. He has served in this capacity for more than 50 years.
Deacon William Dewalt is a man of few words, however, when he gives
his word one can truly count on him. One might say that he held on to
his title given so many years ago by his teammates--``All-Around Boy'',
and became an ``All-Around Man''. He believes in helping in anyway that
he can and he helps without thinking twice.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Deacon
William Dewalt, a faithful servant and ``All-Around Man''.
____________________
HONORING THE SERVICE OF THE GEM STATE YOUNG MARINES
______
HON. WALT MINNICK
of idaho
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. MINNICK. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize and honor an
extraordinary youth education program that serves boys and girls in
Idaho. The Gem State Young Marines is celebrating its 50th anniversary
and Red Ribbon Week on October 17, 2009.
This program serves youths from the age of 8 through high school in
the Treasure Valley. It encourages young people to find strength within
themselves by learning life-changing skills. Important talents such as
determination, discipline, strength and integrity are all taught
through a variety of team building events and activities.
The Young Marines focus on community service, specifically reducing
drug use in teens and young adults. The group strives to instill the
core values of honor, courage and commitment, adopted by the Marine
Corps, to each of their members. Each young marine is required to
complete a minimum of 50 hours of community service each year to
qualify for the Young Marine Community Service Ribbon. The Young
Marines focus on character building through a combination of self-
discipline, teamwork and leadership, as well as promoting a healthy,
drug free lifestyle. Helping people in their formative years reduce the
abuse of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs deserves our sincere admiration
and respect.
It is important that we recognize the service of groups such as the
Gem State Young Marines. The Gem State Young Marines should be
extremely proud of all the work they have done for communities in
Idaho. I applaud this group and their members for their efforts, their
actions show that Americans of all ages can--and do--make a profound
difference in communities across the country.
____________________
NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
______
HON. KENDRICK B. MEEK
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
month of October as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Domestic violence, a widespread tragedy that indiscriminately affects
families of all races and classes, is a serious crime that has no
social barriers. From our own family members to medical professionals
to educators to law enforcement officers to community/clergy leaders--
we must all work together to ensure that we are trained to recognize
the signs and symptoms of domestic violence and, in turn, prevent the
crime from continuing throughout our communities.
I have seen firsthand the impact this issue has on individuals in
urban and rural areas alike. Domestic violence crosses economic lines,
geographic lines and ethnic lines. In 2008, Miami-Dade and Broward
County had a total of 18,312 reported domestic violence cases varying
from offenses such as aggravated assault to stalking to forcible rape.
With so many of these unsettling offenses taking place in my District,
I will continue to ensure that significant progress is being made on
this issue during my tenure in Congress. It is vital that we direct
attention to domestic violence and assure that there are available
resources to assist victims and families in recovering from these
abuses. We must combat this continuous plague that wreaks havoc on our
increasingly-stressed health care network, our over-flowing criminal
justice system, and our day-to-day life within our communities.
Florida's county and jurisdictional domestic violence offenses in
2008 totaled an unfortunate 113,123 cases. National Domestic Violence
Awareness Month should remind us to continue ensuring that Federal
grants made under the Violence Against Women Act go towards essential
shelter operations and support services. Moreover, we must ensure that
shelters and crisis centers receive sufficient funding to provide this
safety net to some of our most vulnerable citizens.
Madam Speaker, I stand today before my colleagues to ask for
continued support and assistance of domestic violence prevention
programs. It is essential that we not only draw attention to domestic
violence this month, but continue making progress on this devastating
problem so that it will no longer affect our communities and families.
As we remember the victims of domestic violence, we must learn from
their courage and work to assure that our communities are safe places
to live, work, and raise our families. In Florida and throughout our
nation, education, enforcement and support are the keys to solving and
breaking the cycle of domestic violence.
____________________
HONORING CAPTAIN WEI JIAFU FOR HIS LONGSTANDING COMMITMENT TO THE
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
______
HON. STEPHEN F. LYNCH
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I am privileged today to honor a pioneer
who has helped create a strong bridge of understanding and development
between the people of his country and the people of the United States
of America. For over a decade Captain Wei Jiafu has been the President
of COSCO, the largest ocean shipping company in the People's Republic
of China. During this time Captain Wei has worked hard to increase the
level of understanding between U.S. and Chinese business leaders.
Captain Wei's relationship with the U.S. has been a long and honored
one. In his early years as a sea captain, Captain Wei was given special
recognition by the U.S. Coast Guard for his knowledge and skill in
navigating U.S. waters. In addition to Captain Wei's technical
knowledge of U.S. waters, he commands a mastery of the navigational
practices that make both national and international waters safe. Under
Captain Wei's leadership, COSCO was the first foreign shipping company
to comply with newly-enacted Homeland Security regulations governing
shipping containers. As astounding as all of these accomplishments may
be, Captain Wei's dedication to the U.S. goes further.
Throughout his career, Captain Wei's commitment to the American
workforce has been unwavering. As President of COSCO, Captain Wei
oversees the largest Chinese employer of American citizens. Under
Captain Wei's guidance, COSCO has been honored by the ports of Long
Beach, Seattle, New York, and Boston, for his commitment to their
employees. Must notably, has been his commitment to the workers of
Massachusetts, where COSCO has contributed to the creation of thousands
of maritime-related jobs by establishing shipping services between the
Port of Boston and ports in China. Captain Wei has even dedicated a
chair to Boston's prestigious Harvard University.
In addition, Captain Wei has been instrumental in protecting our
oceans. He has generously donated to the cause of cleaner oceans and
the protection of sea life in Alaska.
With that in mind, I would like to commend Captain Wei for his
commitment to professionalism which has facilitated both a productive
and personal relationship between the
[[Page 25222]]
people of the United States of America and the People's Republic of
China. Furthermore, I would like to recognize Captain Wei for his
charitable contributions in support of higher learning in the United
States and around the world. Captain Wei is truly a ``Peoples'
Ambassador'' to the United States of America.
____________________
HONORING THE COMMUNITY OF WYNMOOR IN COCONUT CREEK, FLORIDA
______
HON. ROBERT WEXLER
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. WEXLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Community of
Wynmoor in Coconut Creek, Florida, which is celebrating its 35th
Anniversary this week.
Wynmoor is an active senior community in South Florida with
approximately 9,000 residents, many of whom regularly mentor in local
schools, volunteer for city affairs, and greatly contribute to the
vitality of the City of Coconut Creek and the surrounding communities.
With a PGA-recognized country club golf course, serene lakes and
sparkling fountains, Wynmoor is truly a beautiful place to live, and
for many who live there, a wonderful place to retire and enjoy life.
Wynmoor residents find many ways to remain active and healthy with
multiple tennis courts and health and fitness facilities available to
them, as well as with a multitude of social activities planned
throughout the year, including cultural and social clubs, several
charitable organizations, live theater, dances, movies, classes and
lectures. When I visit my constituents in Wynmoor, I am always thrilled
to engage with them on the issues of importance to our community
because they care deeply about the issues that affect South Florida.
Madam Speaker, I am deeply proud to represent the Community of
Wynmoor and all of its residents in Congress, and I wish the entire
community a happy and healthy 35 more years and an enjoyable
anniversary celebration this week.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. KAY GRANGER
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Ms. GRANGER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 772, 773, and 774, I was
absent from the House.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________
THE DISCLOSURE OF PRESIDENTIAL DECLASSIFICATION OF INTELLIGENCE
INFORMATION ACT OF 2009
______
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the
``Disclosure of Presidential Declassification of Intelligence
Information Act of 2009.''
This bill will help increase transparency by requiring the White
House to release public notices when classified materials are
declassified. Specifically, this legislation would require the
President to inform the relevant congressional committees within 15
days whenever intelligence has been declassified. The bill also
contains a sense of Congress that additional notice should be given to
the Director of National Intelligence, the Archivist of the United
States, and the heads of the applicable elements of the intelligence
community.
In January of this year, I released a report documenting several
abuses and excesses of the Bush Administration. The Report, titled
``Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations
Relating to the Presidency of George W. Bush,'' contained 50 separate
recommendations designed to restore and support the traditional checks
and balances of our constitutional system.
This bill carries out the recommendation that Congress consider
legislation requiring the President to announce the declassification of
classified materials.
As the report details, the Bush administration selectively leaked
numerous items of classified information to strengthen the case for war
in Iraq. For example, evidence suggests that President Bush secretly
authorized the declassification of information without notice in an
effort to neutralize Ambassador Joe Wilson's op-ed that raised
questions about the case for war.
This bill will help to prevent similar future abuses and political
manipulation of intelligence authority by alerting Congress when
information is declassified. Such transparency in presidential
delegations of declassified authority is a matter of good government
regardless of who occupies the White House.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO SHARONNIE M. PERRY
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Sharonnie M.
Perry, a great community activist.
Sharonnie has lived her life by one of her favorite mottos, ``I Have
Come To Serve And Not To Be Served.'' She has served for over 35 years
as a community activist, beginning in her early days fighting against
decentralization of public schools.
As founder of ``Parents on the Move'', a self-help organization for
homeless parents and children, she advocated for affordable housing,
education and employment for the homeless population across New York
City. In 1982, Sharonnie saw a need which became one of her greatest
passions to date. She has traveled across the country conducting
workshops and speaking out for quality health care and services for our
brothers, sisters and children living with HIV/AIDS.
Sharonnie was born in the village of Bedford Stuyvesant. She is the
mother of two sons, Da-Shawn and Jah-Son, and the proud grandmother to
Jaylin and Jah-Son, Jr. She is a woman of faith and believes if you put
God at the head and Jesus at the center of your life that you won't
fail. Sharonnie attributes her victories and successes, first and
foremost to the Creator, her parents, family, her mentors, spiritual
advisors and friends.
Sharonnie has been recognized across the country for her activism on
behalf of the underserved people in our communities. In summarizing her
commitment to family, church and community, she always says, ``If I Can
Help Somebody Along The Way, Then My Living Would Not Have Been In
Vain''.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing
Sharonnie M. Perry.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. RANDY NEUGEBAUER
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, I was absent from votes on September
29 and 30, October 1 and October 6-8 for medical reasons. Had I been
present, I would have voted as indicated for each rollcall listed. I
ask that my statement be included in the Congressional Record.
Rollcall vote 740: ``nay''; rollcall vote 741: ``yea''; rollcall vote
742: ``yea''; rollcall vote 743: ``nay''; rollcall vote 744: ``nay'';
rollcall vote 745: ``yea''; rollcall vote 746: ``yea''; rollcall vote
747: ``yea''; rollcall vote 748: ``yea''; and rollcall vote 749:
``nay''.
Rollcall vote 750: ``yea''; rollcall vote 751: ``yea''; rollcall vote
752: ``nay''; rollcall vote 753: ``yea''; rollcall vote 754: ``yea'';
rollcall vote 755: ``yea''; rollcall vote 756: ``nay''; rollcall vote
757: ``nay''; rollcall vote 758: ``nay''; and rollcall vote 759:
``nay''.
Rollcall vote 760: ``nay''; rollcall vote 761: ``nay''; rollcall vote
762: ``nay''; rollcall vote 763: ``yea''; rollcall vote 764: ``nay'';
rollcall vote 765: ``nay''; rollcall vote 766: ``yea''; rollcall vote
767: ``yea''; and rollcall vote 768: ``yea''.
____________________
HONORING JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE
LEGAL COMMUNITY
______
HON. ROBERT E. ANDREWS
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary
contributions
[[Page 25223]]
that Judge Bruce W. Kauffman has made to the legal community in his
five decades of service.
A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and Yale Law School,
Judge Kauffman began his service to the legal community as a law clerk
to the Honorable Vincent S. Haneman of the Superior Court of New
Jersey, and thereafter joined the law firm of Dilworth Paxson, where he
represented some of the nation's most high-profile clients and rose to
become chairman of the firm.
In 1980, Judge Kauffman was appointed to the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court, where he served with distinction for two years. In 1997,
President Bill Clinton nominated Judge Kauffman to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. During his
tenure, the Judge returned to his alma mater and served as an Adjunct
Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania. Judge Kauffman
served on the District Court until his retirement from the Federal
bench in July of 2009.
Those who know the Judge know that his service is not finished, and
that he is undertaking a new commitment to serve as Cochairman of the
Executive Committee at Elliott Greenleaf, where he will be instrumental
in providing counsel to clients and mentoring attorneys, as he has done
for so many others throughout his career.
Madam Speaker, Judge Kauffman has been an excellent jurist, teacher,
and mentor for five decades. On a more personal note, Judge Kauffman
has been a mentor to me both professionally and personally, and was
instrumental in introducing me to my wife, whom he mentored as well.
Judge Kauffman has a proud record of service to our country and I am
proud to call him my friend. I congratulate Judge Kauffman for all his
accomplishments and wish him the best of luck in all of his future
endeavors.
____________________
JUDGE GEORGE D. CARROLL COURTHOUSE RENAMING CEREMONY
______
HON. GEORGE MILLER
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today and
invite my colleagues to join me in honoring Judge George D. Carroll of
Richmond, California, for his many years of service to the community.
Judge Carroll has provided remarkable leadership to the citizens of
Richmond and his legacy will be forever recognized as the Richmond
Courthouse is renamed in his honor on October 16, 2009.
George Carroll was born on January 6, 1923 in Brooklyn, New York. He
served in the United States Army during World War II and was stationed
in Italy. Judge Carroll subsequently used his GI Benefits to attend
college and law school, graduating from Brooklyn College in 1943 and
Brooklyn Law School in 1950. Following his admittance to the New York
Bar, he ran a private practice in New York from 1951-1952.
In 1953, Judge Carroll moved to Richmond, California and his
trailblazing legacy began. The same year he moved to Richmond, he
became the city's first African American lawyer to practice law;
serving in private practice until 1965. Judge Carroll continued to
break racial barriers in 1961 by becoming the first African American
elected to the Richmond City Council. From 1964-1965 he served as
Richmond's first African American Mayor, a position unprecedented in
any large American city. And finally, Judge Carroll became the first
African American County Supervisor for Contra Costa County, California.
Governor Edmund G. (Pat) Brown appointed Judge Carroll to the Contra
Costa Municipal Court in May 1965 making him the first African American
Judge to be appointed in Contra Costa County, where he served until his
retirement in 1985.
Judge Carroll is a founding member of the Judicial Council of the
National Bar Association and a lifetime member of the NAACP as well as
the Sigma Pi Phi and Omega Psi Phi Fraternities. He is a former member
of the Charles Houston Bar Association, California Judges Association,
American Bar Association, American Judicature Society, World
Association of Judge of the World Peace Through Law Center, Board of
Governors of the United Bay Area Crusade, Richmond Boys' Club and the
Neighborhood House of North Richmond.
Madam Speaker, as a result of Judge Carroll's leadership, advocacy
and promotion of equal rights, we as a community have benefitted
tremendously. I am delighted to have this opportunity to recognize
Judge Carroll's tireless efforts and ask all Members of the House to
join me in congratulating him as the Richmond Courthouse is officially
renamed The George D. Carroll Courthouse.
____________________
SUPPORTING THE MISSION AND GOALS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the observance
of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, 2009.
I urge all Americans during Domestic Violence Awareness Month to
understand the different faces of domestic violence, as it is not
defined only by battery against women and children, but also includes
domestic sexual assault, teen dating violence, and non-physical
emotional abuse, such as name calling and intimidation.
Domestic violence, regardless of type, disrupts the lives of men and
women of all ages. Young children and adolescents are especially at
risk for complications as exposure to violence can lead to behavioral
and emotional problems.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act), which I
proudly co-sponsored, provides $225 million to the U.S. Department of
Justice Office on Violence Against Women, targeted at developing and
supporting the capacity of state, local, tribal, and non-profit
entities involved in responding to violence against women and also in
helping them find alternative housing. I am also pleased that the
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)--its passage in 1994 strongly by then
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr.--and the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) also
received Recovery Act funding to boost the federal VAWA and VOCA funds
that are already allocated to state and local governments each year.
Furthermore, in my home state of New York, Governor David Paterson
signed a bill into law last month that takes a stronger response
against domestic violence offenders and expands protection orders for
victims. With this advancement in New York's state law, New York is
leading the nation in strengthening our judicial system to stamp out
domestic violence and abuse.
Though we may be taking great strides at the federal and state levels
in addressing domestic violence, we cannot ignore that the problem
originates in the home. If you feel you are or someone you know is a
victim of domestic violence, please call the National Domestic Violence
Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE. Working together, we can all play a vital
role in creating awareness about domestic violence and working toward
ending this intolerable behavior.
____________________
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AUTHORITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2009
______
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the ``Inspector
General Authority Improvement Act of 2009.''
This Act will provide the Inspector Generals of the various agencies
the authority to issue subpoenas for the testimony of former employees
or contractors as part of certain investigations of wrongdoing. Under
current law, a critical witness can evade being interviewed by an
Inspector General, and thus seriously impede an investigation, by
simply resigning from the agency.
In January of this year, I released a report documenting several
abuses and excesses of the Bush Administration. The Report, titled
``Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations
Relating to the presidency of George W. Bush,'' contained 50 separate
recommendations designed to restore and support the traditional checks
and balances of our constitutional system. This bill responds to one of
those recommendations.
As the Report details, that ability of Inspector Generals to
investigate serious allegations of wrongdoing was significantly impeded
during the prior Administration because critical witnesses could not be
interviewed if they simply resigned during the investigation or had
already left the agency. As a practical matter, the witnesses were
beyond the reach of the Inspector General, and their knowledge of
potential wrongdoing went with them.
For example, in the investigation of potential misconduct by Monica
Goodling, the Department of Justice Inspector General was unable
[[Page 25224]]
to obtain witness statements from those who had resigned and thus were
no longer available. Similarly, the Department of Homeland Security
Inspector General was limited in his ability to conduct a complete
investigation into the circumstances surrounding the rendition of
Canadian citizen Mohammed Arar to Syria. His Report stated bluntly:
``Many of the principal decision-makers involved in the Arar case have
left government service and declined our requests for interviews. As
they are no longer DHS employees, we cannot compel them to speak with
us.''
It is important to note that this bill contains important limitations
on the Inspector Generals' subpoena power in order to prevent abuse or
damage to ongoing investigations. Most prominently, an Inspector
General cannot issue a subpoena if the Department of Justice concludes
in a particular case that the taking of a deposition would interfere
with civil or criminal litigation.
I believe that with this limitation, this legislation strikes an
appropriate balance between the need for an independent Inspector
General to investigate administrative wrongdoing and the responsibility
of the Attorney General to enforce our criminal laws and protect the
civil interests of the United States Government.
This legislation will go a long way in fostering transparency in
government by improving the Inspector Generals' tools and permit them
to effectively carry out their mission. Such vigorous oversight is a
matter of good government, regardless of whether we have a Democratic
or Republican Administration.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, due to the death of my husband, Clifton
H.W. Maloney, I did not vote from September 29, 2009 through October
13, 2009. I missed rollcall votes numbered 740-771.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes
Nos.: 740, 741, 742, 743, 744, 745, 747, 748, 749, 750, 751, 752, 753,
755, 756, 757, 758, 759, 760, 761, 762, 763, 764, 765, 766, 767, 768,
770, 771, 772, 773, and 774. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall
votes Nos.: 746, 754, and 769.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. MICHAEL K. SIMPSON
of idaho
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, in accordance with the policies and
standards put forth by the House Appropriations Committee and the GOP
Leadership, I would like to place in the record a listing of the
congressionally directed project I requested in my home state of Idaho
that is contained in the Conference Report accompanying H.R. 2892, the
FY2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill.
Project Name: Power and Cyber Systems Protection, Analysis, and
Testing Program
Amount: $3,000,000
Account: NPPD Infrastructure Protection and Information Security
Recipient: Idaho National Laboratory
Recipient's Street Address: 2525 North Freemont St, Idaho Falls,
Idaho 83415
Description: This funding will be used to conduct vulnerability
analysis, testing, and protection of power and cyber connected systems
for the Department of Homeland Security, utilizing the unique resources
available at the Idaho National Laboratory, such as the electric grid,
SCADA and control systems, cyber and communication test beds, and the
explosives test range. The project entails collaboration with leading
universities and other National Laboratories to leverage ongoing
research at these institutions and advance the state of the art in
building resilience into infrastructure systems. The funding will be
used to obtain full-scale systems in sectors of interest to DHS for
testing of vulnerabilities, identification of protection strategies,
and evaluation of resilient designs; partner with universities and
National Laboratories to develop resilient control systems; and
establish a program that develops new protection schemes. The INL is
uniquely placed to carry out this program, which leverages its ongoing
work in this area sponsored by DOD, DHS, and Intelligence Agencies and
its established relationships with industry, universities, and National
Laboratories.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of the Idaho project
that has received funding in the Conference Report for the FY2010
Homeland Security Appropriations bill and provide an explanation of my
support for it.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SISTER JACQUELINE BURNS, S.C.
______
HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR.
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I would like to call to your attention
the work of an outstanding individual, Sister Jacqueline Burns, who was
recognized by the St. Joseph's Regional Medical Center Foundation with
the 2009 William F. Johnson Award for her many years of dedicated
service to the people of her community.
It is only fitting that she be honored in this, the permanent record
of the greatest democracy ever known, for she has been a true public
servant and someone whose spiritual commitment has helped to enhance
countless lives.
Sr. Jacqueline has been an integral part of advancement towards
improving healthcare. As the founding chair of St. Joseph's Healthcare
System, she spearheaded the integration of St. Joseph's Regional
Medical Center, St. Joseph's Wayne Hospital, St. Joseph's Children's
Hospital, St. Vincent's Nursing Home, and Visiting Health Services of
New Jersey. Sr. Jacqueline truly revitalized the mission, vision and
values of St. Joseph's, and under her leadership, it became the
region's leading healthcare system.
Though she is clearly dedicated to healthcare, Sr. Jacqueline's
passion for education has always been evident. She began her career
teaching elementary and secondary school where she helped students on
the path to learning for almost 15 years. She went on to earn multiple
graduate degrees including a doctorate from Catholic University. Sr.
Jacqueline soon returned to her alma mater, The College of St.
Elizabeth, where she would go on to serve for more than thirty years.
She was academic dean for ten years and President for sixteen.
Throughout her time at the college, she sat on many state and national
organizations' Boards of Trustees, often rising to leadership
positions. She was a member of the New Jersey Board of Higher Education
and designed the present governance model used for all policy
development and approvals for new programs for public and independent
institutions in the state. In doing this work, she gained extensive
experience in government relations at both the national and local
level.
As a Sister of Charity, Sr. Jacqueline has been elected to every
General Assembly of the congregation since 1968 when it was first
begun. She has gone on to chair many of its committees and in 1999, was
elected to the General Council and filled the position of Treasurer of
the Sisters of Charity Corporation. She has received many other honors
throughout the years, and was recently awarded the AMA Lifetime
Achievement Award.
The job of a United States Congressman involves much that is
rewarding, yet nothing compares to learning about and recognizing the
efforts of exceptional individuals like Sister Jacqueline Burns.
Madam Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, Sister
Jacqueline's family and friends, all those who have been touched by her
compassion, and me in recognizing the outstanding and invaluable
service of Sister Jacqueline Burns.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO STEVEN MAURIELLO
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Steven
Mauriello, Deputy Inspector of the 81st Precinct and honorable public
servant.
Deputy Inspector Mauriello is a graduate of St. Johns University in
Queens, New York, where he attained a Bachelors Degree with a major in
Criminal Justice and a minor in Psychology. He is currently attending
the Police Management Institute of Columbia University at West Point.
Deputy Inspector Mauriello became a member of the New York City
Police Department in the year 1989 and, upon his graduation from the
Police Academy, was assigned to neighborhood stabilization unit number
six as a police officer, patrolling the 25th, 28th and 32nd Precincts
in northern Manhattan. Shortly thereafter, he was assigned to the 34th
Precinct in Washington Heights, New York, as a patrol officer. In 1993,
he was assigned to the Manhattan North Narcotics Division and, on
achieving
[[Page 25225]]
the rank of Sergeant in 1994, he was assigned to the 79th Precinct and
Brooklyn North Warrants Unit.
Upon his promotion to Lieutenant in 2000, Deputy Inspector Mauriello
was assigned to the 88th Precinct and 90th Precinct until his promotion
to the rank of Captain in 2003. As Captain, he was assigned to the 77th
Precinct and 94th Precinct before becoming the commanding officer of
the Patrol Borough Brooklyn North Anti-Crime Unit. In 2007, Deputy
Inspector Mauriello was assigned to the 81st Precinct in the capacity
of Executive Officer. In 2008, he was elevated to Commanding Officer of
the 81st Precinct, and then was promoted to the rank of Deputy
Inspector in which he presently serves the residents of the Bedford-
Stuyvesant community.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Steven
Mauriello.
____________________
HONORING THE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA
______
HON. SAM FARR
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to the 75th
anniversary of Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula, or CHOMP,
as the locals fondly call it. It started in 1929 as the Carmel Clinic
specializing in metabolic disorders, endowed by a gift from Grace Deere
Velie Harris, heiress of the Deere tractor family. Over the years it
grew into a 30-bed general hospital and in 1934 was renamed Peninsula
Community Hospital.
Post World War II saw an increase in the population on the Monterey
Peninsula. Twenty-two acres of the nearby forest was donated by the Del
Monte Properties Company as a building site for a larger, modern
hospital. In 1962 the new $3.5 million 210,000-square foot Community
Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula opened with 100 beds, the first
community hospital in the country to have all private rooms. The design
by architect Edward Durell Stone won state and national awards for
excellence in architecture. Two-thirds of the funding came from
community donations.
CHOMP continued to expand; over the next 10 years 72 more rooms were
added, including a mental health center, and a dome was constructed
over the signature Fountain Court. The cost of the construction was $4
million, and again, half of it was paid for by contributions from the
community.
The hospital developed a growing range of services that added 42,000
square feet to house outpatient, educational, and business offices. A
new outpatient Surgery Center began performing more than half of all
the hospital's surgeries. A Family Birth Center opened with single-room
maternity care. Home health agencies were acquired, as well as a
hospice facility and services. The Comprehensive Cancer Center opened
in 1999, providing the best available diagnosis, treatment, and support
for cancer patients and their families.
CHOMP also added off-campus sites to meet the expanding demands of
health care on the Peninsula. The old Eskaton Monterey Hospital, built
in 1930 and acquired by CHOMP in 1982, was remodeled. Renamed the
Hartnell Professional Center, it now houses outpatient mental health
services, a recovery center, a cardiopulmonary wellness and blood
center, laboratories, and the Clint Eastwood Youth Program. A Breast
Care Center opened near downtown Monterey, offering comprehensive
breast care services, and an Outpatient Campus that treats sleep
disorders, and offers diabetes and nutrition therapy, imaging, and
laboratories.
In recent years the emergency and ICU departments were updated and
moved to a new wing. CHOMP continues to expand and improve with the
times to meet the needs of the community.
Throughout the years, CHOMP has served the entire spectrum of
hospital health care needs of my family. My parents received their end-
of-life care there. Both my wife and I have received care there, and
both my daughter and granddaughter were born there. It truly is our
community hospital.
Madam Speaker, I know the whole House joins me in congratulating
Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula on its anniversary, and
wish them many more years of quality service to the public.
____________________
CONGRATULATING ANN AND LEO MOSKOVITZ, RECIPIENTS OF THE 2009 MONSIGNOR
McGOWAN CORNERSTONE AWARD
______
HON. PAUL E. KANJORSKI
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. KANJORSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask you and my esteemed
colleagues in the House of Representatives to pay tribute to Ann and
Leo Moskovitz, recipients of this year's Monsignor McGowan Cornerstone
Award.
This prestigious award is presented annually to individuals who best
exemplify the spirit, leadership and service of the late Monsignor
Andrew J. McGowan as a catalyst for social, cultural and economic
growth and promoting the charitable ideals of philanthropy and
collaboration in Northeastern Pennsylvania.
Mr. Moskovitz was affiliated with his family's dry goods business and
later with the Hudson Coal Company before embarking on a banking career
with First National Bank of Jermyn. After serving as cashier and then
vice president, Mr. Moskovitz was named president in 1961 where he
forged a reputation as a leader in automobile and small business
financing and home mortgages. He also led the way in promoting women to
administrative positions in the bank.
After a prominent career, he retired as President of the First
National Bank of Jermyn in 1993 after more than 40 years of service
that saw the bank's assets increase nearly a hundredfold to $300
million under his leadership.
Active in the community, Mr. Moskovitz served two terms as a member
of Jermyn Borough Council and he was chairman of the Pennsylvania State
School for the Deaf.
Mrs. Moskovitz, Mr. Moskovitz' wife of 38 years, graduated from
Temple University's School of Pharmacy after which she worked in that
profession for 30 years. She, too, has been highly active in the
community, serving on boards and committees of many educational, health
care and cultural organizations, including Mercy Healthcare Foundation
Board, University of Scranton, Northeastern Pennsylvania Philharmonic
League Board, United Way of Lackawanna County, the Country Club of
Scranton, Mercy Hospital, Sacred Heart of Mary Church and the Greater
Scranton Chamber of Commerce.
Mrs. Moskovitz formerly served on boards and committees of St.
Joseph's Center, The Lucan Center for the Arts, Cultural Council, the
Philharmonic Women's League of Scranton, the Women's Golf Association
of the Country Club of Scranton; St. Joseph's Hospital in Carbondale,
Allied Services, Visiting Nurse Association, Temple Hesed Sisterhood,
Family Services of Lackawanna County, Mercy Health Care System and the
American Cancer Society's Daffodil Days.
Mrs. Moskovitz was a former commentator for the Radio Broadcasting
Program for the Blind Association and was Jermyn's coordinator of
volunteers each year for the Blind Association Days. She has served on
the Laity Committee of the Diocesan Synod, Preparatory Commission of
the Hospital Trustee Association, Women's Activities at the Scranton
Club, Saint Andrea Society, St. Joseph's Center Auxiliary, Hadassah and
the Society of Pennsylvania Hospital Pharmacists. Mrs. Moskovitz was a
recipient of the Globe Store and Estee Lauder Star Achiever Award for
outstanding service in northeastern Pennsylvania.
Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating Ann and Leo Moskovitz
on this auspicious occasion. Their selection to receive the Monsignor
McGowan cornerstone Award is entirely fitting because their lives
reflect an extraordinary level of service and contribution to their
community where they have improved the quality of life for all.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE SCHOOL OF HEALTH PROFESSIONS AT YVONNE A. EWELL
TOWNVIEW CENTER
______
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to
recognize the School of Health Professions at Yvonne A. Ewell Townview
Center in Dallas, Texas for receiving the Blue Ribbon Award from the
U.S. Department of Education.
This prestigious award is given to public and private elementary,
middle, and high schools that show outstanding gains in student
achievement as well as superior academic programs. Additionally, it
recognizes the achievements of institutions that have a large portion
of students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Many times, these
schools serve as models for other institutions
[[Page 25226]]
across the country and offer insight into the ways we can improve
education in some of our most troubled neighborhoods.
In Dallas, there were a total of four institutions that were selected
for this award. In addition to the School of Health Professions, George
B. Dealey Montessori Academy, George Peabody Elementary School, and
Victor H. Hexter Elementary School were also selected as Blue Ribbon
Award recipients.
Madam Speaker, I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in recognizing
the accomplishments of the School of Health Professions at Yvonne A.
Ewell Townview Center in addition to all the schools across the country
that were awarded with this prestigious honor.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF POINTS OF LIGHT
______
HON. STEPHEN F. LYNCH
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 20th
anniversary of the Points of Light initiative. Established by a call to
service by President George H. W. Bush, Points of Light has led our
nation to tremendous gains in service and volunteerism over the past
two decades.
The Points of Light Foundation has recently merged with Hands On
Network to form the Points of Light Institute. On this special 20th
anniversary, I want to commend this organization for its extraordinary
work in the promotion of service, while transforming communities
throughout America.
In 2008, the Points of Light Institute and its 250 Hands On volunteer
action centers engaged over 1.2 million volunteers in service and
managed over 520,000 volunteer projects. The value of this service is
beyond measure to the neighborhoods that have been positively impacted
by this remarkable contribution to the health and welfare of
communities throughout the United States.
One of Points of Light's affiliates is Boston Cares. This year alone,
Boston Cares has mobilized 18,250 volunteers who have donated over
50,000 hours of service to 155 Greater Boston schools and nonprofit
organizations. Throughout the year Boston Cares volunteers have
consistently gone above and beyond, from a drive that raised a thousand
pounds of food per day throughout the month of February for struggling
food pantries, to generating an additional 2,000 volunteer hours during
this summer's United We Serve campaign.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to commemorate this 20-year milestone for
Points of Light and I congratulate them on 20 years of identifying and
managing people-powered projects to tackle critical problems across the
nation. I urge all of my colleagues to join with me in honoring Points
of Light and Boston Cares.
____________________
SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS--USA PATRIOT AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2009
______
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I submit the following:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents. Section 1 names
this Act the ``USA PATRIOT Amendments Act of 2009'' and
provides a table of contents for the entire bill.
Title I--USA PATRIOT Act Related Amendments
Sec. 101. Roving Wiretaps. Sec. 101 clarifies that when the
government only provides a description of the target of
surveillance for purposes of obtaining a warrant (whether or
not that warrant is for a regular or roving FISA warrant),
that description must be sufficient to allow a court to
determine that the target is a single individual.
Sec. 102. Extension of Sunset of Sections 206 and 215 of
USA PATRIOT Act. Sec. 102 extends the sunset dates of roving
wiretaps and FISA business records to December 31, 2013.
Sec. 103. Access to Certain Tangible Things under section
501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Sec. 103 (Sec. 215 tangible things) requires a statement of
specific and articulable facts showing that the tangible
things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation,
other than a threat assessment. The ``specific and
articulable'' language is not present in the current law, and
is a more exacting standard for government to meet.
This section also retains the concept that certain types of
records are ``presumptively relevant'' to a counterterrorism
or counterintelligence related investigation (assuming an
appropriate statement containing specific and articulable
facts). The retention of the ``presumptive relevance'' for
documents pertaining to foreign powers or agents of a foreign
power accomplishes two important goals. First, it puts the
government and a court on notice that these types of records
are the type of documents that Congress generally expects the
government will be pursuing in furtherance of authorized
counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations. The
presumptive relevance standard does not, however, allow the
government to obtain the documents merely by showing
relevance to a foreign power or agent of a foreign power
through a statement of ``specific and articulable facts.'' A
court must also find that the requested records are actually
relevant to an authorized investigation.
Second, the government may be able to acquire certain
records even if it cannot show that the documents are
relevant to a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.
However, these types of records, which do not fall into the
``presumptively relevant'' category, would be evaluated with
a higher degree of scrutiny by a court. The court would
determine whether or not the government presented specific
and articulable facts to show relevance to an authorized
investigation.
With respect to judicial review, current law requires the
recipient of a nondisclosure order associated with a Sec. 215
order to wait a year before seeking judicial review of the
nondisclosure order. Sec. 103 allows a recipient to challenge
both the underlying order and any associated nondisclosure
order immediately. In addition, the government must notify
the recipient of a right to challenge the legality of the
production order or nondisclosure order, and the procedure to
follow to file such a petition at the time the government
serves the Sec. 215 order on the recipient. Absent bad faith
on the part of the government, current law also allows a
certification by a high level official to conclusively defeat
a challenge to a nondisclosure order. Sec. 103 eliminates the
concept of a ``conclusive certification'' entirely.
Compliance assessments of minimization procedures
pertaining to Sec. 215 orders are now facilitated by allowing
FISA court judges to review government compliance with
minimization procedures associated with specific orders. A
request for Sec. 215 records cannot be made to a library or
bookseller for documentary materials that contain personally
identifiable information concerning a patron. None of these
elements are present in the current law.
Sec. 104. Sunset Relating to Individual Terrorists as
Agents of Foreign Powers. Sec. 104 allows the ``Lone Wolf'
provision to sunset on December 31, 2009. ``Lone Wolf'' is
not reauthorized.
Sec. 105. Audits. Sec. 105 requires the DOJ Inspector
General to audit and submit reports to Congress for 215
tangible thing orders, National Security Letters (NSLs), and
FISA pen register/trap and trace orders for all calendar
years through 2013.
Sec. 106. Criminal ``sneak and peek'' searches. Sec. 106
requires the government to seek an extension for delaying
notice of the search after seven (7) days, not the current
thirty (30) days. Any extension to delay notice granted by a
court cannot be longer than 21 days at a time. In addition,
any application for extension must be made by the Senate-
confirmed United States Attorney for the district seeking the
delay. This section also narrows the circumstances under
which the government could obtain a ``sneak and peek''
warrant by eliminating ``otherwise seriously jeopardizing an
investigation or unduly delaying a trial'' as a situation
that would permit the issuance of a ``sneak and peek''
warrant.
Sec. 107. Use of Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices
under title 18, United States Code. Sec. 107 requires the
application for a pen register to contain a statement of
specific and articulable facts showing that the information
likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal
investigation. Current law only requires a certification by
the applicant.
Sec. 108. Orders for Pen Registers and Trap and Trace
Devices for Foreign Intelligence Purposes. Sec. 108 requires
the application for a pen register to contain a statement of
specific and articulable facts relied upon by the applicant
to justify the belief that the information likely to be
obtained is foreign intelligence information not concerning a
United States person or is relevant to an ongoing
investigation. Current law only requires a certification by
the applicant. This section also requires the implementation
of minimization procedures for pen registers and trap and
trace devices, and allows FISA court judges to assess the
government's compliance with these minimization procedures.
These are new requirements.
Sec. 109. Public Reporting on the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act. Sec. 109 requires annual public reporting
of aggregate numbers of requests for surveillance that also
include a breakdown of requests for (a) electronic
surveillance, (b) physical searches, (c) orders for tangible
things (Section 215 orders), and (d) pen registers. Current
law requires only public reporting of the above categories in
the aggregate.
[[Page 25227]]
Sec. 110. Challenges to Nationwide Orders for Electronic
Surveillance. Sec. 110 allows a provider of electronic
communication service or remote computing service to
challenge a subpoena, order, or warrant requiring disclosure
of customer communications or records in either the district
in which the order was issued or the district in which the
order was served.
Title 11--National Security Letter Reform
Sec. 201. Short Title. Sec. 201 indicates that title II
shall be cited as the ``National Security Letter Reform Act
of 2009.''
Sec. 202. Sunset. Section 202 provides a sunset date of
December 31, 2013 for national security letters, with the
effect of returning the relevant national security letter
statutes to read as they read on October 25, 2001.
Sec. 203. National Security Letter defined. Sec. 203
defines ``national security letter,'' for the purposes of
this bill, as a request for information under one of the
enumerated provisions of law.
Sec. 204. Modification of Standard. Sec. 204 requires an
official with authority to issue a national security letter
to document and retain a statement of specific and
articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds
to believe that the information sought pertains to a foreign
power or agent of a foreign power. This standard changes the
focus of the ``relevance'' required under current law from
``authorized investigation'' to ``foreign power or agent of a
foreign power.'' In addition, current law does not directly
couple the relevance standard with ``specific and
articulable'' facts as support for relevance--a more exacting
standard for the government to meet. Current law also does
not require the government to create and maintain a record of
such facts at the time the national security letter is
issued.
Sec. 205. Notification of Right to Judicial Review of
Nondisclosure Order. Sec. 205 requires the government to
notify a recipient of a national security letter of (1) a
right to judicial review of any nondisclosure requirement
imposed in connection with that national security letter and,
(2) that the nondisclosure requirement will remain in effect
during the pendency of any judicial review proceedings.
Current law does not require such notification.
Sec. 206. Disclosure for Law Enforcement Purposes. Sec. 206
requires the Attorney General to authorize the use of any
information acquired or derived from a national security
letter in a criminal proceeding. Current law does not require
such ``use authority'' for national security letters.
Sec. 207. Judicial Review of National Security Letter
Nondisclosure Order. Sec. 207 establishes additional
procedures for a recipient to seek judicial review of a
nondisclosure requirement imposed in connection with a
national security letter. If the recipient wishes to have a
court review a nondisclosure requirement, the recipient must
notify the government. Not later than thirty days after the
receipt of notification, the government must apply for a
court order prohibiting the disclosure of information about
the national security letter or the existence of the national
security letter. The nondisclosure requirement remains in
effect during the pendency of any judicial review
proceedings. The government's application for a nondisclosure
order must include a certification from the Attorney General,
Deputy Attorney General, or the Director of the FBI (or the
head of another agency if not part of DOJ) containing a
statement of specific and articulable facts indicating that
disclosure may result in a danger to the national security of
the United States, interference with a criminal,
counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation,
interference with diplomatic relations, or danger to the life
or physical safety of any person. If a court determines that
there is reason to believe that disclosure will result in one
of the enumerated harms, the court will issue a nondisclosure
order for no longer than 180 days. The government can seek
renewals of nondisclosure orders for additional periods of no
longer than 180 days each. If there comes a time when the
facts supporting a nondisclosure order issued by the court
cease to exist, the government must promptly notify a
recipient who sought judicial review of a nondisclosure order
that the nondisclosure is no longer in effect.
Current law neither requires the recipient to formally
notify the government if ``he'' wishes to seek judicial
review, nor specifies that the government will initiate such
court review by applying for a court order. The government is
also not required to notify a recipient who sought judicial
review of a nondisclosure if or when such an order would
cease to exist based on a change in facts supporting the
nondisclosure order. In addition, absent bad faith on the
part of the government, current law also allows a
certification by a high level government official to
conclusively defeat a challenge to a nondisclosure order if
the challenge is filed within one year of the request for
records. Current law also allows a recertification made by
high level officials to be treated as conclusive, unless made
in bad faith. Sec. 207 eliminates the concept of a
``conclusive certification'' entirely. Moreover, this section
corrects constitutional defects in the nondisclosure orders
pertaining to national security letters as addressed in Doe
v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 861 (2nd Cir. 2008).
Sec. 208. Minimization Procedures. Sec. 208 requires the
Attorney General to establish minimization and destruction
procedures to ensure that information obtained pursuant to a
national security letter regarding persons that are no longer
of interest in an authorized investigation is destroyed.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO JUANITA THERESA WILLIAMS LEVELL
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Juanita
Theresa Williams Levell, an educator in my Congressional District.
As a young woman working and attending college, Juanita met and fell
in love with Bryan Lloyd Levell in June of 1960. They were married one
year later. Bryan was a New York City Police Officer serving with the
79th Precinct and was one of the first set of officers to serve in the
newly created Patrol Brooklyn North. They were blessed with four
children, Antoinette Jacobii Levell Brown, twins Adrian Mary Levell
Peart Straker, the late Andrea May Levell Franklin, and one son Bryan
James Levell. Mrs. Levell used to say having four children in five
years was like having her own classroom. A graduate of the New York
City public school system, she completed her undergraduate degree at
Brooklyn College and received her Master's degree in Linguistics from
Long Island University.
Armed with her faith, a wonderful mother and supportive extended
family, Juanita pushed ahead to achieve her goals. She began working in
the New York City public school system as a teacher of English as a
Second Language commonly known as E.S.L. Juanita was serving in a
school that had students from well over 50 countries speaking over 100
languages. She has taught from elementary through high school, as well
as adult education. Her participation in conferences, seminars and
workshops for over 30 years has kept her current and well qualified in
her profession.
Juanita retired in 2008 from her full-time teaching position but
continues to work part-time as an English teacher. The connection to
her community and her faith has been a steady part of Juanita's life
from her work in the church, in school and in her neighborhood. Juanita
has been a member of civic and social groups from childhood to the
present. She has been active with Cornerstone Baptist Church, the
Jewels S.C., NAACP, Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority Inc.-Delta Rho Omega
Chapter, Jack and Jill of America, Inc. (Brooklyn Chapter), American
Association of University Women, Verona Place-Macon Street Block
Association, United Federation of Teachers, National Council of Negro
Women, Brooklyn Historical Society, Schomburg Center for Cultural
Learning, Brooklyn College Alumni Association, Association of Blacks in
Education--NY, Business and Professional Women's Organization of
Cornerstone Baptist Church, Women's Caucus for Congressman Towns, and
AARP.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Juanita
Theresa Williams Levell.
____________________
SALUTING THE MEMORY OF BEN ALI, FOUNDER OF WASHINGTON D.C.'S BEN'S
CHILI BOWL
______
HON. WM. LACY CLAY
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to salute the memory of Ben
Ali, founder and owner of Ben's Chili Bowl, a local historical
landmark. Dubbed ``King of the Half-Smoke'' by Washingtonians who
flocked to Ben's daily, Mr. Ali died earlier this month at the age of
82.
Ben Ali exemplified the American Dream through his entrepreneurial
spirit and endurance. An immigrant from Trinidad, Ben opened his
namesake restaurant on August 22, 1958 with the help of his wife,
Virginia. In the process, Mr. Ali shaped the city of Washington and its
unique U-Street Corridor by serving his trademark chili dishes to
generations of diners.
Opened during U Street's heyday as an African American Cultural
Mecca, Ben's Chili Bowl has withstood major neighborhood construction
projects, national economic shifts, and the notorious 1968 riots, which
ravaged much of the city. During that dark night, Ben's Chili Bowl was
one of only two establishments left unscathed.
In the early 1990s, Ben's Chili Bowl stood as an unyielding anchor of
the neighborhood's
[[Page 25228]]
rebirth, and continues to serve dignitaries, celebrities, and local
guests alike. All are loyal customers of Ben's Half-Smokes and Chili
Cheeseburgers, a personal favorite of mine since 1969.
Ben's Chili Bowl will persist as a Washington institution, a symbol
of unity and strength in a city that has seen its share of hard times.
Today, a tourist may dine next to an elected official, or a school boy
next to his sports hero, as they all gather together for the
incomparable experience of enjoying Ben's famous chili.
Madam Speaker, I ask that we honor Ben Ali for his exceptional
contributions to our community. The vital role that both he and Ben's
Chili Bowl will continue to play in Washington will be his lasting
legacy. I ask that my colleagues join me in paying tribute to Mr. Ben
Ali.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE TOWN OF WESTMINSTER ON THE OCCASION OF THE 250TH
ANNIVERSARY OF ITS FOUNDING
______
HON. JOHN W. OLVER
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the founding of
Westminster, Massachusetts 250 years ago on October 20, 1759. The
following history provided by the Town's 250th Anniversary Committee
vividly details a community with a rich cultural heritage and great
natural beauty.
Nestled at the foot of Mount Wachusett, the highest mountain in
central Massachusetts, Westminster was unsettled territory at the
beginning of the 18th century. The land had been designated as payment
for soldiers who had fought in King Phillip's War, but for many years
no one was interested in leaving the comforts of home to settle in the
wilderness. In 1737, however, the descendants of those veterans and
others were drawn to the region's bounty and began to settle the
region. As the population grew it became a district in 1759 and was
given the name of Westminster, a name rooted in traditions of England.
Full incorporation of the town came in 1770.
On June 10, 1776 Westminster residents voted to ``stand by and
support the (Continental Congress) with their lives and fortunes if
they should declare independence on the Crown of Great Britain.''
During the American Revolution, three hundred fifty six Westminster men
served either as Minutemen or enlisted soldiers in the American
Continental Army.
Water was essential to the early industrial growth of Westminster in
the 19th century, beginning with sawmills, gristmills, fulling mills,
and tanneries. These industries were followed by the manufacturing of
chairs, other furniture, and paper. But when the railroad bypassed the
center of town in mid-century, the factories lost their ability to
cheaply bring raw materials into town and transport their finished
products to the world. Today there is little evidence of these early
industries.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, residents of Westminster
found jobs in neighboring cities. Indeed, it became clear that
Westminster now had the strategic advantage of being located on and
near major highways that pass through the Commonwealth.
Today, Westminster's cultural heritage and rural, scenic beauty are
appreciated by residents and visitors alike. The Westminster Cracker
Factory, the longest running cracker bakery in the country, closed in
the 1970s but the red clapboard building is a landmark which anchors
the east end of Main Street. The town common on top of Academy Hill and
the town center are remarkably preserved and greatly contribute to the
Town's distinction of having one of the largest National Register
Historic Districts in Massachusetts. Visitors of all ages enjoy
Westminster--whether by skiing, hiking or viewing the autumn foliage on
Mount Wachusett, dining at the Old Mill while watching ducks swimming
on the nearby pond, or taking a tour of Wachusett Brewery.
I am very proud to represent this community, which is rich in
history, in natural beauty, and in the public spirit of its citizenry.
Please join me in congratulating the Town of Westminster as it
celebrates its 250th Anniversary.
____________________
EL MUSEO DEL BARRIO'S 40TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. JOSE E. SERRANO
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. SERRANO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a milestone
event in the cultural history of New York City. This month, El Museo
del Barrio, New York's leading Latino cultural institution, celebrates
its 40th Anniversary. There is much to be proud of when we speak of El
Museo: the beautiful physical space it now occupies; the extraordinary
talent it continues to attract; the superb quality of its collections;
and the professionalism and dedication of its staff. But for me what
stands out most about El Museo is that it has never stopped growing and
evolving. Much like the community in which it makes its home, El Museo
continues to reinvent itself for new waves of residents and new
generations of New Yorkers.
El Museo del Barrio was founded 40 years ago by Puerto Rican artist
and educator Raphael Montailez Ortiz, who gathered together parents,
artists, and activists, to address the absence of Puerto Rican and
other Latino artists at larger mainstream institutions. Since its
founding, El Museo has been dedicated to showcasing Latino culture. Its
permanent collection includes over 6,500 objects which span more than
800 years of Latin American, Caribbean, and Latino artistic expression.
A wonderfully diverse body of art, this collection includes everything
from pre-Columbian Taino artifacts to twentieth-century drawings and
paintings, to prints, sculpture, photography and documentary film and
video. Located at the corner of Fifth Avenue and E. 104th Street, El
Museo is firmly situated on New York's illustrious Museum Mile, but is
also far enough uptown to reach into Manhattan's historic El Barrio.
Today, more than 100,000 people visit El Museo each year from all
backgrounds and walks of life.
On Saturday, October 17th, the museum will hosted an all day
celebration and open house to mark the anniversary as well as the
opening of El Museo's newly renovated facility. Two new exhibitions
will be on display, one of which highlights four decades of El Museo's
permanent collection. And to dramatize El Museo's impact on the
cultural life of New York City, the Empire State Building was
illuminated in the museum's signature mango-yellow color for the entire
weekend, so the city as a whole could share in this momentous
reopening.
Madam Speaker, from humble beginnings in East Harlem's Puerto Rican
community, this landmark of learning and wonder has emerged as a
destination for people from all over the world. They come for many
reasons: for the history that is taught, for the remarkable work on
display, and, not the least of all, people come to El Museo to feel
connected--connected to the past and the future of the Latino diaspora
in this great international city. El Museo's holdings and exhibitions
are a gift to all New Yorkers and to the world, and for this reason I
ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing the 40th Anniversary of
El Museo del Barrio.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE JACOB MICHAEL DAVIS FOUNDATION 4TH ANNUAL EVENT
______
HON. CANDICE S. MILLER
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge
the Jacob Michael Davis Foundation located in Macomb County, Michigan.
This non-profit organization was created in the loving memory of 7-year
old Jacob Michael Davis, who sadly passed away in 2005 after a hard
fought battle with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
The organization will be hosting its 4th Annual Banquet and
Fundraiser on November 14th in Shelby Township, so I want to highlight
the great work the foundation has performed over the few short years
since its inception.
The foundation has carried forward Jacob's legacy--his giving spirit
and his unique ability to comfort other young patients while he himself
was seeking medical treatment. The foundation has also picked up his
torch of hope as it continues to spread his light of compassion and
pass his courage on to other families who unfortunately have had to
cope with childhood cancer. Although based in the State of Michigan,
the Jacob Michael Davis Foundation has extended its helping hand across
this great nation, from coast to coast and places in between.
The effects of any childhood illness can be devastating on a family.
The emotional and financial distress can leave a mother and father
feeling like they have no options, and sometimes even worse with a
negative outlook on the future. With so many variables to deal with,
families can easily become overwhelmed and lose focus of the primary
objective--the care, treatment and recovery of the child.
But these fears and unknowns are exactly the reason why the Jacob
Michael Davis
[[Page 25229]]
Foundation was created. The foundation is a source of comfort to assist
families with those unexpected financial burdens not necessarily
covered by insurance. For example--travel and temporary housing
expenses, medical equipment, mental health programs, academic and
school tutoring support, post-treatment survivorship programs and
bereavement counseling. These are just a few of the economic barriers
that the foundation seeks to remove.
The Foundation's goal is to help families keep their energies focused
on the recovery and the healing of the child. Amazingly, the staff,
volunteers and board members of the Jacob Michael Davis Foundation do
not accept any form of monetary compensation, ensuring that every
possible cent is spent to assist those families in need. This certainly
speaks volumes about the people who believe in the foundation's mission
and the remarkable work they have achieved, continue to achieve and
hope to achieve in the future. It certainly is my honor to commend all
the volunteers for their charitable and dedicated work.
Furthermore, I am pleased to announce that last month I added my name
as a cosponsor to H.R. 1230 which was introduced by my colleague,
Representative Doris Matsui, from California. This legislation seeks to
establish a National Acquired Bone Marrow Failure Disease Registry and
authorize research on bone marrow diseases. I encourage other Members
to support this bill and join in the fight to defeat this disease.
In conclusion, I offer my support to the Jacob Michael Davis
Foundation on this special occasion. I wish everyone in attendance all
the best and hope you have a very successful evening. You are helping
to sustain a wonderful cause. I know that in memory of Jacob you will
never lose faith in your mission and your passion will be forever
alive.
____________________
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INSPECTOR GENERAL AUTHORITY IMPROVEMENT ACT
OF 2009
______
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today the
``Department of Justice Inspector General Authority Improvement Act of
2009.'' This Act will authorize the Department of Justice Inspector
General to investigate attorney misconduct within the Department of
Justice.
Whether we have a Democratic or Republican administration, I believe
we should have strong and vigorous oversight of the Department of
Justice. At present, however, the Department of Justice Inspector
General is limited in his ability to investigate allegations of
misconduct. Instead, present law, to the surprise of many, requires
that all allegations of wrongdoing by the Department of Justice
attorneys be investigated not by the Inspector General, but by the
department's Office of Professional Responsibility.
In contrast with the statutorily independent Inspector General, the
Office of Professional Responsibility is supervised by the Attorney
General. It is absolutely contrary to human experience to believe that
the counsel to the Office of Professional Responsibility can
aggressively and independently investigate high level officials in the
department when the Attorney General himself has authority over such
investigation.
This limitation on authority does not exist for any other Inspector
General of other agencies. Accordingly, the Department's Inspector
General should have the same power Inspector Generals have throughout
the government to investigate any and all allegations of wrongdoing
that arise in their department.
In the last Congress, I offered this provision as an Amendment to
H.R. 924, the Improving Government Accountability Act. It passed the
House, however, it was stripped from the final Bill when the measure
went to the Senate. I am introducing this legislation again today
because I believe that transparency and vigorous oversight are
essential to maintain the checks and balances of our constitutional
system.
As documented in my recently released report, ``Reining in the
Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the
presidency of George W. Bush,'' there was serious misconduct on the
part of Department of Justice attorneys, including alleged misconduct
by high level politically appointed attorneys, in connection with
hiring attorneys for the Civil Rights Division or in other components
of the Department. However, due to the unique limitations on his power,
it was difficult for the Inspector General to fully investigate these
allegations. I certainly trust those sorts of abuses are unlikely to
recur in this Administration.
This legislation will help prevent future abuses and politicization
of the Department of Justice by improving the Inspector General's tools
to effectively carry out his mission. Such vigorous oversight is a
matter of good government, regardless of the political party in power.
____________________
HONORING PETE GEREN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE AND ARMY SECRETARY
______
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in
recognition of an extraordinary public servant, Pete Geren, who
recently stepped down as Secretary of the Army. I am incredibly
privileged to call Mr. Geren a close friend, and I am so happy to
celebrate this man's distinguished career and service.
Mr. Geren hails from Fort Worth, Texas, and after receiving a
Bachelor's Degree and a Law Degree from the University of Texas, he
worked as an aide to Senator Lloyd Bentsen. In 1989, he was elected to
represent the 12th District of Texas in the United States House of
Representatives and would serve in that capacity for four terms. In
2001, Mr. Geren took a position with the Department of Defense as
Special Assistant to the Defense Secretary, and later served brief
periods as acting Air Force Secretary and Undersecretary of the Army
before being appointed to Secretary of the Army in 2007.
Throughout his career, Mr. Geren has worked diligently to represent
the best interests of the people he serves, including the citizens of
the 12th District of Texas and the soldiers in our armed forces. When
he took over the position as Secretary of the Army, he was faced with
numerous challenges that had left the reputation of that organization
in low esteem. However, through hard work and determination, he has
helped to repair the Army's standing and has placed it on a positive
track for the future.
Madam Speaker, Pete Geren is a dutiful public servant, and I
encourage all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing and honoring
his achievements in Congress and at the Department of Defense.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO WALID J. BADDOURA, MD
______
HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR.
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I would like to call to your attention
the work of an outstanding individual, Dr. Walid J. Baddoura, who was
recognized with the 2009 Kendrick P. Lance, MD Distinguished Physician
Award, on October 17, 2009 for his distinguished service in the field
of medicine.
It is only fitting that he be honored in this, the permanent record
of the greatest democracy ever known, for his story truly embodies the
American Dream.
Dr. Baddoura serves as the President of the Medical Staff of St.
Joseph's Regional Medical Center in Paterson, New Jersey. He is also
the Program Director of the Gastroenterology Fellowship Program. His
dedication to the medical profession is also evidenced in his
leadership at the Seton Hall University School of Health and Medical
Services, where he serves as Chief of the Gastroenterology Division,
and the Program Director for its Gastroenterology Fellowship as well.
Dr. Baddoura embarked on his journey into the field of medicine at
the American University of Beirut in Lebanon. Upon his graduation in
1976, he left Lebanon for New Jersey, and first joined the St. Joseph's
family as a resident in Internal Medicine. He later left New Jersey for
Connecticut, where he pursued a fellowship at the Yale-affiliated
Gastroenterology Program in Waterbury and New Haven. He is board
certified in internal medicine and gastroenterology.
He returned to St. Joseph's and since then has taken an active role
in the education of students, residents and fellows. In 1986 he was
appointed the Chief of the Gastroenterology Division, and since 1992,
has held this position along with the aforementioned directorship at
Seton Hall University School of Health and Medical Services. He also
maintains a private practice in Clifton.
At St. Joseph's, Dr. Baddoura serves on many committees and has been
on the Medical Board for several years, as a member and
[[Page 25230]]
also as an officer. He has represented St. Joseph's Regional Medical
Center on the Board of Trustees of the Passaic County Medical Society.
This past June, the Northern New Jersey Council of the Boy Scouts of
America honored him with the Distinguished Health Care Service Award.
Dr. Baddoura resides in Pompton Plains and is the proud uncle of six
nieces and nephews.
The job of a United States Congressman involves much that is
rewarding, yet nothing compares to learning about and recognizing the
efforts of exceptional individuals like Dr. Baddoura.
Madam Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, Dr. Baddoura's
family and friends, all those who have been helped by him, and me in
recognizing the outstanding contributions of Dr. Walid J. Baddoura to
his community.
____________________
SUPPORTING THE MISSION AND GOALS OF NATIONAL DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT
AWARENESS MONTH OCTOBER 2009
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the observance
of National Disability Employment Awareness Month. In observance of
National Disability Employment Awareness Month, I express my
appreciation to the nearly 55 million Americans with disabilities who
have made significant contributions to the American workforce.
As a proud sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act, I salute
this milestone legislation and other comprehensive efforts to create
equal access to employment opportunities.
I am proud of efforts like AbilityOne, a laudable, federally-managed
program that is the largest source of employment for the blind and
those with severe disabilities. I was also a proud co-sponsor of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that is providing vital stimulus
dollars to programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) to help educate disabled children and youth.
This October, as we rededicate ourselves to increasing employment
opportunities for disabled Americans, let us also honor the value,
skills and contributions individuals with disabilities have made to the
American workforce.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE 50TH WEDDING ANNIVERSARY OF MR. AND MRS. LAMAR
DENKINS
______
HON. MIKE ROGERS
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I respectfully request the
attention of the House to pay recognition to an important day in the
lives of two constituents and dear friends of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Lamar
Denkins.
On October 25, 2009, Lamar and Joyce Denkins will celebrate their
50th wedding anniversary. Lamar was born on March 12, 1935, and his
wife, Joyce, was born on October 4, 1938.
Lamar and Joyce met while working at Anniston National Bank in
Anniston, Alabama. They married on October 25, 1959, at Pleasant Valley
Baptist Church.
Over the years, Lamar and Joyce have been blessed with two children,
Susan and Jeffrey, as well as two grandchildren. Lamar has spent his
life as a public servant as a minister and working for two different
Members of Congress. He also served proudly in the Armed Forces.
On Sunday, October 25th, the couple along with their family and
friends will celebrate their anniversary at West Weaver Baptist Church.
I would like to congratulate my friends, Lamar and Joyce, for
reaching this important milestone in their lives. They are shining
examples of love and dedication for us all, and I wish them and their
family all the best at this important occasion.
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE AND WORK OF JUDGE WILLIAM WAYNE JUSTICE
______
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in
remembrance of Judge William Wayne Justice who passed away on October
13, 2009 at the age of 89.
Judge Justice was one of the most remarkable judges in Texas history.
Born in Athens, Texas on February 25, 1920, Justice's father actively
encouraged him to pursue a career in law from a young age. The younger
Justice went on to receive both an undergraduate and a law degree from
the University of Texas before spending roughly four years in the army
during World War II. Upon his return to the United States, he took up
work at his father's law practice in Athens, and in 1961, he was
selected by President Kennedy to be U.S. Attorney for the Eastern
District of Texas. In 1968, Justice was appointed by President Johnson
to be a U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas.
Judge Justice served in that capacity for more than 40 years and gave
countless rulings that dramatically affected the way the State of Texas
educated children, treated prisoners, and housed its poorest citizens.
With an unwavering regard for the human condition, Justice ordered the
integration of public housing, forbade inhumane treatment in prisons
and the juvenile justice system, and upheld rulings that caused Texas
to desegregate its schools. At a time when many of these decisions were
unpopular, Justice made the hard choices and helped carry Texas into
the modern era because of them.
Madam Speaker, I am incredibly grateful for the decisions and
sacrifices Judge Justice made for the people of Texas and the entire
country. I encourage my colleagues to join me in honoring and
remembering this courageous sentinel who helped so many of our nation's
most distressed citizens.
____________________
75TH ANNIVERSARY OF INDIANA FARM BUREAU INSURANCE
______
HON. MARK E. SOUDER
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Indiana Farm
Bureau Insurance who celebrated, their 75th Anniversary on October
17th. Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance was originally founded in 1934 to
cater to the unique insurance needs of our agriculture community. It
has since expanded to provide life, home, auto, and business services
and today is the largest writer of farm insurance and the second
largest writer of personal lines of insurance in the state. In Indiana,
Farm Bureau Insurance is truly a ``part of your life''--with offices in
all of our 92 counties, and 1700 employees across the Hoosier state.
While the company has experienced significant growth and development,
Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance has remained deeply committed to the
community it serves. They have always believed that the strongest
investment you can make for the future is to invest in young people,
and their actions bear this out.
For 20 years, Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance organized the eXcel
Awards, a prestigious high school art competition that granted over
$700,000 in scholarships and encouraged the talent and creativity of
high school artists and performers. They sponsor the Indiana High
School Athletic Association's Mental Attitude Awards, honoring students
who excel in athletic ability, leadership, mental attitude, and
scholarship in all 39 IHSAA tournament sports. They have also made
academics and safety a priority amongst our youth through initiatives
like Top Scholar and the Teenage Driver Safety and Education Program.
These programs reward young drivers with a $1000 savings bond for
completing safety training and provide insurance discounts for students
for maintaining a B average respectively. In my district, Indiana Farm
Bureau Insurance helps supply healthy activities for our children by
sponsoring little league and 4-H, and they are active participants in
Holiday initiatives, adopting needy families and donating clothes, toys
and foods.
Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance has assisted numerous families and
individuals plan for the unexpected and has been a steadfast partner in
our community. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in
honoring Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance on their 75th Anniversary.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. ADAM SMITH
of washington
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, on the afternoon of Thursday,
October 15, 2009, I was unfortunately unable to be present for the last
two series of recorded votes while I was attending to a matter related
to my personal health.
[[Page 25231]]
I request that the Record show that had I been present, I would have
voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 786 (on ordering the previous
question on the rule for H.R. 2442, H. Res. 830), ``yes'' on rollcall
vote No. 787 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 830, the rule
providing for consideration of H.R. 2442), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No.
788 (the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair), and
``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 789 (on passage of the bill H.R. 2442, the
Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009).
____________________
HONORING THE SURVIVING WORLD WAR II VETERANS OF OCCOQUAN, VA
______
HON. GERALD E. CONNOLLY
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor to the
World War II veterans who currently reside in Occoquan, Virginia. Their
service and sacrifice represent the height of American character;
something to be honored and never forgotten.
In December of 1941, the United States entered a war that had already
engulfed much of the rest of the world. Throughout the course of World
War II, 16,000,000 Americans answered the call of duty and served in
the armed forces. The support of the nation's war effort ended in the
ultimate sacrifice for more than 300,000 of these brave Americans. They
were sons, daughters, fathers and mothers putting the defense of their
nation above all else.
The town of Occoquan is recognizing their service by honoring the
surviving World War II veterans currently residing in Occoquan. So
often our veterans return home and take up leadership roles in their
communities. This group, which includes former Occoquan mayors, town
council members and planning commissioners, is no exception. These
individuals are a living testament to the strength and enduring nature
of America's citizenry. Occoquan's surviving World War II veterans:
Mr. Richard H. Bell, United States Army
Mr. Edwin S. Clarke, United States Navy
Mr. Robert Lehto, United States Navy
Mr. Frank McKenzie, United States Navy
Mr. James F. Phelps, United States Marine Corps
Ms. June Randolph, United States Navy
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to
the World War II veterans of Occoquan, Virginia. We recognize their
contribution to honor the importance of their experience to the
American story. To forget their sacrifice and the immeasurable cost of
war is to do peace a disservice and bind ourselves to indefinite
conflict.
____________________
COMMEMORATING THE NATIONAL DAY ON WRITING
______
HON. DINA TITUS
of nevada
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Ms. TITUS. Madam Speaker, writing is a daily practice for millions of
Americans, but few people notice how integral writing has become to
life in the 21st century. People now write more than ever before for
personal, professional, and civic purposes; and writing is increasingly
essential for all types of occupations. Newly developing digital
technologies expand the possibilities for composing in multiple media
and young people are now leading the way in new forms of composition.
Writing has enormous power. It allows people in every walk of life,
in every kind of work, and at every age to generate and share ideas
with others. Effective communication contributes to building a global
economy and a global community. We must find ways to help our students
tell their stories--to communicate with their neighbors around the
globe, in a world that is getting smaller and smaller. We must help our
students put their thoughts into words, and hopefully, into action.
As an educator for more than 30 years, I know the value of a quality
education and its importance to our children's future. In order for our
Nation's children to get the education they deserve and require to
become the leaders of tomorrow, they need the very best teachers and
educators. Not only as leaders in education, but also as leaders in the
community, English teachers are preparing our next generation.
To draw attention to the remarkable variety of writing we engage in
and to help connect writers from all walks of life, the National
Council of Teachers of English, NCTE, in conjunction with its many
national and local partners, honors the importance of writing by
celebrating a National Day on Writing on October 20, 2009. NCTE has
developed the National Gallery of Writing, a digital archive of
samples, that exhibits how and why Americans are writing every day. The
gallery is accessible to all through a free, searchable website that
will be launched on the National Day on Writing.
I introduced a resolution to recognize the National Day on Writing to
acknowledge the enormous power of writing--how it allows people in
every walk of life, in every kind of work, and at every age to generate
and share ideas with others. The resolution calls on the House of
Representatives to recognize the National Day on Writing and encourages
submissions to the National Gallery of Writing. Today my thanks go out
to the NCTE and their many national and local partners for facilitating
the National Day on Writing. As we celebrate the National Day on
Writing, I hope my colleagues will participate and submit entries to
the gallery.
____________________
HONORING JASMINE LYNN OF SPELMAN COLLEGE, CLASS OF 2012
______
HON. JOHN LEWIS
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
Jasmine Lynn, a rising star, a wonderful daughter, and a successful
student who was the victim of a senseless tragedy.
A native of Kansas City, Missouri, Jasmine attended the Lincoln
College Preparatory Academy, where she was an active student, athlete,
musician, and leader. Even though she was a member of the ROTC, the
varsity basketball team, and the high school marching band, Jasmine
found time to shine as a student. Her intelligence and academic success
won her an opportunity to attend Spelman College in Atlanta, making her
the first in her family to receive a college education. At Spelman,
Jasmine continued to excel with a 3.8 GPA and intended to focus her
academic program around psychology and pre-law studies. Jasmine had
just completed a summer internship at Cerner Corp over the summer and
had bought her first car. This accomplished young lady had a bright and
promising future.
On September 3, the life of Jasmine Lynn was cut down by a stray
bullet as she was walking down an Atlanta street with some of her
friends. Violence cuts through the heart of too many communities across
America, but when a gifted young woman--simply an innocent bystander--
is the victim of a senseless murder, the toll hostility and aggression
take on our society becomes painfully clear.
Today, I would like to offer my deepest condolences to the Lynn
family for their heartbreaking loss. The thoughts and prayers of the
people of the Fifth Congressional District of Georgia are with them
during this difficult and trying time. My heart goes out to Jasmine
Lynn's parents, brother, family, friends, and the Spelman and Clark/
Atlanta University community who also mourn her passing.
____________________
THOMAS SLEMMER
______
HON. MARY JO KILROY
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Ms. KILROY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding
leader in the field of affordable housing and long-term services and
supports for people as they age. Thomas Slemmer is the outgoing chair
of the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging
(AAHSA), and I congratulate him on what he has accomplished for his
field during his two-year term.
AAHSA members (www.aahsa.org) help millions of individuals and their
families every day through mission-driven, not-for-profit organizations
dedicated to providing the services people need, when they need them,
in the place they call home. The 5,700 member organizations, many of
which have served their communities for generations, offer the
continuum of aging services: adult day services, home health, community
services, senior housing, assisted living residences, continuing care
retirement communities, and nursing homes.
With Tom Stemmer at its head, AAHSA championed the combination of
supportive services with affordable housing to enable seniors to remain
in their communities and has taken a leadership role in developing
realistic, workable solutions for Congress and states facing the
impending long-term service and support needs of the aging baby boom
generation.
[[Page 25232]]
Mr. Slemmer co-chaired AAHSA's Affordable Housing Finance Cabinet,
which is developing recommendations for building and preserving housing
to meet the physical and financial needs of a growing elder population.
He also saw the introduction of the landmark Section 202 Supportive
Housing for the Elderly Act, which would promote the construction of
new senior housing facilities, streamline the preservation of existing
housing, and support the conversion of existing housing into assisted-
living facilities with supportive health and social services.
Prior to becoming AAHSA's chair, Mr. Slemmer participated in the
organization's Long-Term Services and Supports Financing Cabinet to
find a more rational, sustainable and responsible system for funding
aging services where he helped shape recommendations for a national
insurance plan founded on three core principles: consumer choice,
fiscal responsibility, and good stewardship of provider and public
resources, and equity of benefits.
These recommendations closely aligned with the Community Living
Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act introduced and championed
by the late Senator Edward Kennedy. AAHSA has united a wide range of
stakeholders to work for the inclusion of CLASS provisions in health
care reform, and these provisions are reflected in two of the health
care reform measures drafted by congressional committees. AAHSA members
from all over the country have advocated tirelessly for a mechanism to
enable Americans to plan responsibly for their own long-term services
and supports needs while also addressing the issues of access and cost.
To address other issues facing the nation's aging population,
families, service providers and policymakers, Slemmer has overseen
AAHSA member task forces on workforce, nursing home quality, home- and
community-based services, and issues specific to rural and inner-city
areas. Under his leadership, AAHSA has undertaken pilot technology
projects, ``living laboratories'' linking member operations with
research to demonstrate the effectiveness of applied technology to
improve quality, make operations more efficient, and enable people to
live independently wherever they call home.
In addition to his service as AAHSA's chair, Tom Slemmer is the
president and chief executive officer of Columbus, Ohio's National
Church Residences, where he has had a thirty year career. From a single
affordable housing facility established in 1961, National Church
Residences has grown to provide affordable housing, supportive
services, assisted living, and skilled nursing care to low and
moderate-income elders, families, persons with disabilities, and
homeless families and individuals in facilities throughout the United
States. In Central and Southern Ohio, NCR provides home and community
based supportive services to allow elders to age in place in dignity in
the comfort of their own homes. Its ministry serves over 22,000
individuals in 300 properties nationwide.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, National Church Residences and
AAHSA launched a hotline to help displaced seniors find affordable
housing. Low-income seniors and family members were able to call around
the clock to be connected to housing resource professionals trained to
evaluate and locate available affordable senior housing communities
nationwide. Hundreds of evacuated elders were able to find temporary or
permanent housing through National Church Residences and other AAHSA
members. Based on this experience, AAHSA and National Church Residences
submitted recommendations to Congress on improving coordination among
aging services providers and federal, state, and local agencies in the
event of natural disasters.
Because of the importance of supportive services to seniors' ability
to remain longer in their communities, Mr. Stemmer was instrumental in
establishing the American Association of Service Coordinators (AASC).
AASC's over 2,000 members serve seniors, people with disabilities, and
low income families living in affordable rental housing and the
surrounding community. Service coordinators assist senior and disabled
residents in identifying, locating, and acquiring the services
necessary for them to remain independent and help families achieve self
sufficiency and economic independence.
Mr. Slemmer also has served on the boards of the Association of Ohio
Philanthropic Homes, Housing and Services for the Aging; the National
Affordable Housing Trust, the Stewards of Affordable Housing for the
Future, and the Ohio Capital Corporation for Housing.
I hope my colleagues will join me in commending Tom Stemmer for his
longstanding service to our nation's elders and his work to develop
realistic solutions to the challenges a growing elder population will
pose in the years to come.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. JOHN BOOZMAN
of arkansas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican
standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information
regarding earmarks I received as a part of H.R. 3183--Energy and Water
Appropriations Act of 2010.
Requesting Member: Congressman John Boozman
Bill Number: H.R. 3183
Account: Construction
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Corps of Engineers
Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 867, Little Rock, Arkansas
72203
Description of Request: The May Branch flood control project will
reduce the occurrence of flood damage for hundreds of property owners
in the vicinity of the May Branch drainage way in portions of Fort
Smith. During the periods of heavier rainfall, stormwater flows exceed
the capacity of the May Branch channel, causing surface and structure
flooding. The project meets the Corps of Engineers' cost/benefit ration
requirements. The Federal funds of $179,000 will be used for design
engineering, right-of way acquisition, and construction. The City of
Fort Smith will be matching the $15 million federal share with $16
million in local funds from a 1-cent sales tax dedicated to street and
drainage repairs.
Requesting Member: Congressman John Boozman
Bill Number: H.R. 3183
Account: Department of Energy--EERE
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: University of Arkansas--Division of
Agriculture
Address of Requesting Entity: 2404 N. University Avenue, Little Rock,
Arkansas 72207
Description of Request: The national goal of the US is to replace
more than 75% of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. With
America on the verge of breakthroughs in advanced energy technologies,
the best way to break the addiction to foreign oil is through new
technology. Of course, new conversion technology requires the
availability of adequate amounts of quality feedstocks. To help meet
this critical national goal, the Mid South/Southeast BioEnergy
Consortium $1,000,000 project is focused: to (1) position the MidSouth
and Southeast bioenergy industry to expand from biodiesel and grain to
ethanol to commercial production of cellulosic ethanol; (2) develop
economic and environmental viable systems to produce, harvest and
process relevant feedstocks for biodiesel and ethanol operations,
matching feedstock availability to specific conversion technologies;
(3) conduct educational programs to deliver information on feedstock
production, harvesting and processing with farm and industry audiences;
(4) develop alternative uses for by-products and create new lines of
co-products that generate revenue streams to complement biofuel
production; and (5) develop and evaluate conversion technologies
necessary for commercial cellulosic ethanol production.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. BOB INGLIS
of south carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. INGLIS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican leadership
standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information
regarding an earmark I received as part of the Conference Report to
accompany H.R. 3183, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010.
Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Inglis
Bill Number: Conference Report to accompany H.R. 3183, Energy and
Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010
Account: Corps of Engineers--Investigations
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Greenville
Address of Requesting Entity: 206 South Main Street Greenville, South
Carolina 29602
Description of Request: The purpose of the request is to conduct a
feasibility study examining potential environmental restoration and
flood control projects for the Reedy River in the vicinity of
Greenville, SC. This study will be conducted by the Army Corps of
Engineers, as the next phase in the Corps' ongoing work to restore and
stabilize the Reedy.
[[Page 25233]]
The amount is $90,000 and it would go to the City of Greenville.
____________________
RECOGNIZING SUDHAKAR V. SHENOY AND SURESH V. SHENOY FOR RECEIVING THE
2009 COMMUNITY LEADER AWARD FROM THE NORTHERN VIRGINIA COMMUNITY
FOUNDATION
______
HON. GERALD E. CONNOLLY
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize
Sudhakar V. Shenoy and Suresh V. Shenoy and their company, IMC, Inc. as
the recipients of the Northern Virginia Community Foundation 2009
Community Leader Award.
The Northern Virginia Community Foundation (NVCF) was established in
1978 as a public charity to meet a wide variety of social, educational,
cultural and other charitable needs throughout Northern Virginia. The
mission of NVCF is to grow philanthropy and strengthen the community.
This past year, more than $3,000,000.00 in grants and scholarships
supporting child and youth development, education, health, arts,
homelessness, community improvement, and other causes were made from
NVCF funds. Hundreds of nonprofit organizations benefited from these
grants and put those resources to work to strengthen the community.
Each year, NVCF recognizes individuals or organizations for their
extraordinary philanthropic efforts and successes. This year, the NVCF
has chosen to honor Mr. Sudhakar V. Shenoy and Mr. Suresh V. Shenoy by
presenting them with the 2009 Community Leader Award.
The accomplishments of these two individuals are truly impressive.
They are successful businessmen, under their leadership, their company,
IMC, Inc. has become a highly respected and award winning technology
solutions innovator that provides expert government, commercial and
scientific solutions.
The business successes of Sudhakar and Suresh Shenoy are matched by
their philanthropic endeavors and commitment to the improvement of our
community.
Sudhakar Shenoy has a long history of civic and community
involvement. In 1999, he was named Citizen of the Year and in 2003, he
was named Lord Fairfax in recognition of his contributions to the
community and his volunteerism. He has been a strong leader and
supporter in many organizations including the American Heart
Association, YouthAids, the American Cancer Society, Leukemia Society,
Youth Life, INOVA, the United Way, the American-India Foundation and
many others. Sudhakar was also named the Greater Washington High
Technology Entrepreneur of the Year for 1998. In 1996, Sudhakar was
honored by the University of Connecticut when he was inducted into the
University of Connecticut School of Business Alumni Hall of Fame.
Suresh Shenoy currently serves as the Chairman of the National
Capital Region American Red Cross. In addition, he serves on the boards
of The Kevric Company, The Fairfax County Information Technology
Advisory Committee, IIT Heritage Foundation, the Fairfax County Chamber
of Commerce and was a founding member of the Thomas Jefferson
Partnership Fund. Suresh was an adjunct professor of Entrepreneurship,
International Marketing and Business Administration at the Graduate
School of Management, Clark University and currently serves on the
adjunct faculty of the School of Information and Technology &
Engineering at George Mason University. Suresh has spoken at numerous
industry events in Europe, the United States and Brazil; his articles
have also been widely published in various industry publications. In
2000, Suresh was recognized for his many contributions in his field
when in 2000, he was inducted as a Fellow of the Information Management
Congress (Europe) and AIIM International (USA).
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating
Sudhakar Shenoy and Suresh Shenoy for being named the recipients of the
Northern Virginia Community Foundation 2009 Community Leader Award and
to thank them for their years of philanthropic, educational and civic
service.