Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 2 - Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 for January 27, 2009

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 2]
[Issue]
[Pages 1541-1733]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[[Page 1541]]

VOLUME 155--PART 2

SENATE--Tuesday, January 27, 2009

The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Jeanne Shaheen, a Senator from the State of New Hampshire.
______

prayer

The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Eternal God, our helper and friend, guide our Senators this day. Help
them to walk the way of surrender to Your will, guided by Your wisdom.
Refresh them with Your spirit to quicken their thinking and reinforce
their judgment. Show them the spiritual foundations of our heritage
that they may conserve and protect them. Draw them close to You and to
one another in humility and service. And, Lord, spare them from
arrogating to themselves the judgments which belong to You alone.
We pray in Your wonderful Name. Amen.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Honorable Jeanne Shaheen 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, January 27, 2009.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Jeanne Shaheen, a Senator from the State of New Hampshire, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.

Mrs. SHAHEEN 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. Madam President, following leader remarks, the Senate will
resume consideration of the Children's Health Insurance Program. At
about 12:30 p.m. today, Kirsten Gillibrand will take the oath of office
to become a Senator representing the State of New York. Following the
swearing in of that Senator, the Senate will recess until 2:15 p.m. to
allow for the weekly caucus luncheons to meet.
This week, we are going to legislate. There will be no morning
business. We want to have all the time that is necessary to work on
this important legislation dealing with children's health. I hope
people will be ready to offer amendments. We have worked with staff on
the Republican side of the aisle, and we have it set up that we have
three amendments that will be laid down very quickly. By that time, we
should be able to even schedule some votes for this afternoon.
I want to make sure everyone has the opportunity to offer any
amendment they want to offer. What we are going to try to do is not
have a bunch of them stacked up. I think that can sometimes be very
troublesome. But we will work, as we proceed through the legislation,
as to what amendments need to be pending. We are here to legislate. We
hope that if people have concerns about this important legislation and
they think it can be made better by taking something out or putting
something in, that is what they should do. We want everyone, when they
offer their amendments, to have ample time to debate them, as we did
with the first piece of legislation we dealt with, the Lilly Ledbetter
legislation. After there has been ample time for debate, there can be
motions to table. There are some Senators who may, for various reasons,
agree to have up-or-down votes. We are here to legislate.
This morning is a little difficult because we have the Finance
Committee meeting to complete their work on the recovery package. There
are 200 amendments that have been filed in the committee, and they have
to work their way through those amendments. That should take the better
part of the day, at least many hours. It is estimated from 4 to 8 hours
to complete the markup.
The Appropriations Committee markup is at 10:30 a.m. also. There are
people from the Finance Committee who will be coming here on a rotating
hour-by-hour basis so there will be floor coverage. So there is no
reason not to be able to legislate and talk about this legislation in
any way Senators feel is appropriate. Rollcall votes are expected to
occur throughout the day. There will not be any votes before we
complete our caucus luncheons.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER

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

____________________

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, are we now on the bill?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill has not yet been laid
down.
Mr. McCONNELL. Can I suggest we go to the bill? I was going to lay
down an amendment, consistent with the majority leader's suggestion
that we get started.

____________________

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

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

____________________

CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the

[[Page 1542]]

Senate shall resume consideration of H.R. 2, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 2) to amend title XXI of the Social Security
Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance
Program, and for other purposes.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.

Amendment No. 39

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

Mr. REID. Madam President, there is an amendment at the desk that I
wish the clerk to report.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Baucus,
proposes an amendment numbered 39.

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.

Amendment No. 40 to Amendment No. 39

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I support the State Children's Health
Insurance Program. I think virtually every Member of the Senate does. I
voted to create the program and believe we need to responsibly
reauthorize it.
In its original form, the State Children's Health Insurance Program
was meant to provide insurance to children from families who earn too
much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private
insurance.
There is no doubt, as I indicated earlier, we all support providing
insurance to low-income children. I am sure that is 100 Members of the
Senate. In fact, this program originally passed on a broad bipartisan
basis with 43 Republicans and 42 Democrats supporting it. It was
enacted by a Republican Congress, signed by a Democratic President, and
was a model of bipartisanship. Two of my colleagues, Senator Grassley
and Senator Hatch, reached across the aisle to craft a bipartisan
compromise in the last Congress. Unfortunately, our Democratic
colleagues have gone back on many of the prior agreements that were
reached in creating that bill last year, making this issue more
contentious than it ought to be and setting a troubling precedent for
future discussions on health care reform.
The original purpose of the State Children's Health Insurance Program
was to serve low-income, uninsured children. The bill we are being
asked to consider sanctions a loophole that allows a few select States,
such as New York, to provide insurance to children and families earning
more than $80,000 a year--$80,000 a year--instead of insuring low-
income children first. This is more than double the median household
income in many States, including my State of Kentucky. It is grossly
unfair that a family in Kentucky making $40,000 must pay for the health
insurance of a family making double that, especially if the Kentuckian
cannot afford it for his own family.
The bill before the Senate is not limited to children either. It
preserves loopholes that allow adults to enroll in a program that is
intended for children.
Earlier estimates of similar legislation found that nearly half of
the new children added by this bill already have private health
insurance. Let me say that again. Earlier estimates of similar
legislation found that nearly half of the new children added by this
bill already have private health insurance. Republicans, on the other
hand, believe we ought to target scarce resources to uninsured
children, not those who already have coverage.
Republicans will offer amendments to fix the shortcomings of this
bill and to provide a responsible alternative that will return SCHIP to
its intended purpose: serving the kids in struggling families who need
the help most. That is whom we ought to be helping.
Our bill, the Kids First Act, will provide funding increases to State
SCHIP programs and help them find those eligible children who are not
yet enrolled, and our Kids First idea is better because it closes the
loophole that allows some States to extend their program to higher
income families, even while they have thousands of lower income
children who still are not covered. The Kids First Act truly puts kids
first, eliminating nearly all adults from a program designed for
children so that more children can be covered. Finally, by responsibly
allocating scarce resources, our bill increases funding for SCHIP
without raising new taxes. We believe Republicans have a better
alternative.
Madam President, I now send that alternative to the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an
amendment numbered 40 to amendment No. 39.

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, we are now commencing debate on the
Children's Health Insurance Program. I wish to speak to the amendment
that has been offered by Senator McConnell, as well as the pending
legislation.
It is a grim reality in America that each day, 17,000 Americans are
losing their jobs. Each day, 9,000 Americans are facing new mortgage
foreclosure notices. Madam President, 17,000 lost jobs and 9,000 have
lost homes. In the process, some 11,000 Americans are losing their
health insurance every single day. So the issue that was before us when
we created the Children's Health Insurance Program has become gravely
worse, and we are finding more and more Americans who are being
squeezed out of health insurance coverage--46 million uninsured
Americans today, including 9 million children.
We decided to make children a priority in terms of providing health
insurance. What the Federal Government said to the States was: We will
come up with a program, but we will give you more than the normal
Medicaid share; we are going to give you a share that is enhanced so
that you will consider covering these uninsured children. In that
situation, many States took advantage of it.
I might just say, Madam President, that I understand Senator Grassley
is in the Chamber and has a 10:30 a.m. Finance Committee meeting and I
have a 10:30 a.m. Appropriations Committee meeting. Let me do my best
to share the time so I can leave him with the remaining 10 minutes or
so. Is that fair? I want to make sure Senator Grassley has a chance
because we have to go to important meetings.
The difficulty we face today, the reality is we wanted this program
primarily to help families making up to 200 percent of what we call
median family income. That would basically mean they would be making
roughly up to $42,000 a year. So if you are making $42,000 or less, we
want those kids covered.
Then we said to the States: You can go as high as 300 percent, and
that would take it up to $63,000. You would have to pay more for that
out of State funds if you think that group of kids of families making
between $42,000 and $63,000 need the help. And some States took
advantage of it.
Then there were two exceptions, as I understand it. High cost of
living States--New York and New Jersey--asked for permission to go even
higher, up to $77,000 to $83,000 I think was the annual income. When
many of the critics of this legislation, including the Republican
leader, who just spoke, talk about what is wrong with it, they point to
New York and New Jersey. I can tell you those are rare exceptions to
the rule across America. By and large, this program is geared for
people with incomes below $42,000 a year, and in some cases below
$63,000, with only two exceptions that I know, New York and

[[Page 1543]]

New Jersey. And I will stand corrected if there is another State.
But the point is, to argue that this is a program that is for the
wealthiest among us is to ignore the obvious. Those two States
notwithstanding, people making $63,000 a year I do not put in the
category of wealthy. Certainly, those making $42,000 I wouldn't at all.
In fact, they are almost smack dab in the middle of the middle-income
families in America. When they face the cost of insurance not covered
by their employer, it can be an extraordinarily high expense. That is
why many of them opt out of coverage for the family, which means
mothers, fathers, and children go without health insurance. Imagine
making $42,000 a year and seeing a third or 40 percent of your income
going into FICA and taxes. What does that leave you with, about $2,000
a month? And with $2,000 a month, how many families can realistically
turn around and buy a health insurance plan on the private market?
I also worry about this argument that we want to trap people into
private health insurance that could be a bad policy that is very
expensive, instead of giving them an option of coming into the
Children's Health Insurance Program. If our goal is to give these
families affordable health insurance, then why do we want to trap them
in a private plan? Some will stay with the private plan because they
are happy with it; others have a plan that, frankly, has a high
deductible, high copay, limited coverage, and high cost. We want to
trap those families in that plan?
Sadly, the amendment that is offered by Senator McConnell has a
mandatory 6-month waiting period between leaving private health
insurance and enrolling in CHIP. What kind of benefit is that for the
families of Illinois or Kentucky who are in a bad private health
insurance plan--the only one they can afford? We want to give them real
insurance that can be there when they need it.
We know there are families who desperately will need help. I have
here the photograph of a family from Illinois. It is a classic story.
This is a family, Steve and Katie Avalos and their son Manolo. In 2005,
Katie became pregnant while Steve was still in law school, and because
of Federal programs such as CHIP and Medicaid, the State of Illinois
was able to provide health coverage for Katie through the All Kids
Program. With help from St. Joe's Hospital, Katie was enrolled in the
Illinois Moms & Babies Program. She received excellent prenatal care.
In February 2006, her beautiful little baby boy Manolo was born with a
rare neurologic condition that affects his balance, coordination, and
speech. He was living with something called Dandy Walker Syndrome and
as a result has had slow motor development and progressive enlargement
of his skull.
Because Manolo has a preexisting condition, his options for health
insurance are very limited. Yet with All Kids, our version of the
Children's Health Insurance Program in Illinois, Katie can give her
child the services that are important building blocks for his future
success. Katie is grateful for reliable health insurance. Without it,
Manolo would not have experienced his many successes. He was able to
walk at age 2\1/2\, and the family is so happy. Without that helping
hand, without the rehab and the special medical care, that might never
have happened. Manolo turns 3 in a few days, on February 2, and he has
his whole life in front of him.
Was this a bad investment, investing in this family, investing in
this child, giving them a chance for the medical care they needed so
this little boy has a normal life? When I hear from critics who argue
that this is something we can't afford, or unfortunately it is going to
crowd out private health insurance, I wonder if they know what a
private health insurance plan would have cost this family with a child
with a preexisting condition. They would have been lucky to find one
they could afford, and it would have had many exclusions and many
riders.
Now Senator McConnell says to this poor family, stick with it for 6
months no matter what it is costing, no matter the fact that it doesn't
cover what your child needs. I don't think that is the way to go. I
think what we have to understand is that many people came together,
Democrats and Republicans, to pass this bill initially--to pass it
twice, though it ended up with President Bush's veto--and in all of
these instances we were affirming the bottom line. And the bottom line,
as President Obama and others have said, is health insurance is
critically important for all of us.
President Obama said:

People don't expect government to solve all their problems.
But they sense deep in their bones that with just a slight
change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in
America has a decent shot at life and that the doors of
opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better.

Those are the words of President Obama in his speech to the 2004
Democratic convention. I know deep in our bones the Senate will stand
together to give an additional 4 million kids coverage with health
insurance. A bill that had been vetoed twice by President Bush can
become the law of the land so this family--this loving family with a
beautiful little boy--and thousands of others like them have a chance
at quality health insurance.
I might conclude by saying that this debate is important for the
course of the Senate, because all of us understand we have had some
tough times on the Senate floor over the last couple of years--95
filibusters, a record-breaking number. What we want to do this week is
to prove, as we did last week, that we can have amendments offered
constructively; that we can debate them, deliberate them, and vote on
them in an expeditious way. We can have a fair hearing on these
amendments and come to a vote and not face a cloture vote and 30 hours
of the Senate sitting in quorum calls with nothing happening. But it
takes a cooperative effort on both sides. I think we can reach that
again, and I hope we will prove it this week and by the end of the week
pass this critical legislation to give 4 million kids, such as Manolo
here, a chance for a better life.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, our goal is to cover 4 million kids,
as was spoken by the majority whip. Our goal is to do it in a way so
that we actually have the resources to cover children who do not have
health insurance.
There are some aspects of the underlying bill before us that would
lead families to drop private health insurance, and I am cognizant of
what Senator Durbin said, that if you have a bad policy, maybe you
ought to be on SCHIP. I don't dispute that. But we have found that when
you crowd people out of private health insurance, it is more apt to
happen at the highest income levels than at the levels he was talking
about, where we ought to be helping people under $42,000.
Then there is another category where they want to help people that
sponsors have already assumed the responsibility of making sure their
health care would be covered. In that category, we find $1.3 billion
being wasted that we can take and use on children who don't have
coverage.
So there is no dispute about covering 4 million people. There is a
dispute about whether we ought to encourage people who are of higher
income to drop out of private policies and to go on the Children's
Health Insurance Program. If you talk to people in the Congressional
Budget Office--the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office--you will
find that is a fact. Then when we have people sign a contractual
relationship with the Federal Government that they are going to provide
for the needs of the people they bring into this country, we feel--at
least for a period of 5 years, and that is present law--that they
should maintain that contractual relationship they have with the
government; otherwise, those people would not be here in the first
place. So we want to cover 4 million people. We want to cover people
who don't have insurance. We don't want to encourage higher income
people who do have insurance to go into the State health insurance
program, and we want

[[Page 1544]]

to make sure that people maintain their contractual obligations.
We are going to offer a series of amendments today and tomorrow to
bring out these differences between the two approaches, but I am not
going to stand by and let anybody on the other side of the aisle say
there is a dispute about covering 4 million people. I will make the
point on this side of the aisle that we want to make sure we put
emphasis upon covering people who don't have insurance, where they are
willing to look at encouraging people to leave private insurance and go
into a State-run program or encouraging people to avoid their
contractual obligations with the Federal Government. Using our
approach, it seems to me, the goal then can be reached so we actually
reach more people who don't have insurance.

Amendment No. 41 to Amendment No. 39

Now, the first amendment I am going to offer deals with this issue I
referred to as a contractual obligation. The amendment I am offering
today is very simple. It increases the coverage of low-income American
children currently eligible for Medicaid but who are uninsured relative
to the bill before this Senate. My amendment does this by striking the
Federal dollars for coverage of legal immigrants and uses those funds
to cover more low-income American kids instead.
Let me make it very clear: Whichever bill passes, we are talking
about 4 million more kids, but we are still talking about a lot of kids
who still aren't going to have coverage that we ought to be concerned
about. So this is all about priorities. The Congressional Budget Office
has reviewed my amendment and it indeed does the job of covering more
low-income American kids. In fact, my amendment will get as many or
more low-income American kids health coverage than the majority's bill
does with the coverage of legal immigrants.
Does that sound right? It is right. It does not reduce the number of
kids covered. It covers as many low-income kids, and maybe even more.
The difference is that the additional low-income kids who get health
coverage with my amendment are U.S. citizens. It does a better job of
enrolling these low-income children than the bill before the Senate. I
thought that covering children who were eligible for Medicaid but who
were insured was a bipartisan goal shared by my Democratic colleagues.
This amendment does exactly that.
I want to get back to the background on the amendment. In other
words, there are people who are legally in the country--no dispute
about that, legally in the country--who have sponsors. Without the
sponsors, they would not be here. Those sponsors have signed an
agreement with the Federal Government for these people to come into
this country, that they will take care of them for 5 years, that they
will not become a public charge. So those sponsors promised for their
needs so that they would not be on programs that come out of the
Federal Treasury, or else they would not be here. That is a cost of
$1.3 billion when you are going to let those people not honor their
contractual relationships and allow them to go on the Children's Health
Insurance Program. And are they any better off? No, because the people
who brought them here promised they were going to fulfill those needs
and not become a public charge. But we would take that $1.3 billion and
spend it on people who were not promised any coverage but qualify for
the Children's Health Insurance Program and cover more kids in the
process.
Madam President, I am going to send my amendment to the desk, and I
ask that it be read.
Before I do that, I am sorry, I have to ask unanimous consent to set
the pending amendment aside.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is in order at this
time, and the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley], for himself, Mr.
Hatch, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Vitter, proposes an amendment
numbered 41 to amendment No. 39.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading thus far constitute the reading.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike the option to provide coverage to legal immigrants
and increase the enrollment of uninsured low income American children)

Strike section 214 and insert the following:

SEC. 214. INCREASED FUNDING FOR ENROLLMENT OF UNINSURED LOW
INCOME AMERICAN CHILDREN.

Section 2105(a)(3)(E) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(a)(3)(E)), as added
by section 104, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(iv) Increase in bonus payments for fiscal years 2012
through 2019.--With respect to each of fiscal years 2012
through 2019:

``(I) Clause (i) of subparagraph (B) shall be applied by
substituting `38 percent' for `15 percent'.
``(II) Clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) shall be applied by
substituting `70 percent' for `62.5 percent'.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, did I make a mistake, that I was not
supposed to set the amendment aside? I apologize if I made a mistake.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator can proceed at this
time without consent.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I have said all I am going to say, and from that
standpoint, we will be debating this amendment throughout the day. We
do not object to what the majority leader said, that he would like to
vote on these amendments today. I think it is our intention to do that
sometime during the day.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, as someone who considers the creation of
the CHIP program one of my happiest legislative accomplishments as a
Senator, this is a very difficult and disappointing week for me. Like
the rest of the Nation, after this historic election, I was so hopeful
we would mark this new era with the passage of bipartisan CHIP
legislation. However, the partisan process engineered by the other side
of the aisle so far on this issue of great importance, has only
reinforced the American people's cynicism about Washington's partisan
political games. Americans are tired of this, and I am tired of this.
Change is not just a slogan on a campaign poster, it is about real
action.
I began this year with great hope that we would all come together to
complete our work from 2007 and have a bill signed into law that would
have overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle. But that hope has
turned quickly into disappointment and the promise of change into a
commitment to remain the same.
It appears that decisions were already made without those of us who
worked morning, noon and night for several months in 2007 to create a
bipartisan CHIP bill not once, but twice at the consternation of many
colleagues on my own side. And I want to make one point perfectly clear
to my colleagues in this chamber--Senator Grassley and I were willing
to roll up our sleeves and do it again this year. That is because we
remain committed to those 6 million low-income, uninsured children who
are eligible for CHIP and Medicaid coverage.
I am bitterly disappointed by the outcome of this bill. CHIP is a
program I deeply love and built with my friends and colleagues who
share my concern about the welfare of uninsured children of the working
poor--the only ones who were left out of this process.
Again, in the Senate, we could have had a bill that would have
brought the vast majority of members together once and for all to help
these children. But that was not to be.
When our new President was campaigning across the country, he made a
promise to the American people that he would invoke change and end the
bitter partisanship on Capitol Hill. I find it ironic that he will be
meeting with GOP members to talk about bipartisan efforts in the
economic stimulus package the same week that the Senate is about to
pass the very first partisan CHIP bill. The other three bills that this
body has passed on the CHIP program were approved with overwhelming
bipartisan support--69 votes for; both parties.
When President Obama was elected, I truly believed his promise of
bipartisan

[[Page 1545]]

change. And at risk of sounding overly sarcastic, I believe that if
this bill and the process so far on the stimulus legislation are any
indicator of what the future will bring, the American people will
demand to know exactly what kind of change the Democrats pledge to
bring to Washington.
I know my colleagues will agree that we put our hearts and souls into
negotiating the reauthorization of the CHIP program in 2007. We stuck
together through some very tough decisions--whether or not to allow
coverage of pregnant women through CHIP, whether or not to continue
coverage of childless adults and parents, whether or not to allow
States to expand CHIP income eligibility levels, how to eliminate
crowd-out and, most important, how to get more low-income, uninsured
children covered through CHIP. We had some tough discussions, but in
the end, we ended up with two bills, CHIP I and CHIP II, that covered
almost 4 million low-income, uninsured children. Unfortunately, neither
version of the bill was signed into law and, in the end, we simply
extended the CHIP program through March 2009.
Back then, we knew that we needed to prepare, once again, for another
debate on the reauthorization of the CHIP program in early 2009. But we
all felt that the outcome would be different and that the legislation
that I developed with Senators Grassley, Rockefeller and Baucus which I
believe greatly improved the CHIP program, would be signed into law.
While the CHIP legislation that we passed in the Senate was not
perfect, which we fondly refer to as CHIPRA I and CHIPRA II, it
represented a compromise and laid the foundation for bipartisanship and
trust that was integral to getting the legislation not once but twice
to the President's desk.
The bill being considered this week is not that bill because it
includes provisions that I feel were not part of our bipartisan
agreement such as the inclusion of a State option to cover legal
immigrant children and pregnant women. Amendments will be offered to
improve this legislation but if they are not accepted, I will not be
able to support this bill. And I deeply regret it.
I started putting together ideas regarding the CHIP program after I
met with two Provo, UT, families in which both parents worked. Each
family had six children. Neither family, with both incomes, had more
than $20,000 a year in total gross income. They clearly could not
afford health insurance for their children. CHIP was the only answer to
their plight. They were the only people left out of the process. They
worked. They did the best they could.
When Senators Kennedy, Rockefeller, Chafee and I wrote this program
in 1997, we wrote it with the intent of helping the children of those
Provo families and others like them. Our intent was to help the
children of the working poor, the only children who did not have access
to health coverage back then. These children's families made too much
money to qualify for Medicaid and not enough money to buy private
health insurance.
In addition, it came to light that both the Clinton and Bush
administrations permitted individuals to be covered by CHIP who did not
fit the definition that we had in mind for children of the working
poor. In fact, they were not even children. They were childless adults
and parents of CHIP eligible children. My good friend Senator Grassley
likes to remind us that there is no ``A'' in the CHIP program. There is
only a ``C'' and we all know what that ``C'' stands for and it is not
adults.
I believe that having adults on this program caused the price tag of
CHIP to escalate and even led to some States running out of their CHIP
allotments prematurely. To add insult to injury, because States receive
a higher Federal matching rate for covering individuals in the CHIP
program, States were given financial incentives to continue covering
adults.
As part of our compromise in 2007, childless adults would have been
phased off CHIP and transitioned to their States' Medicaid programs.
Parents would have been covered in a capped program and within a set
timeframe, States would have either received the Medicaid matching rate
or the matching rate half way between the State's Medicaid matching
rate and the CHIP matching rate. This was called RE-MAP. States would
have only gotten the RE-MAP Federal match if they covered a certain
number of low-income children.
Our two bills from 2007, CHIPRA I and CHIPRA II, brought this
situation to light and put a stop to covering future adults once and
for all. In fact, States will no longer be allowed to submit waivers to
cover adults through the CHIP program once the bill before the Senate
becomes law. That seems right.
We have also seen some States cover children whose family income is
well above 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. Typically, these
higher income families have access to private health insurance so they
end up having a choice between private health insurance, paid for in
part by their employers, or CHIP coverage, almost fully paid for by the
Federal and State governments.
Unfortunately, many of these families end up choosing CHIP over
private health coverage, thus contributing to higher costs incurred by
the CHIP program. Adding higher income families to State CHIP programs
also affects the Federal taxpayer who ends up paying for a significant
part of the CHIP program.
And, once again, States currently receive the higher CHIP Federal
matching rate for covering these higher income children. This is
something that really bothers me because it is so contrary to the
original goal of the CHIP program.
There are other issues as well--the crowd-out policy that we worked
out to address the serious crowd-out concerns raised by Members was not
included in this mark.
This policy, section 116 of CHIPRA I and CHIPRA II called for the
Government Accountability Office, GAO, to study what States are doing
to eliminate crowd-out in the CHIP program. In addition, the Institute
of Medicine, the IOM, was directed to come up with the best way for
measuring, on a State-by-State basis, the number of low-income children
who do not have health coverage and the best way to collect this data
in a uniform manner across the country. Today, there is no standard for
States to collect data on the uninsured, including uninsured, low-
income children.
So right now, it is a guessing game for States to figure out how many
low-income, uninsured children reside in their States. To me, it is a
no brainer that we should incorporate a standard way to collect this
important information to help us figure out how many low-income,
uninsured children still need health coverage.
The deleted section also required the Health and Human Services
Secretary to develop recommendations on best practices to address CHIP
crowd-out. It also directed the Secretary to develop recommendations on
how to create uniform standards to measure and report on both CHIP
crowd-out and health coverage of children from families below 200
percent of the Federal poverty level.
I simply do not understand why on earth the majority would drop such
an important provision. I don't understand that since we worked so hard
to solve these problems. Don't we want to eliminate crowd-out to ensure
that the children in the most need are the top priority? Don't we want
to make sure that the data collected in Utah on uninsured, low-income
children is collected the same way across the country? Don't we want to
compare apples to apples? Or is it possible that some in this body
simply want to continue the guessing game and never truly know how many
low-income, uninsured children live in their States?
We will have a vote on this provision during this debate and it is my
hope that Senators on both sides of the aisle will want to have answers
on crowd-out and appropriate data collection. I cannot believe that
Members subscribe to the irresponsible, anything goes policy which is
exactly what they are advocating if they vote against the amendment to
add this provision back into the bill.

[[Page 1546]]

Another issue that is very important to me is the coverage of high-
income children through the CHIP program. When we were negotiating
CHIPRA I and CHIPRA II in 2007, we agreed 300 percent of the Federal
poverty level for CHIP was high enough. CHIPRA I provided States with
the lower Medicaid matching rate, FMAP, for covering children over 300
percent of FPL. CHIPRA II, the second bill vetoed by the President,
went one step further and stopped all Federal matching rates for CHIP
children over 300 percent of FPL. That is the policy that I support--
there is no reason on earth that a family making $63,000 per year
should be covered by CHIP and that a State should be rewarded with any
Federal matching dollars for covering these high-income children.
In fact, there is one State that provides CHIP coverage up to 350
percent of FPL and another State that is trying to cover children up to
400 percent of FPL. In my opinion, when States start moving in that
direction, they are taking a block grant program, one that we felt
should be operated by the States to help children of the working poor,
to push towards a single payer health system. That is what they are
pushing for. That is not what we agreed to in 1997 when we created
CHIP.
However, the legislation before us today allows States that had
submitted State plan amendments or had their waiver approved to
increase their income eligibility levels to over 300 percent of FPL to
receive the higher Federal matching rate for the CHIP program. These
States are New Jersey, a State that now covers children up to 350
percent of the Federal poverty level and New York, a State that
submitted a plan to CMS to cover children up to 400 percent of the
Federal poverty level. I do not support this provision and will be
supporting an amendment to prevent these two States from receiving the
higher CHIP matching rate. that are willing to work within the limits
we set and have worked well under the original CHIP bill.
Another issue that deeply troubles me is the insistence to include a
State option to cover legal immigrant children and pregnant women, who
are not citizens of our country, through the CHIP program.
In 2007, we made agreements that our legislation would not include
the coverage of legal immigrant children and pregnant women. I have
consistently voted against adding that new category, even if it is at
the State option, because I believed then, as I believe now, that
before we even consider expanding the CHIP program to legal immigrant
children, we need to do the best job we can to cover the children of
the working poor who are U.S. citizens.
While we have improved, we still have at least 6 million other
children to cover, maybe more, with the dire economic conditions
currently facing our country.
Now, before we even started drafting our first CHIP bill in 2007, we
agreed that legal immigrant children would not be added to the CHIP
program. That agreement was very important to me and to other
Republicans who eventually supported the two CHIP bills that we
negotiated in 2007.
In addition, we have always struggled to find sufficient dollars to
reauthorize the CHIP program. The bill before the Senate is only a 4\1/
2\ year reauthorization due to limited funds. I understand there is
some extra money in the bill for the legal immigrant provision. I
believe that we should be using that money to cover low-income
uninsured children who are U.S. citizens first. How many children who
are U.S. citizens will be without health care because we have decided
to cover legal immigrants through CHIP?
I wish to know the answer to that question before this bill becomes
law. Now, ordinarily I support helping legal immigrants in almost every
way. But we do not have enough money to take care of our own citizens'
children. That is a matter of great concern to me and it is of great
concern to a significant number of Members of both bodies who probably
will vote against this bill because of that provision. In fact, there
are plenty of reasons to vote against this bill because it was written
in such a partisan fashion.
I might add, the legal immigrant provision is now in this
legislation, and, as a result, there are many Members in both Houses of
Congress who now oppose the bill. We simply do not understand why we
are not taking care of our children who are U.S. citizens first. Once
that goal is accomplished, I would be willing to make a commitment to
the work on resolving all of the issues regarding legal immigrants once
and for all.
But now is not the time. There is not enough money even in this bill
to take care of our children who are citizens. This is especially true
when our country is in economic crisis and there are more children who
are U.S. citizens who need health insurance coverage because their
parents may have lost their jobs or may have lower paying jobs. I do
not believe this is an unreasonable request. For the life of me, I
cannot understand why those who support the coverage of legal immigrant
children cannot work with us to resolve this issue, especially if they
want a bill that has broad bipartisan support.
But without a doubt, the issue that broke down negotiations between
the Senate and House Republicans at the end of 2007 involved Medicaid
eligibility. Section 115 of the legislation would allow States to
create higher income eligibility levels for Medicaid. When are we going
to quit throwing money at programs?
Simply put, a State could establish one income level for Medicaid, a
higher income eligibility level for CHIP, and then cover more kids at
an even higher income eligibility level through Medicaid. In other
words, a State could cover higher income children through Medicaid at
an even higher income level than children covered by CHIP.
This provision sets no limits on the income eligibility level for
Medicaid. Now, that is ridiculous. It is irresponsible. It is fiscally
unsound. Everybody here knows it. In 2007, the House Republicans wanted
to put a hard cap of 300 percent of Federal poverty level on State
Medicaid programs. I agreed with them, but others did not. I am quite
disturbed that the legislation before the Senate still allows States to
cover high-income children under their State Medicaid plans.
Technically speaking, section 115 of this bill would allow a State to
cover children under Medicaid whose family income is over 300 percent,
over $63,000 for a family of four.
During this debate, I intend to support and speak in favor of
amendments to address this very serious concern of mine. It ought to be
a serious concern of everyone here, since there a limited amount of
money that may be used.
Additionally, section 104 of the legislation creates a bonus
structure for States that enroll Medicaid-eligible children in their
State Medicaid programs. The idea is to reward States for covering
their poorest children. If a State increases its Medicaid income
eligibility levels, using the language in section 115, additional
children added to Medicaid would not be eligible for a bonus during the
first 3 fiscal years. However, at the beginning of the fourth fiscal
year, it is possible that States could receive a bonus for enrolling
higher income children in their State Medicaid programs.
Now, this provision simply does not make any sense. I urge my
colleagues to drop it once and for all. A State should not be rewarded
for covering a high-income child in its State Medicaid program,
especially when it is not going to be covering those who need to be
covered and should be covered.
Well, I have to admit, Senator Grassley and I went through a lot of
pain on this side, and in the House of Representatives, bringing people
together for the overwhelming votes that we did have in both the Senate
and the House, but especially here in the Senate on both CHIPRA I and
CHIPRA II.
Then, all of a sudden we find that since the Democrats have taken
over and now have a significant majority, they do not need Senator
Grassley and me anymore.
Now, my feelings are not hurt, I want you all to know that. But I am
disgusted with this process that is so partisan. I am particularly
upset because everybody in this body knows that I fought my guts out to
get the original

[[Page 1547]]

CHIP program through to begin with in 1997. And it would not have
happened had I not brought it up in the Finance Committee markup on the
Balanced Budget Act. In fact, it became the glue that put the first
balanced budget together in over 40 years.
So you can imagine why I feel the way I do. I know how badly Senator
Grassley feels. We are both conservatives, but we both worked our guts
out trying to bring about an effective approach, and it was effective
in CHIPRA I and CHIPRA II.
Unfortunately, in 2007, neither bill did not have enough votes to
override a veto. I think our President had very poor advice, and
anybody who looks at the mess this legislation is in right now, and the
lack of bipartisanship, will have to agree that we should have signed
into law either CHIPRA I or CHIPRA II. But then that is the past.
I hope my colleagues on the other side will recognize that some of us
worked hard to try and bring about effective legislation, taking on our
own administration, taking on wonderful friends on our own side, to
bring about legislation that would work a lot better than the bill
before us today. This bill, in my opinion, is going to lead to higher
costs and less coverage of children.
Why? What is the reasoning behind it? Well, unless there are
essential changes made to this legislation during the floor debate, I
will be voting against my own bill, and against the program I helped
create in 1997. It is sufficient to say that I am not only
disappointed, but I am angry. This entire debate has personally been
grievous to me, because it has now become a partisan exercise instead
of being about covering low-income, uninsured children, where we could
have had a wonderful bipartisan vote. We could have made this third
reauthorization bill a tremendous victory for the President.
Well, he may feel tremendous victory anyway, even though it is a
partisan one. But I do not look at it that way. To start out the year
on this note does not bode well for future health care discussions,
including health reform and the Medicare bill that we will be
considering this fall. In fact, one of the very first bills that the
President, who ran on a platform of bipartisanship and change, will
sign into law is going to be a partisan CHIP bill, produced as a result
of the same old Washington gamesmanship. That is pathetic when you
think about it, because we should be together on this bill, and a large
majority would have voted again for legislation similar to either
CHIPRA I or CHIPRA II.
I want to encourage the President and his colleagues to seriously
consider what they are doing. We were so close to working out a
bipartisan CHIP agreement and, in my opinion, I believe they are
missing an incredible bipartisan health care victory by making this a
partisan product. So I urge the President and my friends on the other
side--they are my friends--I urge them to reconsider this strategy. I
think we still have time to turn this around and make it the bipartisan
bill many of us would like it to be. Ensuring access to quality and
affordable care for Americans is not a Republican or Democratic issue,
it is an American issue. Our citizens expect nothing less than a
bipartisan, open, and inclusive process to address a challenge that
makes up 17 percent of our economy and will increase to 20 percent
within the next decade. A bipartisan CHIP bill would have been an
incredible step in that direction.
However, once again politics has triumphed over policy, Washington
over Main Street.
The famous novelist Alphonse Karr once said, ``The more things
change, the more they remain the same.'' There is no better proof of
this statement than this CHIP legislation. I continue to hope that the
change promised in this election did not have an expiration date of
January 20, 2009, but rather was a real and accountable promise to our
citizens. There is no better place to start this change than on this
CHIP bill by making it truly bipartisan.
Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Amendment No. 45 to Amendment No. 39

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for himself and Mr.
Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 45 to amendment No.
39.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit any Federal matching payment for Medicaid or CHIP
coverage of noncitizen children or pregnant women until a State
demonstrates that it has enrolled 95 percent of the children eligible
for Medicaid or CHIP who reside in the State and whose family income
does not exceed 200 percent of the poverty line)

On page 136, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
(c) Condition for Federal Matching Payments.--
(1) In general.--Section 1903(i) (42 U.S.C. 1396b(i)) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (23), by striking ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (24)(C), by striking the period and
inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (24)(C), the following:
``(25) with respect to amounts expended for medical
assistance for an immigrant child or pregnant woman under an
election made pursuant to paragraph (4) of subsection (v) for
any fiscal year quarter occurring before the first fiscal
year quarter for which the State demonstrates to the
Secretary (on the basis of the best data reasonably available
to the Secretary and in accordance with such techniques for
sampling and estimating as the Secretary determines
appropriate) that the State has enrolled in the State plan
under this title, the State child health plan under title
XXI, or under a waiver of either such plan, at least 95
percent of the children who reside in the State, whose family
income (as determined without regard to the application of
any general exclusion or disregard of a block of income that
is not determined by type of expense or type of income
(regardless of whether such an exclusion or disregard is
permitted under section 1902(r))) does not exceed 200 percent
of the poverty line (as defined in section 2110(c)(5)), and
who are eligible for medical assistance under the State plan
under this title or child health assistance or health
benefits coverage under the State child health plan under
title XXI.''.
(2) Application to chip.--Section 2107(e)(1)(E) (42 U.S.C.
1397gg(e)(1)(E)) (as amended by section 503(a)(1)) is amended
by striking ``and (17)'' and inserting ``(17), and (25)''.

Mr. HATCH. My amendment simply says that before a State may exercise
an option to provide CHIP and Medicare to legal immigrant children and
pregnant women, that State must demonstrate to the Secretary of Health
and Human Services that 95 percent of its children under 200 percent of
the Federal poverty level have been enrolled in either the State's
Medicaid program or the CHIP program.
The Secretary may make this determination based on the best data
available, and may use any technique necessary for sampling and
estimating the number of low-income, uninsured children in that State.
When legal immigrants enter this country, their sponsors agree, the
people who bring them in agree, to be responsible for their expenses
for the first 5 years they live in the United States.
The CHIP bill contains a provision which was added during the Finance
Committee consideration of the bill that negates that agreement by
allowing immediate health coverage of legal children and pregnant
women. This is the first reason I am offering this amendment.
The second reason is that there are U.S. children who are citizens of
this country who are low income and uninsured. They do not have health
insurance coverage. They qualify for Medicaid and CHIP too. I believe
these children should be our first priority as far as CHIP and Medicaid
coverage is concerned. They should be the priority. Once these children
have health coverage, then we can talk about expansions to other
populations.
I worked very closely with my Democratic colleagues on creating not
one but two bipartisan CHIP bills in 2007, CHIPRA I and CHIPRA II.
As I have explained, I voted against my President because I wanted
the CHIP program to be reauthorized in the bill we wrote. One of the
first

[[Page 1548]]

agreements that Senator Grassley and I made with Senators Baucus and
Rockefeller was that legal immigrant children would not be covered
under the CHIP program because their sponsors made a commitment to be
financially responsible for them for 5 years. That was even before we
started drafting CHIPRA I.
I simply cannot support a CHIP bill that allows States to cover legal
immigrant children while there are at least 6 million low-income
uninsured children, 200 percent of poverty and below, who do not have
health coverage and are eligible for CHIP and Medicare.
These children ought to be our first priority. My amendment ensures
the majority of these children have health coverage before we expand
CHIP and Medicaid eligibility to legal immigrants. I urge my colleagues
to support this amendment. It is a reasonable approach. It might have
the capacity of helping to bring some of us together in a more
bipartisan manner. I hope our colleagues will pay strict attention to
some of the things I have said because I believe I have earned the
right to be listened to on all aspects of the CHIP bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from
Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me compliment my friend, Senator
Hatch, for his longstanding work on behalf of the Children's Health
Insurance Program. He points out--and rightly so--that this legislation
was developed in a bipartisan manner, where Democrats and Republicans
worked together to establish a Federal program that allowed our States
to use their mechanism to cover children. That is where our difference
might be now. We are looking at reauthorization legislation. We are
looking at how we can make this program more effective, covering more
children, giving States the tools they need so children can be covered
under the CHIP program. The concerns my friend from Utah raises
basically would impede on State discretion. We have a national program
that is built upon allowing the States to implement and cover children.
Each State is different. The priorities among States are certainly
different. We need to give the States the tools they need so children
actually are covered effectively by this program.
The amendment my friend from Utah has offered would prohibit States
from covering legal immigrants and pregnant women. These are, in many
cases, people who have been here for a long time, hard-working, tax-
paying families, and they are playing according to the rules.
This restriction was imposed in 1996 by Congress. Since that time,
many of the restrictions that have been placed upon legal immigrants
have been removed. In this instance, what the committee is recommending
is to give the States the option of covering legal immigrants without
the 5-year wait period. It is not mandating it. It gives all States the
option, if they so desire, to cover. Currently, 23 States want to cover
these children.
The last time an amendment was offered and we tried to do away with
the prohibition on States, our Republican colleagues said: This
shouldn't be done as an independent issue. Why don't we take it up when
we reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program. That is where
it should come up. It should not come up on an unrelated bill. That is
exactly what we are doing.
This is the reauthorization bill for the Children's Health Insurance
Program. This is the time to correct what was done in 1996, in haste,
that in many other Federal programs we have already changed. This
allows the States to do it.
Many other issues my friend from Utah raised, I assume, will have
individual amendments to deal with them. But in most cases, it is the
issue of whether we are going to trust our States to run the program.
That was the compromise reached between Democrats and Republicans.
Quite frankly, there are more people on the Democratic side of the
aisle who wanted a stronger Federal presence. But our Republican
colleagues said: Let's build upon the State programs. That is what we
did in the compromise. That is why the Children's Health Insurance
Program has truly been a bipartisan bill.
The bill reported out by the committee is a bipartisan bill. So let
me talk for a few minutes about the importance of S. 275, the
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009. For
millions of children across America who are waiting for the
comprehensive health care coverage they need, this week could not have
come soon enough. There is a crisis in health care in this country. The
United States spends far more per capita than any other nation on
health care services. Yet our health status lags in many areas,
especially in preventable diseases. This is primarily because we have
so many Americans who lack coverage and a fragmented, inefficient
health care system that shifts costs onto those who are covered. This
is no longer a matter of whether we take action to achieve universal
health insurance but how.
We can begin, in the 111th Congress, by guaranteeing children access
to the care they need to grow into healthy adults. We can make great
strides by reauthorizing CHIP and covering millions of uninsured
children now.
Most uninsured Americans belong to working families. It is the CHIP
program, first established 12 years ago, that can provide children in
these families with affordable health insurance. As a Member of the
House, I voted for the bill that created CHIP. At the time, 37 million
Americans were uninsured. At the time, I did so with the hope that CHIP
would be the first step toward universal health coverage. Although we
did not reach the goal then, I believe we are on track to achieve it
this year. In the years since, more employers have dropped their
coverage. The number of uninsured has increased. Today the number
stands at 46 million and growing. I say ``growing'' because today's
headlines contain more grim news for our workforce. The New York Times
reported a staggering list of companies that announced job cuts on
Monday: Caterpillar, 20,000 jobs; Sprint-Nextel, 8,000 jobs; Home
Depot, 7,000 jobs; General Motors, 2,000 jobs; Texas Instruments, 3,400
jobs; Philips Electronics, 6,000 jobs.
Over the past year, more than 12.5 million Americans have lost their
jobs. Our unemployment rate is now 7.2 percent, the highest in 16
years. As President Obama said yesterday:

These are not just numbers. These are working men and women
whose families have been disrupted and whose dreams have been
put on hold.

Whenever we have a family who loses their job, in many cases, they
lose their health insurance. If they lose their health insurance, in
many cases, they lose their access to quality health care. The numbers
are increasing. In many cases, we have two working families. One person
loses their job which may cover the family, the other spouse has only
single coverage and can't get family coverage or doesn't have the money
to afford family coverage. This disrupts a family's ability to take
care of their own health care needs. We know CHIP works. Studies have
shown and proved that enrollment in CHIP improves the health care of
children. When previously uninsured children sign up for CHIP, they are
far more likely to get regular primary medical and dental care. They
are less likely to visit the emergency room for services that could be
rendered in a doctor's office. That saves us health care dollars. They
are more likely to receive immunizations and other services they need
to stay healthy and lead to healthier schools and communities. They are
more likely to get the prescription drugs they need to recover from
illness.
The best evidence of the program's success doesn't rest in studies or
surveys. It rests in the families themselves. The Bedford family from
Baltimore is a success story, one of millions of families in CHIP.
Craig and Kim Lee Bedford and their five children have testified on
Capitol Hill about the difference the Maryland CHIP program has made in
their lives. Mrs. Bedford said:

Perhaps the greatest impact the Maryland Children's Health
Insurance Program has had on our family is that we no longer
have

[[Page 1549]]

to make impossible health choices based on a financial
perspective. We no longer have to decide whether a child is
really sick enough to warrant a doctor's visit. We no longer
have to decide whether a child really needs a certain
medication prescribed by his pediatrician.

Mr. Bedford said:

The face of CHIP is families such as ours, families that
work hard, play by the rules, trying to live the American
dream.

So for the Bedford family and millions more, CHIP has been a success.
But there are still millions of children who have not enrolled in the
program offered by their States. Our State is making progress,
simplifying their enrollment procedures, expanding outreach efforts and
using joint applications for Medicaid and CHIP so families can enroll
together. The States are making progress, but as we reauthorize the
Children's Health Insurance Program, let's make sure we make real
progress.
Our bill will extend the program for 4.5 years and allow an
additional 4.1 million children nationwide to enroll. We have to get
this bill done.
I wish to talk about the MCHIP program, the Maryland State program.
It has one of the highest income eligibility thresholds in the Nation.
I know my colleagues have talked about this. This is needed because of
the high cost of living in our State. Eligibility is 300 percent of the
Federal poverty level, not because our Governor wants to move people
from private insurance to public insurance plans. It is at 300 percent
because working families at this income level do not have access to
affordable health insurance. That is the statistics in my State. Those
families need CHIP. This is a State option.
As to one point my friend from Utah mentioned, I don't think the
Federal Government should be prescriptive. Allow the States to figure
out what program works best. There are incentives to cover low-income
families. There are higher matches from the Federal Government, as it
should be. We should make sure the lower income families are covered
first, and we do under CHIP. Children under the age of 19 may be
eligible for MCHIP, if their family income is at or below 200 percent
of the Federal poverty level or up to $34,000 for a family of three.
Our program has been a true success. Enrollment has grown from about
38,000 enrollees in 1999 to more than 100,000 today. In Maryland, the
need has always exceeded available funds. We actually spend more money
than the Federal Government will give us. The Federal match through the
CHIP formula established in 1997 is not enough to meet all the costs of
the MCHIP program. Some States do not use their entire allotment, while
other States, such as Maryland, have expenditures that exceed their
allotment. Congress has addressed this problem by redistributing the
excesses of the States that have them to States that have shortfalls.
Now we must move forward for future years.
This is what we are doing on the floor of the Senate today. I thank
Chairman Baucus and Senator Rockefeller for their efforts on this bill.
This bill will allow us to continue to cover children and families with
incomes up to 300 percent of poverty. Maryland would also have access
to contingent funds, if a shortfall arises, and additional funds based
on enrollment gains. With this new money, Maryland can cover an
estimated 42,800 children who are currently uninsured over the next 5
years.
There is another important part of this bill I wish to talk about for
a moment, section 501. It hasn't gotten much attention, but it
certainly has received a lot of attention around the country. Section
501 ensures that dental care is a guaranteed benefit under CHIP. I
agree with my friend from Utah, we need to set standards at the
national level. Dental benefits must be included. According to the
American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, dental decay is the most
common chronic childhood disease among children. It affects 1 in 5
children between the ages of 2 and 4 and half of those between the ages
of 6 and 8. Children living in poverty suffer twice as much tooth decay
as middle- and upper-income children. Nearly 40 percent of Black
children have untreated tooth decay in their permanent teeth. More than
10 percent of the Nation's rural population has never visited a
dentist. More than 25 million people live in areas that lack adequate
dental services.
Next month will mark 2 years since a young man from suburban Maryland
named Deamonte Driver passed away. He was 12 years old, when he died in
February of 2007 from an untreated tooth abscess. His mother tried to
access the system, tried to get him to a dentist. What was needed was
an $80 tooth extraction. Because of the failure of the system to cover
his services, an inability to get to a dentist, Deamonte ended up in an
emergency room. A quarter of a million dollars was spent in emergency
surgeries. He lost his life in the United States in 2007.
This bill will do something about it by covering oral health care, as
it should. Deamonte's death has shown us that, as C. Everett Koop once
said, ``There is no health without oral health.'' No children should
ever go without dental care. I have said before, I hoped that Deamonte
Driver's death will serve as a wake-up call for Congress. Section 501
of this bill shows that it has. We must never forget that behind all
the data about enrollment and behind every CBO estimate, there are real
children who need care.
When I spoke about Deamonte Driver after his death, I urged my
colleagues to ensure that the CHIP reauthorization bill we send to the
President includes guaranteed dental coverage. This bill does include
guaranteed dental coverage. It also provides ways in which families
will have a better understanding of the need for oral health care. It
also provides ways in which families can access dentists who will treat
them under either the CHIP program or the Medicaid Program.
This legislation is a major step forward on dental care. We need to
do more. I want to acknowledge the work particularly of Senators
Bingaman and Snowe on oral health care. They have been real champions
in this body in moving forward on these types of legislation.
This bill will also require GAO to study and report on access to
dental services by children in underserved areas, access to oral health
care through Medicaid and CHIP, and how we can use midlevel dental
health providers in coordination with dentists to improve access to
dental care for children. The results of this study will give us the
information we need to further improve coverage.
We still have to raise reimbursement for dental providers, and send
grants to the States to allow them to offer wraparound coverage for
those who have basic health insurance but no dental insurance. But
these provisions are an excellent start.
After two vetoes of a bipartisan CHIP bill by the former President, I
am so pleased to stand here today on the floor of the Senate and
express my strong support for S. 275. This is the week in which we can
make progress in covering people in this country, particularly our
children, with health insurance. One week after the inauguration of
President Obama, we are poised to move this bill through the Congress
and to his desk so it can finally become law.
I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation, as we
start down the path to universal health coverage for all Americans.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

Amendment No. 43 to Amendment No. 39

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside, and I call up amendments Nos. 42, 43, and 44,
and ask for their immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I do object. The reason, quite frankly, is
that we have worked out with the Republican leader that we would have
three amendments pending. We have those three amendments pending. I
think it is important we have an opportunity to act on those three
amendments. We certainly look forward to other opportunities where my
colleague will be

[[Page 1550]]

able to offer the amendment, but at this point I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from South Carolina retains the floor.
Mr. DeMINT. Thank you, Mr. President. I do not intend to speak on
them, so we would not use any time. I think it is important we have
amendments pending so our colleagues will have ample time to review
them.
I would ask the Senator to reconsider. Again, I am not going to speak
on them. I only want them pending so we can distribute them and people
can begin to see what is in them.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield?
Mr. DeMINT. Yes.
Mr. CARDIN. We would be pleased to allow the Senator to call up
amendment No. 43 but not the entire list of amendments the Senator
sought.
Mr. DeMINT. I appreciate the benevolence, and I would hope the
Senator would agree that all of these amendments at some point can be
made pending in the debate.
But I will call up only amendment No. 43 right now.
Mr. CARDIN. To point out to my friend, we already have three
amendments that are pending, and we are hoping to make progress, and we
want to get votes on these amendments. I will not raise an objection to
setting aside the amendment for the sole purpose of offering amendment
No. 43.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an
amendment numbered 43 to amendment No. 39.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require States to impose cost-sharing for any individual
enrolled in a State child health plan whose income exceeds 200 percent
of the poverty line)

At the appropriate place, add the following:

SEC. __. REQUIRED COST-SHARING FOR HIGHER INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

Section 2103(e) (42 U.S.C. 1397cc(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ``and (2)'' and
inserting ``, (2), and (5)'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``Nothing'' and inserting
``Except as provided in paragraph (5), nothing''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Required cost-sharing for higher income
individuals.--Subject to paragraphs (1)(B) and (2), a State
child health plan shall impose premiums, deductibles,
coinsurance, and other cost-sharing (regardless of whether
such plan is implemented under this title, title XIX, or
both) for any targeted low-income child or other individual
enrolled in the plan whose family income exceeds 200 percent
of the poverty line in a manner that is consistent with the
authority and limitations for imposing cost-sharing under
section 1916A.''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. DeMINT. Thank you, Mr. President.
Obviously, I am disappointed in the process. It is important we let
our colleagues know what amendments will be offered so we can begin to
discuss them; and many times we have the opportunity to work these
things out, improve them before debate. Unfortunately, many times in
the past we have seen where the majority pushes the bringing up of
these amendments to the very end and then says we do not have time to
debate them. I hope that will not occur this time.
I have three good amendments. The one I just brought up I will not
speak on at this point but will mention the subject of that amendment.
It is a cost-sharing arrangement with the States that for all
recipients of SCHIP over 200 percent of poverty the States are required
to ask for some small cost-sharing with people who use this insurance.
It is important that we look at this as a program that, hopefully, will
move people from a Government-sponsored plan to eventually a private
plan, with our goal being every American is eventually insured with a
policy they can own and afford and keep.
So this would work with the States to require a small cost-sharing
arrangement with the beneficiaries who are 200 percent of poverty or
more, and it would not be more than 5 percent of income, and States can
charge as little as they would like. But the whole point is to begin to
encourage personal responsibility and to let people know this is not a
permanent giveaway but something they need to participate in.
I look forward to discussing this amendment in more detail along with
my other amendments sometime in the future. But right now, Mr.
President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise at this moment to review, in a
summary form, pertinent aspects of the legislation. I know we are going
to be having a debate on various parts of this bill that have been the
subject of a lot of conflict in the last couple of days. But I think it
is very important we kind of get back to the basics to talk about why
we are here.
We are not here to only debate several provisions of this
legislation. We are here to debate, in a larger sense, whether we are
going to pass a children's health insurance bill this year, this month,
or not. That is the fundamental debate we are having. We had the
opportunity, in 2007, in a bipartisan way, here in the Senate to
achieve a rare and, frankly, unprecedented bipartisan agreement on a
significant piece of legislation, the result of which would have been,
over a 5-year period of time, to insure 10 million American children.
I am not sure any other generation of Americans has had that
opportunity. We had a bipartisan consensus in the Senate. It approached
70 votes--in the high sixties--every time it was voted on; a veto-proof
number of votes, a majority. It went to the House, of course. The House
debated it, and they had an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House.
It went to President Bush, and he vetoed it twice. Then it came back
for an override, and we were able to override it in the Senate, but in
the House they fell short. That is where we are. So because of the
actions of President Bush, that bill never became law.
Now we are back to debating whether this Congress is going to provide
health insurance to not just 10 million--it is now 10.6 million--
American children. We are either going to do it or we are not. All this
other stuff is interesting to debate, and we will continue to debate
it, but we are either going to do it or we are not.
Let me give you one example of what this means. Forget all the
numbers for a second and all the programs and all the quibbling about
some point of conflict. We will address those issues today, and I will
as well. But let's get back to the basics: what this legislation means
to a family.
For example, as a result of this legislation, if we do our job here
and get this legislation passed, and if the House does its job and
passes this legislation, millions of American children will have the
opportunity for all kinds of good health care provisions, a lot of them
preventive in nature.
We have a lot of discussions in this body where people talk about the
workforce and growing the economy and building a stronger skilled
workforce in the future. None of that means much unless you are going
to do this, OK. A child will not develop, they will not achieve in
school, and they will not be productive members of our workforce unless
we pass legislation such as the children's health insurance bill.
I will give you one example: well-child visits. Anyone who knows
anything about child development--I do not consider myself in any way
an expert on this issue; others may--but we all know, as parents--
forget legislators or experts--it is as parents we know how important
it is to have a child go to the doctor a couple times, at a minimum,
several times in their first year of life. It is a key time for parent
and physician to communicate. Doctors recommend six visits in the first
year of a child's life.
Now, with this legislation we have an opportunity to guarantee that
millions

[[Page 1551]]

more children will see a doctor six times in their first year of life.
That is something we ought to do.
They get a complete physical exam. Height, weight, and other
developmental milestones are mentioned. Hearing and vision are checked.
Important topics, such as normal development, nutrition, sleep, safety,
infectious diseases, and all kinds of other issues, are discussed;
general preventive care.
Now, if we allow some of these discussions and debates today to bog
this down and not get it passed in a bipartisan way, what we are
preventing is, among other things, millions of children getting this
care. It is as simple as that. So those who are going to use these
other things to put them in the way as impediments or obstacles, to
block this legislation, should be reminded and the American people
should be reminded what they are stopping. This is not complicated. It
is whether millions of children are going to have health insurance; and
one aspect of that care or that health insurance is a well-child visit.
The other point I want to make in the early going today is there is a
good bit of mythology that surrounds this legislation, and sometimes
facts are not put on the table. This is mostly a question of whether
working families are going to have health insurance. There is a
frustration now that so many families are living with the loss of a
job, the loss of a home, the loss of their livelihood and, therefore,
their hopes and their dreams.
The least the Senate should do, in the midst of what is arguably the
worst economic circumstance in more than a generation--maybe the worst
economy we have faced since the 1930s; we can debate all that, but it
is bad out there, it is real bad for families--the least we could do is
to say, we may not have solved the larger health care challenge, we may
not have fully debated all the aspects of health care we are going to
debate and I hope we can vote on, but at least we can take an existing
program that we know works, that is battle tested, that has results for
15 years now--my home State of Pennsylvania; when my father served as
Governor, he signed this into law, which was the first big State to do
it. He knew it worked. He knew it worked then, and he supported it
strongly. It has worked in Pennsylvania. We have over 180,000 kids
covered. This legislation would increase that to the point we could
almost cover every child in the State, for example.
But in the midst of this economy, the least the Senate should do is
say: We may not have solved all of our economic trouble, we may not
have even solved significant aspects of our health care challenge, but
the minimum--the minimum--this Senate and this Congress and this
administration should do is get this done, and get it done now.
All these other debates are interesting and important, but, frankly,
some of them are academic in nature. I know they have risen to the
level of conflict, and I know the media likes to report on conflict.
That is their job. But a lot of them, compared to the gravity of what
is at stake here, are academic, in my judgment. And I think for some--
not everyone but for some--they are deliberately calculated to stop
this legislation, deliberately so. I hate to say that, but it is the
way I feel. We are getting down to the details now of getting this
done, and we have to be blunt and direct.
So we are going to have debates about parts of this legislation, but
at the end of the day the question is whether the Senate is going to
provide millions more children with health care. That is the question.
All this other stuff does not amount to or does not rise to that level.
They may be important debates, but they do not rise to that level.
One more point, and I will yield because I know we have colleagues
waiting.
Seventy-eight percent of children covered by CHIP are from working
families--working families. I will get into some of the other aspects
as well. But at this time I will yield the floor because I know we have
colleagues waiting.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wish to ask the Senator from
Pennsylvania a couple questions, if he might be so kind as to respond.
Your earlier statement was without this, children will not develop,
children will not become productive members of our society.
Having taken care of 4,000 infants and done well child exams on them,
what is the number of children out there who are not getting vision and
hearing screens right now?
Mr. CASEY. Well, I don't have a number on them.
Mr. COBURN. The number is zero because every one of them is tested.
Mr. CASEY. Let me finish.
Mr. COBURN. I control the time.
Mr. CASEY. Let me finish the answer. If we do not pass this--if we
don't pass this, those children won't get that preventive care. It is
as simple as that.
Mr. COBURN. That is simply not true.
Mr. CASEY. How are they going to get preventive care?
Mr. COBURN. They are going to get preventive care, and let me tell my
colleagues how. What is the number of children who are not getting
preventive care in the first 6 months of life right now? We don't know
that number, and that is exactly the problem.
Here is the point: Every one of us wants children to get health care.
It is not about wanting children to get health care.
Mr. CASEY. This is the way to do it.
Mr. COBURN. The fact is, we have an SCHIP program now and a Medicaid
Program right now where we have 5.4 million kids who are eligible and
who are not enrolled.
What we are doing is exactly the opposite of what President Obama
stated we should be doing. He stated that we should be being
responsible. I would contend that one of the areas of being responsible
is to make sure programs work. When we have a program where last year,
on average, 5.5 million kids were covered and another 5.4 million kids
who were eligible weren't covered, I would tell my colleagues that
program isn't working very well. It is not working. So what have we
done? We have expanded the eligibility with this bill.
The debate over how we cover all the rest of Americans--we will have
that debate, and I am sure we are going to have that debate this year.
But the fact that 51 percent of the eligible children under the
programs we have now, under the requirements we have now, are covered
means 49 percent aren't. In this bill is a measly little $100 million
to try to expand the enrollment of those kids who are already eligible.
I would think the average American out there who does have insurance
or who may not have insurance might say: Well, why don't you make the
program you have today work? We would have more kids covered than this
bill will totally cover if we just made the requirements that the
States and Medicaid directors throughout do the outreach to get the
kids who are eligible.
The fact is, most of the poor women in this country--up to 300
percent right now--deliver under either title XIX or Medicaid. Their
children are covered the first year of life. They are not going to miss
the first well child visit. As a matter of fact, they are the ones--the
biggest problem we have is getting the people who have coverage to be
responsible and to bring their kids in. It is not about coverage; it is
about responsibility--the very thing our new President said we need to
reach up to and grab.
The other point that has to be brought forward in this debate is
there is a lack of integrity with this bill. Let me tell my colleagues
what it is. I do not doubt this Senator's integrity whatsoever. He is a
friend of mine. When he speaks, he speaks from the heart. But when we
manipulate the numbers and we drop a program from $13 billion to $8
billion in the last year of the first 5 years of its authorization so
we don't have to meet the requirements of living within our means, and
then we transfer $13.2 billion so we lower the baseline--this is all
inside baseball--what, in fact, we are doing is we are lying to the
American people to the tune of $41.3 billion. That is what CBO says.
That is what CBO says in a

[[Page 1552]]

letter to Paul Ryan, the ranking member on the Budget Committee in the
House, that, in fact, because we manipulated the numbers, because we
cheated with the numbers, that it is actually going to cost $41.2
billion or $41.3 billion more than what we are saying it is going to
cost.
Why is that important? Because we have decided to pay for this with
one of the most regressive taxes toward poor people that we can. The
consequence is that we are going to tax them and then we are going to
wink and nod to the rest of the American public to say: This $41.2
billion, oh, don't worry about it; we are going to fudge the rules; we
are not going to play the game honestly and with integrity. There is
not going to be change you can believe in because the Senate's bill
winks and nods at $41 billion. We all know that is there. We all know
that is the only way they can do it to where it is scored in terms of
pay-go.
So what we did is we paid attention to the numbers but not to the
integrity behind the numbers. So the American taxpayer in some way or
another will take on, from 2014 to 2019, an additional $41 billion.
That is not change, folks, regardless of how good our goal is,
regardless that every Member of this body wants to see kids who don't
have care covered. Every Member wants to see that. We don't want the
first child, we want every American covered--every American covered.
But to do that under the guise of ``integrity in our numbers'' puts us
right back into the same problems that got us into the deep financial
problems we have today.
Let's be honest. Let's talk about what this bill really costs, what
we know it would cost if we didn't play a game with the numbers, and
what we could do to offset some of the programs President Obama says
need to be eliminated so we can do the things that are good. There is
not one attempt in this bill to do that. As a matter of fact, there is
an attempt to cover non-U.S. citizens at the expense of U.S. citizens
in this bill.
So basically we are going to keep a 9-percent approval rating because
we are not going to earn the trust of the American people about being
honest about what something really costs. I want to tell my colleagues,
that undermines the whole debate. It sends us on a track to where we
are going to be a Third World country because we won't even be honest
about what things really cost. There is nothing wrong with having an
honest debate about what this bill really costs, but to deceive the
American people on what this bill actually costs--actually costs and
will actually cost them--it is not going to cost us; it is going to
actually cost them. It is going to cost them in terms of a lower
standard of living and less opportunity.
Let's get honest about what it really costs, and it really costs
$41.2 billion more than what we say it is going to cost. Let's do the
hard work. If the bill is such that the Senator from Pennsylvania
thinks it is absolutely necessary so children will develop, so children
will become productive, isn't it worth getting rid of things that don't
make kids develop and don't make them productive? Isn't it worth us
taking the heat to get rid of programs that aren't effective so we can
actually pay for this? Instead, we are in essence lying to the American
public about the true cost of this bill. That is what has to stop.
The integrity of those who want to do this is fine. The integrity of
the numbers stinks. For us to say we are for children and have that
honorable position that we are for children, but at the same time we
want to undermine the faith in this place so they can't believe us in
the future because we are going to charge them $41.2 billion more than
it actually costs says a whole lot about us.
Every child should have an opportunity for health care. Every child
should have prevention. Every child should get a hearing screen and a
vision screen as we do now at every newborn nursery in this country.
Every child should get their immunizations at every opportunity when
they encounter--first at 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and a
year, their first year of life. The whole purpose for that screening is
to see if development is not normal.
The Senator from Maryland talked about the mandated oral health care
in this bill. The mandated oral health care in this bill is a direct
consequence of one of our other programs to help people. It is called
food stamps. When we look at the mix of food stamps, what do we see? We
see a high predilection for high-fructose corn syrup in the foods that
we use food stamps to buy which causes the very dental caries we are
fighting. So do we fix the real problem or do we treat the symptoms? We
ought to be about fixing the real problems. So if we want to do and
mandate oral health care in this bill, why don't we put a limitation on
the high-fructose corn syrup products and high-glucose products that
are the No. 1 cause of the dental caries the kids are having? An ounce
of prevention is worth a pound of cure. But we didn't do that.
We didn't come forward with a total plan on health care, which is the
whole problem as we try to expand this bill to meet a need. What we
need to do--and I think the Senator from Pennsylvania agrees--is we
need to reform all of health care. It needs to be based on prevention.
It needs to be based on prevention. It needs to be based on teaching
and preventing disease rather than treating disease.
My hope is that when we come through this, whatever we do, win or
lose--whether my side wins or the other side wins--what should happen
is Americans should win. The American people should win. What that
means is an honest debate about the numbers--not a game with the
numbers, an honest debate about the numbers--and what it really means
is an honest debate about what the real problems are and not about
things that aren't the real problems.
We have plenty of money in health care. We don't need to increase
spending in health care. What we need to do is redirect the spending
that is there. We spent $2.28 trillion last year on health care. Thirty
percent of that money didn't go to help anybody get well or prevent
anybody from getting sick. That is $600 billion. If we would look at it
and say prevention is going to be No. 1, and No. 2 is going to be every
American insured, we could go a long way toward solving this problem.
Unfortunately, however, we have chosen to start off the new SCHIP by
trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American taxpayer, by
playing funny numbers. Why would we leave that out there? Why would we
do that? It lessens the integrity of the debate. It lessens the quality
of the work product we put forward. It undermines the very thing we
need most from the American people, which is their confidence that we
are doing what is in the best long-term interests of the country. This
bill isn't in the best long-term interests of the country. The bill
doesn't address the needs of the Medicaid populations out there today
who aren't served who could be served if, in fact, we should mandate
that the States go and do it. But we have chosen not to do that. We
have chosen to expand up the chain before we fix the problems down the
chain. We have chosen to take dollars and give them to those who are
more fortunate instead of spending dollars on the people who are the
least fortunate in this country, all in the name of a movement to close
in ultimately on a single-payer health system. Let's have the debate
about single-payer health system.
One final point I will make before I yield to my friend from North
Carolina, and that is this: The most important thing after access is
choice. We know what. Medicaid offers little choice. SCHIP offers
little choice. The reason is because we have a payment system that
rewards specialty and doesn't reward primary care. It started with
Medicare, and it has worked its way through Medicaid. So our average
pediatrician in this country makes about a fourth of what the average
surgeon does or about a fourth of what the average gastroenterologist
makes, and we ask ourselves: Why can't we get more pediatricians? Our
average family practitioner makes a little bit more

[[Page 1553]]

than that, but not much, and we ask ourselves: Why can't we get people
out there into primary care? Our average internist makes just a little
bit more but still about a fourth of what the specialists make because
we have decided to pay it. Who is going to take care of them? Let me
tell you who is going to take care of them: PAs and nurse
practitioners. Some are excellent, some are great, but none of them
have the training of a physician. We are slowly walking to a health
care area where we are going to tell people you have coverage, but the
coverage is you do not have choice and you do not have the same level
of care because we have not chosen the priorities of compensating
primary care, compensating pediatricians, compensating pediatric
dentistry, compensating internists to care for these kids.
Choice is the most important thing, and the reason is because if a
mother is taking her child to a health care professional in which she
does not have confidence, do you know what happens? She doesn't do what
they say.
As we eliminate choice, which is what happens in SCHIP and Medicaid
because so few physicians take it because the reimbursement rate is so
low, we eliminate the doctor-patient relationship in establishing the
confidence necessary to make sure, as the Senator from Pennsylvania
said, that these kids will develop, that they will become productive.
The idea behind this whole program is we have taken away the most
important attribute of consequences of care, and that is confidence in
the provider.
I yield to my colleague from North Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I know our colleague from North Carolina
has been waiting. I wish to make a couple brief points and come back to
them. Our colleague has been waiting.
The Senator from Oklahoma makes a number of interesting points. Some
of them are going to be the subject of even more debate. I will make a
couple brief points about the question of enrollment and, therefore,
outreach.
One of the biggest problems with the veto and the blockage of the
children's health insurance legislation in 2007 was we did not have the
resources to do the kind of outreach, to enroll those who are eligible
but not enrolled. We would have gotten as many as 3.3 million more
eligible kids had the 2007 bill not been blocked. Point No. 1 on
outreach.
This bill, in fact, has steps to improve enrollment. In fact, it
provides bonuses if States do a better job of enrolling children. We
will get back to that in a moment.
The point about single payer that the Senator made, we are going to
have a lot of debate about philosophy on health care overall and where
this whole health care debate is going to go. That statement is
premature or unrelated to what we are doing today.
What we are doing today is talking about whether we are going to pass
the children's health insurance bill, not some new program but a
program that has been tested. We want to add millions more children to
that program.
The final point--and I know our colleague has been waiting--is the
question of choice. The Senator from Oklahoma made a point about what
choices people will have if they are enrolled, if families are enrolled
in SCHIP, Medicaid or any other program of its kind. The problem for a
lot of families right now is not that they are lacking in choice of
options; the problem for a lot of families, if their children are not
enrolled, is they have no choice, they have no health insurance at all,
except if they want to go to the emergency room, which is bad for the
economy and bad for that family because it is usually too late in the
game, so to speak, to get the kind of preventive care or to mitigate a
problem.
For a lot of families right now, this is not a question of choices.
They have no choice because they have no health insurance. I will come
back to this point, but I wish to yield for my colleague from North
Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania. I do
not wish to dwell on what he said, but let me make this point. He said
we are not here to talk about the bigger health care piece. From the
standpoint of the bill, he is exactly right. This is another attempt to
grow the size of a Federal Government program to include more Americans
in it without taking on the tough task of debating how we fix health
care in this country; and what are the reforms that have to take place
so every American has the opportunity to be insured.
Let me cite some facts about the Baucus bill. The Baucus bill spends
$34 billion over 5 years. Actually, it might spend more than that based
on CBO. It increases the number of enrollees in SCHIP by 5.7 million
children. By the way, 2 million of those children are currently covered
under their parents' insurance. Let me say that again. We are spending
$34 billion over 5 years to increase enrollment in SCHIP by 5.7 million
children, and 2 million of them are already covered under their
parents' health care insurance.
When our benefit gets bigger, when it becomes even more inclusive,
what happens? We say to the American people: Why should you pay for it?
We have a government program to cover your children instead.
There is an alternative, and it has already been offered in one of
the first three amendments. It is the McConnell amendment, Kids First.
It spends $19.3 billion over the same 5 years. It enrolls 3.1 million
new kids. For $19.3 billion, we get 3.1 million kids, and for $34
billion over 5 years, we only get 3.7 million new kids when you
consider the 2 million that are already insured. The American taxpayers
ought to ask us: For the additional 600,000 kids who are uninsured
today whom we would be pulling in under the Baucus bill, what does it
cost them per child? The answer is $4,000.
Having just had a son who reached an age in college that he can no
longer be under my insurance, I was amazed when I tried to get this
college senior insurance. Naturally, I turned to the Federal Government
I work for and said: Surely you have a plan already in place for my
child and the other 2 million Government workers who might fall into
this classification.
They said: We certainly do. We have negotiated with the same
insurance company for the same coverage that your son was under when he
was covered by you.
What is the annual cost of that? I said to the Office of Personnel
Management.
They said: $5,400 a year. Mr. President, $5,400 a year. The
Government negotiated for my 22-year-old, healthy-as-a-bull son to be
covered under the same insurance plan he had before.
What did I do? I picked up the phone. I called the university. I
said: Surely you have plans for kids whose insurance runs out. They
said: We certainly do. We have it with this company, it is this plan.
It was the exact same coverage I had as a Federal employee. I asked the
magical question I would ask anybody: How much does it cost per year?
The answer: $1,500. One phone call and I saved $3,000 for a 22-year-
old, healthy-as-a-bull college senior because I no longer let the
Federal Government be a part of his health care decisions. I took him
out. For $1,500, my son was covered. For every year under that 22 years
of age, an amazing thing happens. Children get cheaper to cover. They
get cheaper to cover because they are less likely to have serious
illnesses.
The most likely period of illness for somebody under 18 is what Dr.
Coburn referred to, the first year of life. That is why we make sure
that in that first year of life, every kid gets the exams they need to
make sure they are on the path to not only a successful life but a
healthy life.
One should not be amazed to find out that the average cost for
insuring someone under 18 years old is about $1,200 a year for full
health coverage, compared to $4,000 under the Baucus bill. But what are
we debating here today? This was the part, from my colleague's earlier
statement: If we allow discussions and debates to bog us down, then
this is a huge mistake. That is what he said.

[[Page 1554]]

We are having a discussion and a debate about what the American
taxpayers are willing to pay for a benefit. We all agree the SCHIP
program should be expanded. But some of us believe we ought to have the
bigger debate now about how we fix the American health care system. How
do we walk away from the Senate Chamber confident that every American
has the opportunity to have a health insurance policy?
But, no, we have decided not to do that. We have decided to take one
little piece--kids. Why? Because every American wants to do something
for children. I want to do it. But I am also inclined to do the right
thing for kids, not just anything for kids.
It was said earlier that this was a bipartisan bill. Let me point out
for my colleagues and for those paying attention to this debate, when
this legislation passed the Finance Committee, it got one Republican
vote. I am not sure that is the bipartisan measurement tool President
Obama said he needed when he was sworn in as our 44th President. As a
matter of fact, he is aggressively coming to the Hill in about 1 hour
to meet with Republicans to talk about the stimulus package because he
does not want a stimulus package to just barely pass. He wants
overwhelming bipartisan support. But bipartisan support was just
defined here as when one Republican votes with every Democrat to pass a
bill.
An amazing thing, if you look back to 2007--excuse me, 2008, I think
it was--when a bipartisan SCHIP bill did come out of the Finance
Committee. The ranking member voted for it, and the second highest
ranking Republican in seniority voted for it. They came to the floor
and spoke on it. Chairman Baucus--it was his bill. There was bipartisan
support. So, what happened this year? Why didn't we start with the
bipartisan bill we had last year? They took everything Senator
Grassley, everything Senator Hatch incorporated into the bipartisan
bill, and they ran right over them. They threw it out. If you see
something on the floor in the Senate today, it is road kill. That is
where Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch were thrown aside. Not in an
effort to reach bipartisanship, but in an effort to be prescriptive as
to exactly what SCHIP said and who it covered.
Make no mistake about it, when Senator Chuck Grassley comes to the
floor--and every Senator in this Chamber understands it--and says that
when you strike the 5-year waiting period before legal immigrants can
get benefits, you have now opened the insurance program to new legal
immigrants to America who have a responsibility, which is accepted by
their sponsor, to make sure they do not accept Federal Government
benefits. In other words, they are not at the taxpayer trough for at
least 5 years.
What did we do with that important legal safeguard in this bill? We
discarded it. We said: No, we will let you at the taxpayer trough. We
will let you there on day one, even though when you came into the
country you and your sponsor said: I will not do that for 5 years.
Not only did we do that, we actually threw away the verification that
they are legal. We no longer under SCHIP will require a photo ID of
somebody who walks in to be enrolled in SCHIP. All we say is you have
to have a name and you have to have a Social Security number, one of
which can be made up, the other of which can be bought. It is an
amazing thing. We see it every day.
We have had every sort of immigration debate on this Senate floor. We
are building a wall along the border today because there is an
immigration problem. Yet we have now said: You know what, let's forget
about that part about sponsorship when you come to this country
legally. Let's forget about the obligation that your sponsor had to
make sure that for 5 years they were there for the financial assistance
you needed. And, oh, by the way, in case there are folks out there who
might not be here legally, let's not require them to show a photo ID to
make sure the person who is in line matches the name they gave us and
matches the Social Security number that was provided.
What we have done is we have opened a tremendous loophole. I am all
for making sure, as I said earlier and Dr. Coburn has said, we want to
make sure every American has health insurance. I am not trying to cut
anybody out.
But if we want to target those people who are here legally for under
5 years, or those people, for heavens' sake, who are here illegally,
then we should integrate them into a health care system that works.
Today, cost shifting alone in the American health care system costs
$200 billion a year. If we are talking about having a debate on health
care, let's talk about how to eliminate that $200 billion that doesn't
go to prevention, doesn't go to wellness, doesn't go to insurance
coverage. It goes to a big black hole that doesn't deliver health care
to any American.
As I stated, this is not a debate about health care reform. It is a
debate about growing a Federal Government program.
The SCHIP statistics: 7.4 million children were enrolled in SCHIP in
2008, a 4-percent increase over 2007. Yet, if you look at the devil in
the details, there were only 5.5 million enrolled on average per month;
7.4 million total enrolled, 5.5 million on average throughout the year.
And 5.4 million additional people are eligible for Medicaid or for
SCHIP in this country and are not enrolled. Exactly what Dr. Coburn
said earlier to my good friend from Pennsylvania. We have 5.4 million
children who, today, are eligible for Medicaid or for SCHIP but are not
enrolled.
I remember when Dr. Coburn and I held up the President's PEPFAR bill,
when we were talking about an increase in funding from $15 billion to
$50 billion for AIDS treatment in Africa. There was only one thing,
when they increased substantially this amount of money for the program,
they also dropped the requirement that 50 percent of the funds actually
be used to treat people living with AIDS or HIV disease. They said we
would leave that up to the NGOs implementing the program.
In other words, the NGOs said: To get any further into the population
of people who have HIV and AIDS, that is going to be really tough.
Rather than attempt to do something tough, we were going to lift the
requirement that 50 percent of the money had to be spent on medical
treatment.
So, what are we doing here? Now we have gotten to the SCHIP
population that is tough--5.4 million kids who are eligible for
Medicaid, eligible for SCHIP but are not enrolled. What are we saying?
OK, States, we know it is tough to get to that 5.4 million kids so we
are going to allow you to expand the pool you are able to solicit for
this program. We are going to increase the percentage of Federal
poverty that you are going to be able to include in this program--and I
might say this to my good friend Senator Ben Cardin, who served in the
House with me, not only did I vote for this program, I helped craft the
first SCHIP bill. I remember the laborious days when we sat trying to
figure out exactly how to structure it, a program that was designed for
States to run, for us to target those kids in America whose families
did not have enough income to afford health care for them but had too
much income to be eligible for Medicaid. It was targeted specifically
at the families who were over 100 percent of the Federal poverty level
but under 200 percent of the Federal poverty level.
That may be Greek to a lot of folks, so let me point out: At 200
percent of the Federal poverty level for a family of four, a person
earns $44,000. Now we are up to 300 percent of poverty in SCHIP and 300
percent of poverty is $66,000 a year. But there is an exception,
because New Jersey currently has a waiver to go up to 350 percent of
the Federal poverty level in SCHIP. That puts them at $77,175, for a
family of four.
What about the Baucus bill? The Baucus bill also allows, for New
Jersey and New York, the ability to go up to 400 percent of poverty--
$88,200 a year for a family of four.
For God's sake, do not lecture me on what SCHIP was designed to try
to do in this country. We are leaving 5.4 million kids behind today who
currently

[[Page 1555]]

are eligible, and then you tell me there is some rational reason why we
should roll over and pass something without a debate that increases the
eligibility from where I had it targeted at $44,000 a year and raise it
up to $88,200 a year. Why do others think we need to increase the
eligibility? It is simple. Because it is too hard to reach the 5.4
million children who are below 200 percent or 300 percent of poverty
who are eligible but not enrolled today in this country.
On another topic, the Medicaid FMAP in this country ranges from 50
percent to 75.9 percent with a ceiling of 83 percent, meaning that is
how much the Federal Government gives to the States for our portion of
their Medicaid payment. SCHIP offers a higher Federal match than
Medicaid. The SCHIP match ranges from 65 to 83.1 with a ceiling of 85
percent.
If you listened to me list the numbers, I think you can figure out
what is going on, on the Senate floor today. Why do some want to
increase the eligibility limits? It is because, for some States under
Medicaid, they get a 50-percent match, but under SCHIP they get a 65-
percent match. So, you want to expand SCHIP eligibility because then
the Federal Government is picking up 15 percent more of the tab. Why
wouldn't some want the parameters of SCHIP to increase if we are
letting the State off the hook for 15 percent of the cost they are
obligated to cover?
As a matter of fact, in full disclosure, let me say that in North
Carolina our SCHIP match rate is 74.8 percent, and our North Carolina
Medicaid match rate is 64.6 percent.
I think it is important also to remind my colleagues that in the
Baucus bill, even though it limits the SCHIP match rate to children and
families below 300 percent of poverty, it still does allow Medicaid to,
in fact, wrap around that. I call it the Medicaid sandwich. Medicaid
covers people up to 100 percent of poverty, SCHIP fills in right here,
and then Medicaid goes back right on top.
I am not sure there is a rational, sane person in the world who would
design the health care system we currently have. Yet we are on the
Senate floor today, and we will be here tomorrow and the next day and
we will probably be here the entire week, and we are here trying to
rationalize why this program needs to be reauthorized in its current
form, why we should drop things that have been bipartisan in the past
so we can increase the enrollment size to include somebody here legally
but under sponsorship, or people here illegally but who want to be
covered. We are here to debate whether the eligibility parameters
should be increased.
I return to my colleague from Pennsylvania, to another one of his
quotes. He said ``all this stuff doesn't rise to the level.'' Well, I
believe it does. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. But I believe
this stuff does rise to the level of Senate debate. I believe it rises
to the level of public disclosure.
The American people look at SCHIP. And I might note, Mr. President,
we had this debate last year as we got ready for reauthorization, when
all of a sudden SCHIP dropped the ``S.'' I noticed, with the first two
speakers on the majority side today, that everything refers to the CHIP
program. I assume I have not picked up the provision in this bill yet
that eliminates this as a ``State'' program, and now it is going to be
only the ``Children's Health Insurance Program,'' run by the Federal
Government, administered by the Federal Government, and the States will
not have anything to do with it.
I haven't found that provision yet but, then again, we have not had
the bill long enough to read all the nuances of it. We have had it long
enough to read the budget aspects of it, and I think Dr. Coburn alluded
to that very effectively.
CBO says the Baucus bill spends, in fiscal year 2012, $14.98 billion.
Rather than continue that spending level for SCHIP into 2013, the bill
somehow drastically reduces the allocation to only $5.7 billion in
2013.
Let me cover that again. In 2012, we allocate $14.98 billion for
SCHIP, almost $15 billion. But under the bill's structure in 2013, we
allocate only $5.7 billion for the health care of that same population.
Somehow we are either going to lose two-thirds of the kids under the
program or we are miraculously going to find another $9 billion.
You know, numbers like $9 billion appear frequently up here. It is
called debt. It is called debt on our children and our grandchildren.
We make it up, we print it, we fund it, it goes into place.
I might add, I am not sure I am the only one who caught onto this. I
think Senator Baucus caught onto it too when he wrote the bill because
in 2013 he also has a one-time charge of $11.4 billion, not counting
the 2013 allocation. I was worried that I might not have read the
numbers right the first time until I looked at 2013 and I found the
one-time charge.
He just doesn't want that amount included as a score under the 5-year
timeline. Why? Because as Dr. Coburn said, we are being less than
honest with the American taxpayer. We are suggesting that this program
can be run for X and we know it is going to cost Y. How in the world
can we take something up as serious as children's health insurance and
lie about the numbers? If we lie about the numbers, how do we expect
the American people to believe us when we say we are only covering 300
percent of poverty, or we are only covering kids?
On that point: We are only covering kids? I know it will be shocking
to some--probably not to all--to find out that we currently cover
334,616 adults under the SCHIP program: 334,616 adults under the State
Children's Health Insurance Program. Why? Because we allowed States to
increase the eligibility under waivers because it was too tough to find
the 5.4 million kids who were eligible under the original structure of
the SCHIP bill that we wrote and passed in 1997.
In 1996, we conceived a plan, passed in 1997. It went for 10 years--
$40 billion. It went for 10 years, $4 billion a year. Before we had
ever gotten to the end of the 10 years we already changed the
parameters, already changed the eligibility, we already put more money
into it. We knew 10 years ago, now 11, soon to be 12 years ago, we
needed to fix our health care system. We didn't do it under the Clinton
administration, we didn't do it under the Bush administration, we
didn't do it in the 104th Congress, 105th, 106th, 107th, 108th, 109th,
110th, 111th--well, maybe in the 111th Congress. We are in the 111th
now.
And regarding the assertion that we should not have this health care
debate? We should have this debate. We should fix it. For once, the
Senate ought to step up and say let's quit continuing to do something
that we know is broken and let's fix it. Let's not just increase
eligibility of a broken program, let's fix the program. Let's not just
talk about supplying an insurance product to a certain segment of
America. Let's do it for everybody. Let's have an honest debate and
discuss whether every American ought to be insured and let's have a
debate as to how we get there.
Over the next 2 days we are going to talk extensively about this
program. Today a Grassley amendment has been offered--it strikes the
ability for legal immigrants to be brought into the program during
those first 5 years. And a Hatch amendment which is very clear. If a
State wants to bring in other people into the SCHIP program, then they
have to verify that they have reached a threshold where 95 percent of
the eligible kids are enrolled in the program. Mr. President, 95
percent of all the eligible kids would have to be in the program in
order for this to be expanded--I think this is reasonable. If you are
concerned with covering children, then I think this is a slam dunk
amendment, and I might add it was part of the bipartisan bill last
year.
The last amendment is Kids First, offered by Leader McConnell. I
might reiterate one more time, it spends $19.3 billion over 5 years.
It increases the enrollment in SCHIP by 3.1 million kids, as opposed
to the Baucus bill that spends $34 billion over 5 years that increases
enrollment by 5.7 million but does it by enrolling 2 million kids who
are currently under their parents' insurance. That means our additional
costs, the cost to the American taxpayer, is $4,000 per child for the

[[Page 1556]]

additional 600,000 kids who would have health insurance for the first
time under the Baucus bill because they are currently uninsured.
But we have options. We will have more amendments. We will have more
debates. I look forward to working with my colleagues on what I think
is a very serious piece of legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, a couple of points: Obviously, based upon
what my two colleagues have said this morning, we do not agree on a
number of points. That is pretty obvious. But I think there is one area
of common ground which maybe we can make progress on; that is, the
point that was raised by both the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator
from North Carolina about the eligible but not enrolled.
I know one of the biggest problems over time, for example, in
Pennsylvania with this program has been that you have a great program
but not enough people know about it. If you do outreach by way of
television advertising, that is the most effective by far, but any kind
of outreach would be welcomed certainly by me and by those who are
supportive of the legislation. The problem is, if we do not pass this
legislation, all of the good intentions that I think are evident in
what was said about getting people enrolled is without merit. So that
is an area on which we can agree.
I have to say, one of the things I get from this chart with the
carriers on it, one of the points that has been made about this is,
because it is a Federal and State program that is obviously supported
by public resources, the impression is that somehow it is a 100-percent
public program, it is just growing government, and the usual arguments
that are made against it.
I understand the philosophy behind it. This is often lost; that this
is indeed now for 15 years, and will be, a very successful public-
private partnership. These, for example, are in Pennsylvania, the
private providers for the Children's Health Insurance Program in our
State: Aetna, Ameri Choice, Capital Blue Cross, First Priority Health,
Highmark, Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield of Western Pennsylvania,
Keystone Health Plan, Unison Kids and UPMC for Kids. This is the very
definition of a successful--remarkably successful--public-private
partnership where hundreds of thousands of children in our State and
literally millions across the country have been provided health
insurance.
With regard to the numbers, where are we now in terms of covered
versus not covered under this program? Nationally, the covered number
is 6.7 million right now. The number of children who are not covered
amounts to 4.1 million children. And 83 percent, or 3.4 million of
those 4.1 million uninsured covered by the legislation are currently
eligible.
So we have all of these children, more than 4 million children, who
are eligible but are not enrolled. Some of the issues we talked about
earlier about enrollment, simplifying paperwork, and eliminating
bureaucratic areas, we should work on that, and that is what is
contemplated by this legislation: funding for outreach and enrollment,
which has been pushed by people in both parties in connection with this
legislation, and incentives to States to encourage them to provide
coverage for those who are eligible but not enrolled.
The point was made also about bipartisanship. Look, the definition of
bipartisanship does not mean unanimous. I realize in the Finance
Committee there was more Democratic support than Republican support.
But the fact remains this program, the birth of this program and the
continuation of it, has been bipartisan. The votes in 2007 were
evidence of that, and I think even the debate today and the support--I
should say more than the debate--the support is bipartisan.
When this is voted on in the Senate, you will have a lot of
Democratic support, obviously, but you will also have significant
Republican support. That is the definition of bipartisan, in my
judgment. Maybe it is in the eye of the beholder, but I am trying to
emphasize this is indeed bipartisan.
We are going to have time today in the hours ahead of us on the
question of immigration. Two points I wanted to make: One is the 5-year
bar. Basically, what we are talking about is a restoration of something
that was in place before. Prior to 1996, lawfully residing immigrants,
those holding green cards and those defined as ``permanently residing
under the color of law,'' those individuals, prior to 1996, were indeed
eligible for Medicaid. And this amendment, the Rockefeller-Snowe-
Bingaman-Kerry-Wyden, a lineup of names that is bipartisan, by the
way--that amendment offers a restoration of eligibility for only some
of these immigrants: children and pregnant women who are here
lawfully--lawfully--who intend to remain in the United States and who
meet all other Medicaid and CHIP eligibility requirements. That is what
we are talking about. We are talking about children, legal immigrant
children, and pregnant women.
Removing the 5-year bar could help States provide coverage to
additional low-income children. What do we mean by that? You would
think, listening to this debate, that removal of this is somehow
brandnew, that it has never happened before, and no States are doing
that. In fact, right now 23 States use their own funds to pay for
health coverage for lawfully residing immigrants, immigrant children.
Let me say that again: lawfully residing immigrant children or pregnant
women, those 23 States, during the 5 years, who have become ineligible
for Medicaid or CHIP. If this 5-year waiting period were removed, these
States could secure Federal matching funds which would free up State
funds to cover additional low-income children.
So this is something States are wrestling with now, and what this
would do is provide an option for States to have some help in the
coverage they are providing for those individuals. So it is nothing
dramatically new, but I think it is humane, and it is prudent based
upon what has happened with this program over time.
Let me make one other point about the issue of legal immigration and
the so-called public charge: Nothing in the bill changes the agreement
a person makes when sponsoring an immigrant, when an immigrant comes to
this country. Citizenship and Immigrant Services, so-called CIS, does
not consider participation in a public health program a failure to
support the immigrant. Longstanding Citizenship and Immigration Service
guidance makes it clear that immigrants will not be considered a public
charge if they use health care benefits, including Medicaid and CHIP,
prenatal or other low-cost care at clinics. So when we are talking
about this issue, it is important to put that on the table, what
Citizenship and Immigration Services would consider to be a public
charge.
I want to get back to some of the provisions in the bill. I wanted to
get that chart on rural children. One of the discussions we have had
over many months now is, Who benefits from this program? Certainly,
children across the board, children in urban and suburban communities.
But what is often not emphasized is--and I want to make this point
because I have a significant part of our State that is rural, and most
of our State, when you get outside of the major urban areas of
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, is indeed rural. Rural children are more
likely to be poor. Nearly half of rural children live in low-income
families at or below 200 percent of the poverty level.
In this economy, when you consider the confluence of bad
circumstances for rural children and rural families, here is what you
have: escalating costs for energy, which disproportionately affects
rural Americans; significant job loss in rural communities; an
inability to have access to health care--I should say a lack of access
to health care in rural communities. All kinds of problems.
This bill, among the many other good things it does, would have a
disproportionately positive impact, in my judgment, when you look at
the data on

[[Page 1557]]

rural children. Rural children increasingly rely on children's health
insurance. More than one-third of rural children rely upon the
Children's Health Insurance Program or Medicaid. One-third of rural
children rely upon one of these two programs.
So in this debate it is important that we stress the broad reach of
this bill as it pertains to children from across the board, across the
demographic and even economic landscape.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. I will make this short because I know we have a swearing
in.
I wanted to make a few points. When President Obama talks about being
responsible, if you sign an affidavit that you will cover and be the
sponsor for a legal immigrant in this country, you ought to do that.
That is what he is talking about. He is not talking about: I will do it
until I can get someone else to take care of my responsibility, talking
about it, if you sign an affidavit that you will do it.
The idea that 22 States already do this is great. If States want to
do it, that is what makes our Union so great, that 22 States can,
except now they cannot afford to do it, and we are going to be bailing
them out to the tune of about $300 billion on Medicaid and SCHIP
programs in the supplemental or the spending package or the stimulus
package that is coming through.
What this bill is going to do is make permanent that people do not
have to be responsible when they, in fact, sign an affidavit that they
will sponsor a legal immigrant.
One final point I would make is, the Senator from Pennsylvania listed
all of those premium assistance programs that Pennsylvania has because
that is what they are, premium assistance rather than a regular SCHIP
program. Well, in this bill you have extremely limited any new premium
assistance programs without an absolute mandate and an absolute mandate
on what kind of program you have. You will be in an HMO. You will not
have the doctor of choice, and you will not go where you want; you will
go where you are sent.
So great points, great need in our country, great debate, but
integrity first. Be honest with the numbers about what they really
mean. Everybody in this Chamber knows they are not, but we are not
going to change that. Even if we offer an amendment, it is not going to
go anywhere because nobody knows what to get rid of to be able to
afford to pay for that.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.

____________________

CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair lays before the Senate a certificate of
appointment to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of former
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. The certificate, the Chair
is advised, is in the form suggested by the Senate.
If there is no objection, the reading of the certificate will be
waived, and it will be printed in full in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

State of New York

Executive Chamber

certificate of appointment

To the President of the Senate of the United States:
This is to certify that, pursuant to the power vested in me
by the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the
State of New York, I, David A. Paterson, the Governor of said
State, do hereby appoint Kirsten E. Gillibrand a Senator from
said State to represent said State in the Senate of the
United States until the vacancy therein caused by the
resignation of Hillary Rodham Clinton, is filled by election
as provided by law.
Witness: His excellency our Governor David A. Paterson, and
our seal hereto affixed at 11:00 a.m. this twenty-third day
of January, in the year of our Lord 2009.
By the Governor:
David A. Paterson,
Governor.
Lorraine A. Cortez-Vaquez,
Secretary of State.
[State Seal Affixed]

____________________

ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE

The VICE PRESIDENT. If the Senator-designate will now present herself
at the desk, the Chair will administer the oath of office.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND, escorted by Mr. Schumer, advanced to the desk of the
Vice President; the oath prescribed by law was administered to her by
the Vice President; and she subscribed to the oath in the Official Oath
Book.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Congratulations.
(Applause, Senators rising.)

____________________

RECESS

The VICE PRESIDENT. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in
recess until 2:15 p.m.
Thereupon, at 12:34 p.m., the Senate recessed until 2:15 p.m. and
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. Carper.)

____________________

CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009--
Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today with the advent of the 111th
Congress, the Senate is considering legislation to renew and expand the
Children's Health Insurance Program, sending a clear and definitive
message that this country will no longer turn its back on our 9 million
uninsured children.
When we pass this bill, we will make it clear that the health and
well-being of our children--in bad economic times or, in the future, in
good economic times--the well-being and health of our children comes
first.
After 2 long years and repeated vetoes from former President Bush,
this legislation finally has a chance of becoming law, thanks to the
support of a new President who is committed to reforming our Nation's
health care system.
It is my sincere hope that the passage of this legislation will be
the beginning--the beginning--of a major overhaul of American health
care, which ultimately will provide all Americans with the quality,
affordable health care coverage we all deserve as Americans.
The Children's Health Insurance Program is a success story. It was
created about 13 years ago, in 1996, to provide health coverage to
children who would otherwise not be insured. The program provides
health insurance to low-income families who do not qualify for Medicaid
but who are unable to afford private coverage, to reduce the number of
uninsured children in working families--underscore that, Mr. President:
in working families--by about one-third.
Despite its huge successes, there is room for improvement. Sadly,
millions of American children remain without health insurance, even
though the law states they are eligible for it.
Today, we have an opportunity to take decisive action to bridge that
gap and to reach children who need this coverage desperately but who
are not receiving it. The legislation before us today would provide
coverage to an additional 4.1 million uninsured low-income children. It
would improve access to dental coverage. It would improve the public
health by enabling legal--legal--immigrant children to receive care in
doctors' offices rather than taking them to more high-cost, less
primary care, emergency rooms.
If signed into law, S. 275 would have a profound impact on children
and families nationwide, including in my State

[[Page 1558]]

of Ohio, including Toledo and Akron and Canton and Mansfield and
Cincinnati and Bellaire. It would provide approximately $294 million to
Ohio in fiscal year 2009, helping my State cover approximately 245,000
uninsured children--children such as Emily Demko from Athens County.
Emily was born with Down Syndrome. When her mother Margaret made the
decision to stay at home to care for Emily, their family found
themselves without health insurance. The Demkos looked into many
options, but no private insurer would cover Emily, at any cost, due to
her genetic, preexisting condition. Luckily, the Demkos found they were
eligible for Medicaid. However, during their 6-month reauthorization
meeting, they were informed their income was--get this--$135 per month
too much to qualify any longer. Mr. President, $135 too much to qualify
for Medicaid any longer.
Since Emily's medical bills were in excess of $3,500 a month, the
Demkos had to make decisions no parent should ever have to make. They
had to decide what therapies and treatment they could afford for their
daughter.
Although they have done their best to manage Emily's medical care,
being uninsured has left Emily without access to needed hearing tests,
corrective treatment for an eye condition, and several blood tests to
scan for conditions likely to occur with Down Syndrome.
It is for children such as Emily that we must support the
reauthorization and the expansion of CHIP. Access to health coverage
will provide Emily and so many others around our great Nation with the
opportunity to live a healthier, happier, more productive life,
regardless of their medical condition.
For the third time in my Senate career, I have come to this floor to
advocate for the reauthorization and expansion of the Children's Health
Insurance Program. I did it in the House 13 years ago, when this
program was first conceived and when we first enacted it.
For the third time in my Senate career, I have come to the Senate
floor to speak on behalf of the 9 million children in this country who
do not qualify for Medicaid but whose families cannot afford health
insurance.
For the third time in my Senate career, I have come to this floor to
cast a vote in favor of legislation which will enable parents to help
their children when they are ill. In my opinion, there are few
legislative or ethical priorities more important than that.
This is the third time I have advocated for CHIP on the Senate floor.
I believe, I hope, the third time will be the charm.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, there was an amendment offered earlier by
Senator Hatch with whom I sit on the Health, Education, Labor and
Pension Committee. Senator Hatch has played a major role in health
issues in this country and I respect him for that. His amendment,
however, to this bill is sort of the same old same old. We have seen
this throughout the Children's Health Insurance Program debate. We saw
it last year both times when the President vetoed the bill. We saw it
raised by opponents in the House of Representatives. We saw it raised
many years ago. When the amendment says States should have to enroll at
least 90 or 95 percent of their kids under 200 percent of the Federal
poverty level before they can enroll children at higher income levels,
it pretty much says no more children in the Children's Health Insurance
Program. I wish they would simply be more direct saying, We don't want
more kids in here. Instead, they say if you can't find close to 100
percent of these children who are eligible--this is a big country, it
is a complicated country; so many of the people we are trying to insure
are living economically on the margins. There are two children with a
single parent who has moved from one job to another. Those children
often move across town or to another county as their mother or father
get another job--a job that may pay $20,000 a year and a job without
health insurance--so the Children's Health Insurance Program is so
important to them. So when they build in this ``standard'' that
virtually everybody--95 percent of all children eligible have to be
enrolled before you can enroll new children who are a little bit better
off--a little bit better off isn't a family making $100,000 a year; it
is a family making much less than that without health insurance and
simply can't afford it. Even mandatory programs we have found around
the country don't have a 95-percent take-up rate. It is simply
impossible for Government or for private businesses or for social
services working with Government to get to 100 percent of the people
who are eligible. So what this does is say no more children would
enroll.
We know health insurance is becoming less and less affordable for
families at every income level. I know what has happened in my State.
As the Senate majority leader told us earlier today--an hour ago--
85,000 people in this country lost their jobs today. Eighty-five
thousand people lost their jobs today. In my State, we have lost
200,000 manufacturing jobs in the last 8 years. It was 200,000 as of
last October. That number has gone up. We hear about plant layoffs such
as the third shift at Lordstown in northeast Ohio, a General Motors
plant that assembles goods. As the Presiding Officer knows from what
has happened to his plant in Delaware, we know what happens when people
are laid off from these jobs. They cut off the third shift at
Lordstown. We are seeing Wilmington, DHL in southwest Ohio, 7,000 jobs
over a several week period have been terminated in a city of about
13,000 people. That DHL plant is the largest employer in a six-county
area, in each of these six counties--in Clinton County, Brown County,
Adams County, Highland County, and two other counties.
The point is we don't want with this economic downturn--we don't want
to turn back the clock. It is the worst possible time to cut back on
States' tools for helping low-income children. We want these children
to become insured, not to find ways to deny coverage. The Hatch
amendment does that. That is why it is so important later today, if and
when we vote on this amendment.
Another point. There are about 150,000 children in my State. My State
has a population of around 11 million. There are about 154,000 of our
children in my State--enough to fill Ohio State Stadium. The Presiding
Officer, even though he is from Delaware, is an Ohio State graduate. He
knows how big that stadium is. It holds more or less 100,000 people in
one place--Columbus--in the heart of the State. There are 150,000
children who don't have insurance, enough to fill that stadium one and
a half times. That number grows. That was sort of yesterday's number.
That number grows every day. Ohio has already lost 100,000 jobs in this
recession. If the pace of job loss accelerates this year as expected,
more and more children will suddenly become uninsured. President Obama
has already said the 2009 economy is going to be even worse than the
2008 economy. That is why Senator Inouye and so many others in this
body, Senator Mikulski and others on the Appropriations Committee, are
working so hard to put a stimulus package together that will have an
impact as quickly as possible as we work our way through the second
year of this recession.
In these tough economic times, the risk of being uninsured is even
greater. Many Ohio families, as we know too well, are only one
emergency room visit away from bankruptcy and foreclosure. Too many
have declared bankruptcy, too many people have lost their homes to
foreclosure, too many people have lost their jobs to this recession. We
should not turn our back on them in providing health insurance to their
children. Again, these are mostly people who are eligible for the
Children's Health Insurance Program, mostly

[[Page 1559]]

children in families where mom or dad or mom and dad have jobs and
simply are not making enough to buy health insurance and those
employers for whom they work simply don't have the ability to provide
insurance to these families. That is why this legislation is so
important. That is why defeating the Hatch amendment is so important.
I would add that in the Hatch amendment, the 95-percent rule is
especially for those who want to enroll legal immigrant children and
pregnant women. Again, that is a standard I don't think we can meet,
because no matter how hard these States try, they can't find 95 percent
of the people who are eligible. That will mean too many children of
legal immigrants, legal people in this country, too many pregnant women
simply would not have insurance for their children that we should offer
them in this body.
Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator is recognized.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the legislation that is before us is a
reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program, but it is,
as I said yesterday in my remarks, seriously flawed in a number of
respects. Because of that, the minority leader, the Senator from
Kentucky, and I have offered an alternative. It is called the Kids
First Act. The Kids First Act is an effort to reauthorize this
important program but address the numerous flaws in the pending
proposal so we can adopt something that literally puts kids first.
I spoke yesterday about several of the problems with the underlying
bill. First, the problem of crowding out private coverage. We created
this Children's Health Insurance Program in order to help families who
did not have insurance. But the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office
has noted that because of provisions in the underlying bill, there are
actually over 2 million people--in fact, 2.4 million people--who will
go to the Government insurance program who already have private health
insurance that is perfectly adequate to their needs. The reason
primarily is because their employers obviously appreciate the fact that
it is costing them money to insure their employees' families and it
will be a lot cheaper if those families go to this Government-run
program. Our effort was never to cause people to leave the health
insurance coverage they have to come to a new Government program. Our
effort, when we adopted the kids insurance program, was to provide
insurance for those who did not have it already.
This crowdout effect is well known, and it is well understood. It can
actually be quantified as the Congressional Budget Office did. Last
year, we offered a couple of amendments to ensure that the crowdout
effect would be minimized. The amendment I offered was not adopted. But
recognizing that there was a serious problem, when the Democratic
leaders in the House and the Senate wrote the bill that ended up
passing both the House and the Senate, though it was vetoed, it was
supported by Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate, and it
had some language related to crowdout. I thought it was insufficient
language, but nevertheless I understood the necessity of dealing with
the issue.
That language is not in this bill. So in the committee, I offered the
Democratic language. The Senator from Montana, the chairman of the
committee, helped draft it. As I said, it was supported by Democratic
majorities in both the House and Senate. Essentially on a party-line
vote, that amendment was rejected.
We need to deal with the problem of crowdout. The legislation Senator
McConnell and I have drafted does put kids first. It tries to deal with
the problem of kids who do not have insurance rather than taking
families who are already insured and transferring them to a Government
program.
Another problem we spoke of is the fact that as this program has
expanded, it does not just relate to families who are at the poverty
level or even twice the poverty level but three and four times the
poverty level. In other words, it can actually cover families in two
States--up to $88,000 a year in New York and about $10,000 less than
that in New Jersey. That is clearly wrong. We are trying to talk about
low-income families. In fact, if you add other assets of a family that
are not counted in income, you could literally have $40,000 in
additional assets and, in New York, be making $128,000 a year for a
family and be eligible for this low-income children's health care--
$128,000-a-year income. That is wrong. What that does is take money
from the State of the Senator from Oklahoma, it takes money from my
State of Arizona and other States and transfers that. We are trying to
be as frugal as we can. Our limit is 200 percent of poverty. That is
twice the poverty level. That is what we pay for in Arizona. But we are
having to pay for more than twice that much for families in New York.
That is not fair. The program Senator McConnell and I have offered as
an alternative deals with that problem as well.
In addition, we ask that people demonstrate that they are eligible
for this coverage. That has always been a part of the program. The bill
that is before us weakens those provisions so that you do not have to
have the same kind of documentation that you are eligible for the
program. It expands the program to legal immigrants in this country who
have always had a contract that they will not become part of our public
welfare system.
One of the really interesting things is the budget gimmick that is
used which Senator McConnell and I believe should not be part of this
program. It is a budget gimmick to circumvent the Senate's so-called
pay-go rules by which we ensure whatever the costs are, there is a way
to cover those costs. The way that is done is that the program, even
though it is a 10-year program, as all of our authorizations are--after
5 years, there is just an assumption that it does not cost very much
anymore. Of course, under that assumption, we would have to disenroll
millions of people from this program. That is never going to happen.
Everybody knows that. Everybody knows that gap in financing would be
filled, and as a result, the program would actually cost $40 billion
more than it is alleged to cost as the bill came out of the committee.
And that is by CBO's number, $41 billion-plus.
Those are some of the deficiencies with the legislation.
The amendment Senator McConnell has offered, the Kids First Act, is
very targeted and I think a much more responsible approach to the
problem. It does reauthorize the children's health care insurance
program. It preserves health care coverage for millions of low-income
children. It actually adds 3.1 million new children to SCHIP. It
minimizes the reduction in private coverage, the so-called crowdout I
spoke about earlier, by targeting SCHIP funds to low-income children,
not higher income families who may already have access to insurance. By
the way, it is offset without new tax increases or a budget gimmick
such as the program before us is.
I encourage my colleagues to ask us questions about this amendment.
If they have concerns about it or would like to debate, I would love to
have that debate on the floor, if anyone would like to engage me in a
discussion about why this is not a superior alternative.
The bottom line is, we have two choices. We have a budget buster that
does not protect SCHIP coverage for low-income children, that
represents an open-ended financial burden on taxpayers and takes a
significant step toward Government-run health insurance or the
amendment Senator McConnell has filed, a fiscally responsible SCHIP
reauthorization that preserves coverage for low-income children. It is
fully offset without a budget gimmick or a tax increase, and it
minimizes the so-called crowdout effect on employer-sponsored health
coverage that people have today.

[[Page 1560]]

I think the answer is clear. The Kids First Act is the right
solution. And when we have an opportunity to vote on that, hopefully a
little bit later this afternoon, my colleagues will take a good hard
look at it and see if they don't agree that is a good approach to the
reauthorization of SCHIP and support the McConnell amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend and
colleague from Arizona. The minority leader filed this amendment in
2007. It was not a good idea then. It simply knocks too many children.
These are not rich kids. These are sons and daughters of people who are
working who are not making a lot of money, are not making enough that
they have health insurance or can afford out-of-pocket health
insurance. They are working for employers who do not provide it--small
businesses, lower income workers. I don't want to do anything that
takes away the eligibility of those children.
When I hear about the crowdout provision Senator Kyl discussed, I
want to make a couple of comments about that. I just don't think it
exactly is going to work that way.
The CHIP statute already requires States to determine and monitor
whether crowdout is occurring and adopt policies to limit crowdout if
it does occur. Most States that cover children at more moderate income
levels have imposed 3- or 6-month waiting periods to prevent families
from dropping employer-based coverage to enroll in CHIP. There may be a
time when families are not going to want to do that.
It is not as though States want to give away this money. States are
squeezed today every bit as much as many families are squeezed. States
already have a strong interest in monitoring and preventing crowdout.
They don't want to spend limited resources on children who already have
private health insurance.
This bill does a good job of targeting the lowest income children.
The new enrollment options, the performance bonus, and the outreach
funding all help to achieve everyone's shared goals to ensure that the
most vulnerable are covered.
We accept that our friends on the other side of the aisle want to
insure people at 100 percent, 150 percent of poverty, but we also want
to extend this to families who still do not have insurance for their
children because of their economic situation. These are not
Congressmen's kids. These are children whose parents are working at
places that do not offer insurance and do not make enough money that
they can out of pocket come up with health care coverage for their
children.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wonder if anybody has ever asked the
question--it has certainly never been answered--if you are a family and
you qualify at the new 300 percent and you are buying your own
insurance and you are covering your two kids, what happens when you
transfer your kids to SCHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program?
What happens to your premium? I can tell you what happens to the
premium. Do you know what happens to the premium? It goes down zero
because health insurance is sold as an individual or a family product.
So by taking two children, if I am earning 300 percent of poverty, and
taking them off and transferring--now I am paying for it--and
transferring that to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the
taxpayers of this country now will pay for that premium about $2,200 a
piece when you can buy it in the private market for $1,100 a piece, but
the parents will get no decrease in their insurance premium. That is
why the crowdout provision is so negative for the American taxpayer and
the generations that follow us.
My friend, the Senator from Ohio, mentioned that everybody wants to
cover the 200 percent and below. The fact is, we have done a terrible
job of covering the 200 percent and below. There are 5.4 million
children out there today who do not have health insurance, whose
parents do not have health insurance, who are eligible for Medicaid and
SCHIP today, and they are not signed up. What are we doing? We are
expanding a program that has only gotten about 51 percent of the kids
who are eligible right now signed into the program. We are also being
dishonest about what it costs. It is actually going to cost $42 billion
more than what we say it is going to cost. Nobody will deny that. So
why would we not want to have something that will limit the amount of
crowdout because as we take money for kids who are now insured and put
it to them through a Government program, it means these same 5.4
million kids are still not going to get covered.
We have not improved the program by increasing the eligibility. What
we have done is we have just moved the income scale up to $60,000, some
$62,450 a year, and we say: We will now cover your kids, and even if
you have them covered now, you will not get any break from your
insurance. But the same 5.4 million kids who are in poverty or at 200
percent of poverty still are not covered.
What are we doing? Why wouldn't we want to fix it to where all the
kids who are out there today who do not have insurance, who are 200
percent and below the poverty level, why aren't we making sure they are
covered? Why are we not doing that? Why are we not saying: States, you
can go to the 300 percent if you want but only after you have covered
the kids whom the program was designed for in the first place.
There is an amendment by Senator Hatch in that regard. Why would we
spend all this extra money?
By the way, we just met with the President. Other than the short-term
financial struggles we are in, one of the big concerns with him is the
fact that we have an unending entitlement disaster before us and we are
getting ready to make it worse. Why would we not address that? Why
would we say we are going to help kids but not really help kids? Why
would we say we want to help the poorest children and the families who
need it the most but still ignore them?
There is an answer to it. There is an answer to it, in that we want
to move whichever way we can to eventually have a single-payer system
in this country. We gutted the Premium Assistance Program. The Senator
from Pennsylvania listed all the great things about the Premium
Assistance Program. He listed all the different programs in
Pennsylvania. Those are gutted under this bill. You can have one, but
by the time you get it, nobody will want to have it.
We have taken what people have and said maybe we could spend $500 per
kid per year to keep them in a health insurance program that the
parents might have at work, but instead we are taking them all out and
putting them in a Government program that costs twice as much as it
does to buy them the same insurance in the open market.
Crowdout is a real phenomenon, but the most important thing is it
helps the people who need it the least the most. And it helps the least
those people who need it the most. That is what we are doing in this
bill. We are not helping the lowest. We are only moving it up the chain
and we are saying if you make $62,000 a year in this country, your
children can be covered by the Government.
Why would you not want to do that? We do not have any other
Government program that people do not voluntarily take if we put it out
there. That is in the face of the fact that this year--hear my words
very clearly--this year the true Federal budget deficit will be $1.6
trillion. The Government will spend $24,000 per family more than it
takes in. Hear those words--$24,000 more per family it will spend than
it takes in.
What is the future to be for this child at the 300 percent above
poverty level? Their parents make $62,000 and we are going to give them
this gift of health insurance today. But you will not be able to afford
a college education. You certainly will never afford a home. It is
doubtful you will ever be able to afford a car that is reliable. You
will be in a debtor nation. Those are the consequences of our actions
in the name of

[[Page 1561]]

wanting to expand a program that today is highly ineffective in
addressing the needs of the real poor children in this country.
Why would we do that, and just say: Don't worry, you have a pricetag
to pay if you ever hope to get out of college or have the ability to
get out of college? By the way, we are going to up your taxes if you
get out there and get it up here on the front end.
This body is abandoning the very principles this country was built
on. This country was built on a heritage of sacrifice, sacrifice by the
common man for the common good to create a great, bright shining future
for the generations that follow. This bill doesn't fit with that
heritage. This bill, as a matter of fact, undermines that heritage. In
the name of helping children, we are hurting those children's children.
We are stealing opportunity from those children's children.
As I said earlier this morning, I want every child in this country
insured. If we took the money that was out there today in Medicaid and
SCHIP and the State contribution to it, we could insure every child in
this country. We could create an insurance policy for every child in
this country that gives them total screening exams, could give them
prevention care, could give them acute care, and could give them
hospital care. Yet when we run it through the Government, it costs
twice as much because of the inefficiencies that are inherent in the
system.
Later on I am going to offer a limitation based on improper payments.
The American public may not know this. Certainly Members of Congress
know. We do not know how much money is wasted in Medicaid because
Medicaid has refused to report it. By law they are mandated to report
it. They have refused to report it. We now have the information on 17
States on improper payments. The average is 10.5 percent on the 17
States we have looked at. Of that, 90 percent of those are
overpayments. In New York City alone their own inspector general said
at a minimum $15 billion a year is wasted in fraud, abuse, and deceit
on the Medicaid Program. Where have we addressed any of that in this?
Where have we put the safeguards to make sure this doesn't happen here?
We have not done that.
We are not fixing the problems that are in front of us. What we are
doing is creating more problems in the name of expanding a children's
insurance program and limiting the future of the things that have been
very successful with it, such as premium assistance, and taking that
away.
There is going to be crowdout and the crowdout is going to benefit
the most wealthy of the upper middle income because in some States, by
the time you count exclusions, you can earn $120,000 a year and have
your kids on SCHIP. We are going to help them. But not the kids of the
parents working at $7 an hour, both of them, making $28,000 or $30,000
a year, of which half of them are not on either Medicaid or SCHIP. Why
would we do that? Do we truly care about children's health? Are we
really about trying to solve it?
Where are the ideas of combining where the biggest health care
disparities are in our country? We know where those are. Why not design
a program to go and attach and direct health care dollars to the large
health care disparities? We know it pays big returns in terms of
childhood obesity, in terms of precluding the onset of smoking, in
terms of prevention and vaccinations, in terms of well-child care? Why
would we not look at where the problems are and try to direct dollars
to where the problems are? Instead, we are going to allocate across
this country, to those who can now afford it, we are now going to start
paying for it.
Even if we wanted to do that, why would we do it at twice the cost of
what you could buy in a private market? Mr. President, $1,156 is the
average market cost to insure a child in this country. Why would we
spend $2,200 to get the same thing? So we can say we did something?
If, in fact, you could take $1,156 or $1,200 for every child out
there--we have more than enough money with what we are spending today
to accomplish that--we could buy them all an insurance policy.
I am not sure this bill is about children. I am not sure it is about
children's health care. I have some doubts when we are not frugal. If
it is about children's health care now, it is certainly not about those
children's long-term financial security, when we are not even going to
be honest with how much this bill costs. We have pulled a trick so we
do not have a pay-go rule, and the trick keeps us from offsetting $42
billion in expenses associated with this bill. Everybody knows that.
Nobody will say that is not right. Nobody wants to talk about that.
That is what is wrong.
That is why people do not have confidence in the Congress. It is
because we have this sleight-of-hand. We want to do something good but
we don't want to tell you what it costs and we don't want to get rid of
programs that don't work in order to be able to do something good. We
are going to hide it under the blanket. So we are hiding $42 billion
under the blanket. We are playing the inside baseball game, not being
honest with the American people about what it costs; not being honest
with the American people that it is a lot cheaper to give premium
assistance than it is to give a program directly to a child; not being
honest about the fact that this costs twice as much as what you could
buy a health insurance policy for, for every child in this country.
We are not being honest at all, so our integrity is in question.
Would we do the right thing in the long term for these kids that we say
we care about their health care? I do not have the confidence we will.
I have the confidence that this train is going to roll, we are going to
do it just the way we have done it. There are still going to be 5.4
million kids out there 10 years from now, when we look at eligibility.
It will be the same 5.4 million under the 200 percent of poverty level
that we did not reach, that we didn't get out and actually make a
difference. And then we are going to pay a larger cost as they mature
as adults because what we could have prevented will not have been
prevented, what we could have taught will not be taught, and the health
care costs associated with that will be tremendous.
Mr. President, 5.4 million children are presently eligible for either
SCHIP or Medicaid and we have done nothing to make sure those kids get
a program that is readily available to them today. We have done
nothing. We put $100 million in for outreach and said we will feel good
about it because maybe that will reach some of them. We will still have
millions of children who are eligible for these programs who will not
get it.
We are going about approaching it the wrong way. We ought to be
saying let's have a bill that insures every American child. Let's do
that. Every American child, universal access with an insurance policy
for every American child, why won't we do that? That is what we should
be doing. Let's do it for every child. Then the insurance rates on
adults will modulate and then husband and wife will not be paying a
falsely elevated price once their kids get pulled off of their
insurance policy and go into a Government program. Why not buy them all
something, from then until the time they are 21, that covers them, that
gives them the prevention care, that gives them the counseling, that
gives them the immunizations? We know what it costs and we know what we
can do it for. Why not do that?
Instead, we have created this complex, convoluted system that can be
gamed. The estimate on Medicaid fraud--listen to this--the estimate on
Medicaid fraud is $60 billion a year. That is enough to pay for where
we cheated on this program if we would get rid of 10 percent of it a
year over the next 10 years, if we got rid of 10 percent of the fraud.
There is nothing in here on fraud. There is nothing in here to make the
States accountable for the money we send out there.
We have done a poor job. We claim we want to help children, we claim
we want children to have health insurance, yet we mortgage those very
children's futures by not being honest about how we are going about
doing it,

[[Page 1562]]

about how we are going to pay for it and what the ultimate results will
be.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Ohio is
recognized.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I appreciate as always, even when we
disagree, the words of the Senator from Oklahoma. He and I have worked,
from our time in the House, on international health legislation
together. We come at things from very different perspectives. But I
often come down in the same place. I would love to hear more about his
plan on children's health, to extend universal coverage to all
children.
I was driving to the airport this morning after leaving my mother in
Mansfield, and heard Bill Considine, who is the president of Akron
Children's Hospital, one of the premier children's hospitals in my
State and in our country. Mr. Considine, the CEO of that hospital, had
some interesting things to say about what I believe he called Kids
Care, which may be similar to what Senator Coburn was talking about.
I hope we can work some things through there. I want to disagree,
though, for a moment briefly with Senator Coburn's comments about we
absolutely want to--we do not want 50 percent of children covered who
are at 200 percent of poverty or 300 percent or beyond for that matter.
We obviously want to do better. We have done generally fairly well
locating those children and signing them up, those children who are
eligible.
This legislation goes a good bit further, and the efforts to, if you
will, encourage and find those children who are eligible and sign them
up, those efforts have been very bipartisan in the last dozen years.
The Presiding Officer from Vermont has been part of this. He has
always had an abiding, intense interest with what we do with children's
health care. I extend this back a couple of sessions ago--Senator
Frist, the Republican leader, and Senator Bingaman, a Democrat from New
Mexico; and Senator Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, with Senator
Bingaman; and at other times Senator Grassley, a Republican from Iowa,
Senator Hatch a Republican from Utah--all of them have been part of,
and many on my side of the aisle have been part of, finding ways to get
people to sign up, simplification of paperwork and bureaucratic
requirements, including language directly from legislation introduced
by Senators Lugar and Bingaman; providing funding for outreach and
enrollment, which is language originally introduced by Senators Frist
and Bingaman and pushed and supported by Senators Grassley and Hatch in
the legislation in the last Congress.
It provides for incentives for States to encourage and to provide
coverage for those eligible but unenrolled children. We can certainly
learn from Senator Coburn to do more, but this legislation is replete
with provisions to bring in more children. It does not mean we do not
enlarge the eligibility to 300 percent of poverty, nor does it mean we
do not look down the road, I hope, sooner than later with the
relationship that Senator Coburn has built with President Obama, both
as freshmen Members of the Senate and since Senator Obama has become
President, to work together in finding ways to do this.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his comments.
There is an easy way to solve this; it is called auto enrollment. You
just write a bill. Anybody in any region under 200 percent who has a
claim of deduction for children is automatically enrolled in SCHIP or
Medicaid. It is not hard. We do not want to do that. Why are we not
doing that? Because we do not want to help all of these 5.4 million
children. We do not want to do that.
We have all of these incentives that have not worked in the past. We
have done all of these things. All you have to do is auto enrollment.
We can write a law. We can pass it. We can say: The IRS can look at
every family who has children under 200 percent who files a tax return
or files for the earned income tax credit, and their children are
automatically enrolled. They automatically get a notice that says: Here
is your insurance. Here is your State card. You have coverage.
It is not hard. We can do that. But we have not done it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I wanted to pick up where I was before
lunch. I am glad to see my good friend from Ohio. We were having
conversations before lunch on this bill. Clearly, it is an important
piece of legislation.
As Dr. Coburn and I said before lunch, I think every Member of the
Senate, I think every Member of Congress, and probably everybody in the
country believes it is important that we cover children; that the
prevention and wellness aspects of having coverage means we have a
healthier community; that we take those who, by the way, are
historically more healthy, younger folks, and we give them the
assurances of check-ups and the ability to visit a doctor so that we
minimize anything that can happen to them. In 1996 and 1997, the
Senator from Ohio and I were both on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
We were involved in crafting the original legislation. I remember it
today as well as I do then. The legislation was targeted at a specific
group of our country's children: those over 100 percent of poverty
whose families made too much for Medicaid but those with not enough
income between their parents to be able to afford health care at the
time.
My gracious, health care has done nothing but get more expensive
since 1997. We appropriated and authorized $40 million for a 4-year
program. The target--I can't remember what the target was for the
number of kids--but today, at 100 percent of poverty for a family of
four, they would have an income of $22,000. At $22,000 they apply for
Medicaid, regardless of what State they live in, and health care is
provided under Medicaid for that family.
As Dr. Coburn pointed out, I think rather clearly, for Medicaid and
SCHIP today, we have probably eliminated access to about 40 percent of
health professionals because they choose not to participate in the
programs. Why? It is because the reimbursements are so pitiful in those
two programs, regardless of the State. Doctors have chosen to opt out
of providing that care and focus just on the Medicare and private
market or just on the private market.
So just the creation of Medicaid and SCHIP means we have eliminated
some choices for these people where this coverage is their only option,
it is their safety net. Now, if I had my druthers, I would rather be
here debating overall health care reform because I believe every
American should have the ability to be insured.
I am not sure I would have much disagreement in Congress or in
America on that. We will have a big disagreement on how we get there,
but we can get there. Were we to have that debate today, we would not
be here talking about the expansion of one program that hits a small
group of Americans and is targeted to put them in a one-size-fits-all
program that only 40 percent of the health care professionals even
participate in.
Now, having said all of that, SCHIP is up for reauthorization. We are
now 10 years down the road, and we are talking about, How do you change
this bill to apply what we have learned? Can we reach new efficiencies
in cost? Can we cover more people? If so, how? Which States have done
well? Which states can we learn from? Which have done poorly? Which
states should we work with in the legislation to try to prod?
Well, we find in this legislation that in 10 years, we have moved
from 200 percent of poverty to 300 percent of poverty. I do not have
any big disagreement with that, with the rise in health care costs.
Three hundred percent of poverty for a family of four is $66,000 a
year.
So under this program--SCHIP currently, not under the reauthorization
bill--if a child lives in a household that has an income of $66,000,
above $22,000, they are eligible in several states for SCHIP today.

[[Page 1563]]

So what is our experience so far? As we get ready for this
reauthorization, we have 7.4 million children enrolled in SCHIP in
2008. But the average monthly enrollment for 2008 was 5.5 million,
meaning that somewhere, somehow we have had almost 2 million drop out.
They have moved to a different State. The income of their family
changed. They are no longer eligible. So 5.5 million covered children
today seem to be sort of the fixed point.
Well, how many are eligible today but not covered? I think my
colleagues would be amazed to find out it is 5.4 million. We are
covering 5.5 million, but we are not covering 5.4 million who are
eligible under today's guidelines.
So in typical Washington response, what do we do? We come out with a
reauthorization that expands the eligibility. Already we have in place
a waiver where New Jersey can currently go up to 350 percent of
poverty. Well, what is that? That is $77,175. Now in the
reauthorization bill, we are going to grandfather the 350 percent, and
we are going to go up to 400 percent for New York. What is 400 percent?
Well, that is $88,200. How do those 5.4 million who were eligible
before get enrolled? Well, the answer is, they are not. This is what
Dr. Coburn was talking about. How about the kids nobody is going out to
enroll? Do auto enrollment. It is easy.
But that is not what this bill is attempting to do. This bill is
attempting to increase the eligibility to get a bigger slice of America
eligible for Government programs so that at some point the number of
folks who are on Government programs--Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP, VA,
the list goes on--is well over 50 percent of America, and then the die
is cast. We go to a single-payer system. The Government runs it, the
Government tells us how much we get, the Government tells us where we
go, and the American taxpayer pays for everybody.
Now, here is the decision the Senate has--the House has already voted
this bill out. We have a decision whether we are going to stand up for
those 5.4 million. Those are the tough ones. Those are the ones who did
not walk into the door and raise their hand when their parents were
told they were eligible and say: I want to enroll. I would like health
care. I would like prevention. I would like a primary care doctor. I
would like a medical home. No, they are the 5.4 million children who
are out there to whom no State is reaching out. They are just letting
them fall by the wayside. Rather than focus on the 5.4 million, we are
focusing on how we increase eligibility, how we change the income
parameters.
Let me point out New Jersey, which is grandfathered to 350 percent of
poverty under this bill, ranked 47th in the country at enrolling
children who are at 100 percent to 200 percent of poverty. Let me say
that again. A State that we have allowed to be grandfathered in at 350
percent of poverty ranks 47th out of 50 in the United States at
enrolling kids between 100 and 200 percent of poverty.
As a matter of fact, 28 percent of their children are uninsured in
that 100 to 200 percent of poverty. Yet once again we are going to
grandfather them and allow this incredible expansion to continue. So
where is their focus? Let's go after the easy ones. Let's go after the
ones in families who are easier to find and who are easy to enroll.
Well, why does that happen? Let me point out to my colleagues,
Medicaid gets a matching rate from the federal government, depending
upon which State you are from, and that rate is from 50 percent to
75.9, with a ceiling of 83. So as the State makes a Medicaid payment of
$1, depending upon what State you are from, the Federal Government
reimburses anywhere from 50 cents to 83 cents.
But if you are enrolled in SCHIP, the range goes from 65 to 85. So if
you are on the bottom, if you are a State on the bottom, why would you
lobby for expanded eligibility? It is because if you are on the bottom,
you are going to have an increase in the Federal share of what you pay
out from 50 to 65 cents. It is 15 cents of every dollar. You are crazy,
if you are a State, for not lobbying for this because you are going to
spread the cost over the entire taxpayer base. It makes a lot of sense
if your focus is not on 5.4 million children and how they get covered
and how they get health care.
If you are only focused on how you get a bigger piece of the Federal
pie, if you are only focused on how you get a bigger share of space at
the trough, then this makes a tremendous amount of sense. But from the
standpoint of developing health care policy, it makes absolutely no
sense whatsoever.
I don't take my position just looking at one section of the bill. Dr.
Coburn pointed out, as I did earlier, that the financing of this bill
is suspect. In fiscal year 2012, which is the last of 5 years, we
allocate $14.98 billion to fund the program, almost $15 billion. Yet in
2013, the bill reduces the allocation to $5.7 billion. How do you have
a health care program for children, with all these people enrolled,
that is sucking up $15 billion a year, and all of a sudden, the next
year it drops to $5.7 billion? The answer is, you don't. We all know
it. The reality is, you have to go to the next 5-year period to find
the answer. The answer is, starting in year 6, out of the next 5-year
budget, we do a one-time payment of $11.7 billion on top of what it
costs us to run the program for 2013.
So what does that mean? Frankly, it means the accounting methods used
in Washington are not accounting methods any family in America could
use because their creditors would walk in the door and shut them down.
Yet we get up here every day and claim we do things just like people at
home. In fact, we know when it comes to budgets, there is no American
family who can get away with what we get away with, especially when it
is this obvious. One year it costs us $15 billion. The next year it
costs $5.7 billion. There are only two ways you accomplish that. You
either reduce enrollment drastically or you magically come up with the
money and you stick it in and say: Oops, we didn't understand that was
going to happen.
We understood it was going to happen. It is done to fit the
parameters, to get around pay-go rules so you can actually take this
money and stick it right onto the deficit and the debt of the country.
In other words, we are going to provide our children health care with
one hand, and we are going to rob their financial future with the
other, all at the same time. It is miraculous that we would even
attempt to do this. At least we could ask for honesty and transparency
in how we are funding this program.
It is important that we sort of recap. What is SCHIP? I think a lot
of people who might not have been in Congress very long, certainly
weren't here in 1996 and 1997 when we passed it, people across the
country might be saying: I have never heard of this program. Again, we
saw the need in 1996 to create an insurance product for children's
health, for those people who financially didn't qualify for Medicaid
and didn't make enough to purchase insurance on the open market. SCHIP
was created with the vision of trying to take kids from 100 percent of
poverty to 200 percent of poverty and make them eligible for a program
where 100 percent of them would have health care. Nationally, the
parameters grew from 100 percent to 300 percent, and we still haven't
met the original 1996 mission of covering all the kids. Because with
5.5 million people covered today, average monthly number, we still have
5.4 million over here who are eligible and don't have insurance.
Clearly, we have a tremendous amount of work to do to get the SCHIP
program to fulfill its original mission.
Let me go specifically to the bill before us. CBO estimates the bill
will increase outlays by $32.3 billion above the baseline over 5 years
and $65 billion over 10. The cost is offset by a tobacco tax. I am from
North Carolina. I can get up and wail about how this is unfair. It is
not the first time Congress has done it. It is the most regressive tax
there is. In essence, we are taking a group who financially are
challenged and, according to every analysis I have looked at, the
people who are going to be most taxed by a tobacco increase are those
people in the lower socioeconomic levels. So, in essence, we are

[[Page 1564]]

not spreading this across taxpayers. We are asking the parents of these
children to pay for the expansion in eligibility because we are going
to tax them for every cigarette they buy and consume. We are going to
hope that they quit. When they quit, I am not sure how we are going to
fund the program except probably do it the same way we are doing it in
the year 2013. We will come up with the money in some way and some
fashion.
It is important we realize today we have something we call a Medicaid
sandwich. Medicaid starts here; SCHIP goes here; Medicaid wraps on the
top. It is hard to believe we could have something designed that is so
complicated for the States, that Medicaid applies here to some; SCHIP
applies here to others; and Medicaid applies on top of that to an even
larger group. If it seems confusing, it is. If it is this confusing,
one has to ask: Why don't we change it? Why don't we fix it? Yet as I
continue to go through the Baucus bill, what I find is that we are
making it more complicated. We are designing it in a fashion that
aggressively goes after an increase in enrollment but does not go after
the 5.4 million children who currently today are unenrolled in the
program but are certainly eligible. As a matter of fact, the Baucus
bill spends $34 billion over 5 years. It targets 5.7 million new
children. I might add, 2 million of those children today are currently
covered under their parents' insurance. So we have actually got a net
pickup of 3.7 million kids who were uninsured. That is $34 billion.
There is an alternative plan. It is called the McConnell substitute.
It is called Kids First. It uses $19.3 billion over 5 years to enroll
3.1 million kids who are uninsured today. So what do we get with the
$34 billion investment that we are not getting with a $19.3 billion
investment? The answer is quite simple: 600,000 uninsured kids who are
enrolled under the Baucus bill. When you do the simple math on that,
you find out you are paying $4,000 per enrollee under the Baucus bill.
Now, I don't expect everybody to associate with this, but last year I
had a son who was a senior in college. Because we have these funky
Government rules that say no matter where you are in your education
process, when you become 22, you are no longer eligible to be under
Government insurance for your family--it doesn't apply just to Members
of the Senate or to Congress; it applies to every Federal employee--I
was forced, as a parent, to go out and go through the thought process
of getting my son insurance. Sure, he is 22 years old. He is healthy as
a bull. There is no reason I should suspect he is going to get sick.
But what if something happens to him.
So I immediately did what every good Federal employee would do. I
called the correct office up here, and I said: This has to be something
you have run into. Have you got some type of gap insurance I can turn
to and I can purchase for that 22-year-old healthy son? They said:
Certainly, Senator. We have negotiated with the same company, the same
plan he was under, and he can go on that tomorrow. I said: How much is
that? They said: $5,400 a year, for a 22-year-old, healthy-as-a-bull
senior in college.
I did probably what every parent would do. I called the college and
said: Have you got a plan? Here is the situation. They said:
Absolutely. We have negotiated with the same company, with the same
plan he was under as a child of a Federal employee. I said: What is the
premium? They said: $1,500 a year.
Now, that lesson I actually learned when I became a Member of
Congress. When I became a Member of Congress, I chose the same
insurance plan I was under in Winston-Salem, NC, working for a company
of 50 employees, the same exact plan paying the same 25 percent, and
the only difference was my health insurance cost went up $100. Why?
Because a company of 50 employees negotiated a better plan than the
U.S. Government on behalf of 2 million employees. But it had been 14
years. I had forgotten that. I relearned it firsthand though with my
son, when all of a sudden I realized he got a plan for $1,500 that the
University of North Carolina Chapel Hill had negotiated, and the
Federal Government had negotiated the same plan at $5,400. No wonder
parents are confused. No wonder most Americans are confused. What a
screwed up market this is. How unbelievably complicated is it for an
individual to try to go out and access insurance, and at what point do
you actually know that you have found a value?
Let me try to bring some relevance to this story. For that 22-year-
old, healthy-as-a-bull senior in Chapel Hill, his health care plan was
$1,500 a year. For all these 600,000 kids we are adding to SCHIP, we
are spending $4,000 a year to insure them. The average cost per policy
for somebody under 18 in America today is about $1,132. Yet under the
Baucus bill we are going to invest $4,000 per child, per those 600,000
children, to make sure they are covered--not a wise investment. But
considering my experience with the Federal Government, I can understand
why, for some people here, that makes absolutely perfect sense.
Let's assume for a minute somebody is going to say my numbers are
wrong. I am sure they will before the debate is over. Let's assume for
a minute we are trying to figure out the number of increased
enrollees--and I am not talking about the ones who had their own
insurance and we just shifted them over to government insurance--what
are we paying for them? We are paying about $2,200. They are still
paying $700 more a year to insure every child 18 and under than I paid
in premiums to cover my 22-year-old, healthy-as-a-bull senior in
college. So we are overpaying at least by $700. At most, we are
overpaying by almost $2,500. Somewhere in that range, I would hope the
American people would say: Hey, let's stop for a second. Let's call
time out. Let's go back and get Congress to re-look at this program
because this doesn't make a lot of sense.
I am not getting into any of the aspects that have already been
addressed which deal with the loopholes that were created. I actually
sat on the floor and heard somebody say this was a bipartisan bill. If
you count one Republican vote out of the Finance Committee, then you
are right, it is bipartisan. But I am not sure that is President
Obama's interpretation of what bipartisanship is. He came to the Hill.
He had lunch with us today because he is trying to get more Republicans
to support a stimulus package because he doesn't want to just win it,
and he doesn't want to win it by one vote. He wants the American people
to understand that there is confidence up here in the legislation that
is passed. He probably should have talked about this bill. It is going
to be bipartisan, not by many votes.
If that is the type of bipartisanship we want, then it is going to be
a long couple of years.
My hope is we can actually get something done. There are so many
areas I could talk about on this bill, but it would keep me here
forever, and I see my good friend, Senator Whitehouse, is in the
Chamber.
Let me end with this. I am sure I will come back. What I want Members
to search their souls and ask is, Is it really the Federal Government's
responsibility and, more importantly, the taxpayers' responsibility
that a family making $88,000 be included in a plan that is designed and
was originally designed to take care of kids between 100 and 200
percent of poverty? Do we feel bad that today 5.4 million children who
are eligible at 100 percent to 200 percent of poverty are not enrolled
in the program?
This is not the first time I have had a test like this. My own
President, last year, proposed we increase spending for HIV/AIDS
patients in Africa from $15 billion to $50 billion, and to many
people's amazement, Tom Coburn and I supported the President. Then all
of a sudden they made a change in the program. The program had always
said 50 percent of the money had to go to the treatment of HIV and AIDS
patients, meaning they actually had to deliver medicine to them.
Well, when all of a sudden the countries that got these Federal
grants to carry out these programs in Africa

[[Page 1565]]

looked at the program, they said: My gosh, for us to get from
committing $7.5 billion all the way up to $22.5 billion in delivering
medicines to people who have HIV or AIDS, that is going to be tough. We
are going to have to work to find these people. It is going to be
dangerous in some cases for us to get drugs out.
What did the White House do? They dropped the requirement in total.
They did not require one dime of that $50 billion to actually go to the
delivery of drugs to HIV and AIDS patients. So what did we do? We held
up the bill. We were taking flak from our own President because other
people wrote a bill that was structured poorly. It actually did not
accomplish what we set out to have with PEPFAR originally.
At the end of the day, they put back in the requirement of 50
percent, and today, for the multiple countries this applies to, we have
a commitment that $22.5 billion is going to go to actually treat
individuals who have HIV and AIDS--our original intent of the program.
We just expanded it.
Now, we were not going to get there just by saying it is difficult,
therefore we do not think we should do that. And we are not going to
cover these 5.4 million kids who are eligible but not enrolled if we
say: Do you know what. This is hard. And since it is hard, why don't
you change the program so the eligibility is wider so we can get some
of the kids who are out here in different income groups who are easier
for us to enroll than for us to go and find the 5.4 million who are so
hard to find.
Well, I am going to say to my colleagues, just like I said to my
President: No. That is not what we intended to do. We put this program
together to make sure the most at-risk kids in this country had health
coverage, so they had a medical home. To suggest we are now going to
change the parameters of this and allow a larger income pool to come in
because it is hard to reach out and find these 5.4 million people, no;
it is not going to happen. It may happen, but it should be as difficult
at happening as it possibly can.
I look forward to the debate we are going to have. It is my hope we
will have an opportunity to actually look at honest budget numbers that
share with the American people exactly what this costs, that we can
look at the eligibility requirements with predictability, understand
who is going to have an opportunity to be enrolled, and, hopefully, at
the end of the day, when a bill passes--whether we vote for it or not--
that we can all look at it and say: There is a real chance that 100
percent of the kids at 100 percent to 200 percent of poverty have a
real opportunity to be enrolled in this program. I fear without changes
to this legislation that will not happen. We will not have fulfilled
what we set out to do.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I see my colleague and friend from
Virginia, Senator Webb, who is prepared to speak, and we will recognize
him in just a moment.
I would note there would have been, by our estimates, 3.3 million
children who would have been covered had the bill passed in 2007. That
would have been one very good way to reduce the number of children in
this country who are not protected by health insurance.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Of course.
Mr. BURR. Would any of those 3.3 million children have been in 100
percent to 200 percent of poverty?
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. As I understand it, the bill contained both funds and
programs for outreach that would have supported the States in their
initiatives to find the children who, because their parents were moving
or for one reason or another, were eligible but had not entered into
these State programs. So I think the answer to that question would be
yes.
Mr. BURR. Let me suggest to the Senator--and I will not ask him to
yield much longer--there was the same expansion of eligibility in last
year's bill, so the likelihood is any increase in enrollment would have
been spread across not just the 100 percent to 200 percent of poverty,
but all the way up to the 400 percent of poverty.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I think the increase in enrollment would have spread
wherever the program went. There are very few areas, as the Senator
knows, where the eligibility level is 400 percent of poverty. In the
vast majority of the country, in my State, for instance, it is well
below that. It is a program that supports working families, that
supports low-income working families, that makes sure their children
get health care.
But for a number of reasons, probably the most prominent of which is
people moving from location to location and not being registered with
the local program, there are outreach requirements. I would be happy to
work with the Senator on improving those outreach requirements in any
way he wishes. But I think to hold the entire bill and his support--I
think in this case we are estimating it will now reach 4.1 million
children--hostage because of not having gotten the outreach better is a
strategic mistake.
If your goal is to insure more children, then you should go about it
by insuring more children. If the outreach is a problem, then we can
happily make that better. But for outreach to be criticized, when it
was President Bush who vetoed that bill, I am not sure how the
distinguished Senator from North Carolina voted on that--
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I would be happy to disclose to my colleague
that I voted against the bill, for the same reasons that without
changes I will oppose it this year because the eligibility requirement
is being expanded.
As I said, and I thought fairly clearly, when you expand eligibility,
you take the pressure off of making sure the enrollees come from the
most at risk. It is my hope we can modify this bill. I am not
embarrassed to be on the Senate floor and talk about the aspects of
this legislation that I am unhappy with. But certainly I can count, and
I know the majority can move this bill at any point they feel
comfortable, and I am sure they will.
At the end of the day, it is my hope we will cover as many of the
originally targeted children in that 100 percent to 200 percent of
poverty as possible.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I understand the Senator from Virginia wishes to
speak. I will simply respond before I yield the floor to Senator Webb
that I have had quite a number of years of experience with our
Children's Health Program in Rhode Island, back to the years when I
came in with Governor Sundlun in a bad economic crisis in Rhode
Island--probably the largest percentage deficit in the State budget of
any State ever recorded. Even in that very gloomy fiscal environment,
Governor Sundlun insisted we build a statewide universal health care
program that protected children.
SCHIP is very much in line with that. The people who have been
working on that for these many years in Rhode Island--and I suspect it
is the case in many other States--feel a real passion for trying to
make sure children get health care, that they get the health care to
which they are entitled.
So I am not sure the notion that by just putting more pressure on
them, by just refusing to add any other children until they have done
this, is really a productive or fair way to go about reaching the
children who have not been reached. What the bill does is provide
outreach funds and empower these people who care so deeply about this
issue to actually get out there and work harder to find them, have the
additional resources to find people. From my work in law enforcement,
my work with schools, my work on health care, there are a lot of people
who live apartment to apartment, very hand to mouth, and it is a very
significant challenge to keep up with them. The resources to do that, I
submit, would be the best way to solve that problem, not holding one
set of children hostage to providing health care for another set of
children.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor for the distinguished
Senator from Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from
Virginia.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island, and I

[[Page 1566]]

am here to speak in favor of this legislation. This is a very important
piece of legislation. It is long overdue. I also would like to point
out that I have an amendment I will offer.
I am very concerned about the way this legislation is going to be
funded. We all have our own issues with respect to whether tobacco
should be used or not used, but to fund an entire program based on a
tobacco tax, I think, is not the way to go for a number of reasons. So
I am offering an amendment that will help offset this highly
regressive, 61-cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax that is
being used to fund this bill, and to add on to the bill a tax on
carried interest, which is the compensation that is received by hedge
fund managers. This proposal would generate $11.2 billion in revenue
over 5 years. Tobacco taxes would thus be raised by a more reasonable
37 cents a pack to make up for the shortfall between the revenue being
generated by this amendment and the costs of the CHIP reauthorization.
Tobacco is already federally taxed at 39 cents per pack for the CHIP
program. All 50 States and the District of Columbia also impose an
excise tax on cigarettes above this tax. For instance, my State of
Virginia adds 30 cents on top of the present tax. In these difficult
times, many States, including Virginia, are considering an increase in
their State excise tax.
So we would have, with the amendment I am going to offer, the 39-cent
Federal tax that is already in place on a pack of cigarettes, an
additional 37 cents--instead of an additional 61 cents--plus the State
taxes on cigarettes; and a big proportion of this--all the Federal
tax--going to fund a health program.
I would like to be clear that there is no question in my mind about
the fact that we do need to reauthorize and expand this program. But I
do not think it is a proper to fund this program on the backs of people
who, for better or worse, smoke cigarettes. I am a reformed smoker.
Many of my contemporaries in the Senate are reformed smokers. I am not
encouraging anyone to smoke cigarettes. I hope you do not. I just
believe although tobacco taxes are already a popular source of revenue,
it does not change the reality that this tax is regressive.
We had a Congressional Research Service report brought to my office,
and I am going to quote from it. It said:

Cigarette taxes are especially likely to violate horizontal
equity and are among the most burdensome taxes on lower-
income individuals. Only about a quarter of adults smoke, and
less than half of families have expenditures on tobacco.
Tobacco is more heavily used by lower-income families than
are other commodities, and is unusual in that actual dollars
(in addition to the percent of income) spent on tobacco
products decline in the highest income quintile.

My amendment will help soften the blow of the increase in the
cigarette tax.
Let me provide some background on carried interest. A partner of a
private equity or hedge fund receives two different types of
compensation. First, hedge fund managers receive management fees that
are linked to the assets they oversee. Second, they receive what is
called ``carried interest,'' which is compensation based on the
percentage of the profits generated by the assets they manage.
Currently, carried interest is taxed at a capital gains tax rate. As
noted by Peter Orszag, who is now a member of the Obama administration,
in his 2007 testimony, many economists view carried interest as:

Performance-based compensation for management services
provided by the general partner rather than as a return on
financial capital invested by that partner.

Given that carried interest is performance-based compensation, it
makes sense to tax it as ordinary income. This compensation has been
earned by many of the same people who helped bring about the present
financial crisis. The Financial Times stated these managers ``have made
fabulous sums in recent years.'' Given the need to pay for children's
health insurance, it makes more sense to have these persons, who are
better positioned to pay for it, pay a greater percentage of the cost.
When it comes to taxing carried interest as ordinary income, there is
a wide acceptance in support of this proposal among thinkers and
editorial writers across the country. The Financial Times itself
editorialized ``this repair should be done at once.'' They made that
statement 2 years ago.
I have a string of editorials that support the idea of closing this
carried interest loophole as a matter of fairness. I ask unanimous
consent they be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. WEBB. They include editorials from the Washington Post, New York
Times, USA Today, the Philadelphia Inquirer. In fact, the Washington
Post in 2007, in talking about this particular tax break, said this:

The only mystery is why Senate Democrats don't have the
good sense to grab on to this as their centerpiece domestic
issue. It's hard to think of an issue that better taps into
the public anxiety about the markets and the economy, the
anger about income inequality, or the disgust with a
political system that bends to the will of powerful
interests.

The Washington Post continued:

This is a make-or-break issue for Democrats. If they can't
unite around this issue, then they aren't real Democrats and
they don't deserve to govern.

The New York Times in 2007 talked about this issue, mentioning:

With income inequality surging along with the need for tax
revenue, supporters rightly conclude that it is untenable for
the most highly paid Americans to enjoy tax rates that are
lower than those of all but the lowest income workers.
Congress will achieve a significant victory, for fairness
and for fiscal responsibility, if it ends the breaks that are
skewing the tax code in favor of the most advantaged
Americans.

There are others and, as I mentioned, I will insert the full text of
these editorials at the end of my comments.
I also should point out that our new President, President Obama, has
supported throughout his campaign the idea of taxing carried interest
as ordinary income.
So the choice is this: Do we help fund this program, which we all
agree is critically necessary, with a well-deserved tax adjustment for
some of those who are the most capable of absorbing a new tax, or do we
take money exclusively from tobacco, causing people who in large part
are in the same economic circumstances as the beneficiaries of this
health insurance program to foot the bill?
Let's think for a moment about the irony of that. We are taxing a
practice that we deem unhealthy in order to fund a health program, and
we supposedly want this practice to go away, but if it goes away, we
are not going to be able to fund our health program.
So we need to find a way to fund health care needs that is
sustainable and fair, and a declining revenue source is not
sustainable. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this
measure, which will partially offset the cigarette tax that is a part
of the bill. I again wish to express my strong appreciation to Chairman
Baucus and to others, such as my colleague from Rhode Island, who have
worked so hard on this bill and who work to help those in our system
who are most in need of medical care.
With that, I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Editorials Supporting Closing Private Equity/Carried Interest Loophole
as Matter of Fairness

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 9, 2007]

Private-Equity Tax Breaks, a Call To Be Up in Arms

Even by Washington standards, the private-equity industry
certainly went over the top in conjuring up the economic woes
that would befall the United States if their cherished tax
breaks were taken away.
Pensioners would be destitute. Wall Street would pack up
and move to Dubai. The hedge fund industry would disappear.
Federal revenue would plummet. Entrepreneurial risk-taking
would grind to a halt. And the urban underclass would slip
even deeper into poverty.
And all that just because some of the richest people in the
world would have to pay the same 35 percent tax rate on their
income as dentists, lawyers and baseball players.
There is no mystery as to why the industry bothers to make
these ridiculous and contradictory arguments--billions of
dollars in tax windfalls are at stake.

[[Page 1567]]

The only mystery is why Senate Democrats don't have the
good sense to grab onto this as their centerpiece domestic
issue as they head into the 2008 campaign. It's hard to think
of an issue that better taps into the public anxiety about
the markets and the economy, the anger about income
inequality, or the disgust with a political system that bends
to the will of powerful interests. And if Republicans go
through with their threats of a filibuster and a presidential
veto, Democrats ought to put aside all other business and
call their bluff.
This is a make-or-break issue for Democrats. If they can't
unite around this issue, then they aren't real Democrats and
they don't deserve to govern.
____

[From the Washington Post, July 13, 2007]

Equity for Private Equity; Legislation To Raise taxes on Fund Managers'
Income

Investment partnership funds can be enormously profitable,
highly secretive and lightly regulated. People tend to get
suspicious.
As a result, government bodies periodically try to tamper
with private equity firms, hedge funds, venture capital firms
and the like. This largely unregulated industry does a lot to
stabilize America's financial system by fostering innovation
and bringing inefficient or undervalued markets closer to
equilibrium, and most of these attempts to regulate or
reconfigure the industry would be bad for the U.S. economy.
But this time around Congress has proposed legislation that
makes sense.
A House bill would set a higher tax rate for ``carried
interest,'' the cut of profits typically awarded to fund
managers at private equity firms and other investment
partnerships. In these investment partnerships, a fund
manager typically manages the investment made by himself and
various limited partners, with the manager usually
contributing about 1 percent of the investment. The fund
manager then usually receives 2 percent of the assets he
manages annually and 20 percent of the profits earned on the
investment when it is sold. Even though this 20 percent cut
makes up the bulk of the manager's compensation, and even
though it is awarded for managing others' money, under
current tax law this income is treated as capital gains
rather than ordinary income. As a result, fund managers who
make zillion-digit incomes from carried interest can be taxed
at the same rate (15 percent) as a part-time janitor.
The House bill, sponsored by Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.),
Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.),
Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
and 13 other Democrats, would close this loophole for fund
managers and treat their ``carried interest'' earnings as
regular income taxable at the ordinary 35 percent top-income
rate that high-earning employees in other industries must
pay. The bill would not affect the other investors in these
funds, nor would it affect the tax rate for profits that fund
managers make on investments with their own money.
A Senate bill that also attempts to bring equity to the
private equity industry would force investment partnerships
that are publicly traded--right now, only a handful--to pay
corporate income taxes. Support for the Senate bill has
gained some momentum because of Blackstone Group's splashy
initial public offering, one of the largest in history. The
Senate's corporation-rather-than-manager-based solution seems
less effective, however, because companies can easily move
overseas (as many have already done), while individuals are
less likely to do so. Investment partnerships can also simply
choose not to go public.
Critics of the two bills argue that investment fund
managers should be rewarded for taking high risks. But these
fund managers, for the most part, are not risking their own
money, and they're paid management fees during the duration
of their partnerships, so they have steady incomes. Besides,
plenty of risky industries don't enjoy comparable tax
benefits. Income earned from managing an investment
partnership fund should be treated just like the income
earned for providing any other service.
____

[From the New York Times, June 25, 2007]

Raising Taxes on Private Equity

So much for the argument often made by managers of hedge
funds and mavens of private equity that higher taxes would
cripple their business.
The prospect of higher taxes did not dent, in the least,
the initial public offering on Friday of the Blackstone
Group, the giant private equity firm. The week before, a bill
was introduced in the Senate to raise taxes on private equity
firms that go public. On the day of the offering, a House
bill was introduced that would raise their taxes, whether
they're publicly traded or not.
And yet, Blackstone had a debut that was one of Wall
Street's biggest, its thunder muted only by the announcement
by its longtime rival, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, that it, too,
planned to go public.
The bills in Congress take aim at a provision of the tax
law that has allowed private equity and hedge fund operators
to pay a lower capital-gains tax rate of 15 percent, instead
of the ordinary top income-tax rate of 35 percent, on the
performance fees that make up the bulk of their huge
paychecks.
With income inequality surging along with the need for tax
revenue, the bills' supporters rightly conclude that it is
untenable for the most highly paid Americans to enjoy tax
rates that are lower than those of all but the lowest-income
workers.
Fairness is not the only reason to change the rules. The
private equity industry is on shaky ground when it claims
that current practice is a correct application of the law.
Many of the firms' partners are not investing their own
money in the various funds and ventures, and so have no
direct risk of loss, the general test for claiming capital-
gains treatment on one's earnings. Moreover, the tax rules in
question were developed decades ago for enterprises that had
passive investors to whom gains were passed along. Hedge fund
managers and private equity partners are not passive. They're
actively managing assets, and should be taxed accordingly as
managers earning compensation.
The challenge now is to develop a single bill that can
withstand the formidable lobbying efforts of the private
equity industry to water it down.
To do so, the final bill should clearly apply to other
firms where partners may also receive most of their pay as
capital gains, such as oil and gas partnerships. It will also
be necessary to narrow the bill, where appropriate. For
instance, it could include a mechanism to allow some
compensation to be taken in a form similar to incentive stock
options.
Congress will achieve a significant victory, for fairness
and for fiscal responsibility, if it ends the breaks that are
skewing the tax code in favor of the most advantaged
Americans.
____

[From USA TODAY, July 23, 2007]

Wealth Money Managers Make More, Get Taxed Less

As many business executives, doctors, lawyers and other
skilled professionals know, the top income tax rate is 35%.
The top rate on dividends and long-term capital gains is 15%.
Whether it makes sense to tax the output of expertise and
hard work at more than twice the rate of investment returns
is debatable. But, for better or worse, that's the way it is.
Except, that is, when it isn't. Owners of companies,
ranging from small real estate partnerships to multibillion
dollar hedge funds and private equity firms, have devised a
way to erase this distinction. Their managers pay 15% on
their income by dressing it up as investment returns--even
though they bear no investment risk or put none of their own
money in play.
Nice work if you can get it. But in this case it
constitutes a frontal assault on fairness. Why should such
people pay only 15% when senior corporate executives pay 35%
for making many of the same types of business decisions? More
to the point, it's hard to see the logic (or the justice) in
a school teacher or bus driver with taxable annual family
income as low as $63,700 paying 25% when someone like
Blackstone Group CEO Stephen Schwarzman can make nearly $700
million on the day his firm went public and pay at most 15%.
Congress is rightfully re-examining the issue. Reps. Sandy
Levin, D-Mich., and Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., have a proposal.
In the Senate, Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Chuck Grassley, R-
Iowa, have a useful, if narrower, bill.
The practice they are seeking to ban or limit is a
transparent ruse. Here's how it works using the example of a
private equity firm: The partners raise capital from banks,
pension funds and other large investors, which they use to
buy companies and resell them. Their investors give them some
direct compensation, which is taxable as income.
But most of the compensation comes in the form of an
investment vehicle known as ``carried interest,'' which gives
them a right to a portion of the profits they generate
(typically 20%). That portion of the profit is taxed 15%,
just as if they supplied 20% of the capital at the outset.
It's a creative practice, but with a result that says the
rich get to write their own rules. That's not a new problem
in the American tax system, but it is nevertheless repulsive.
Income is income, or so you'd think.
Supporters of this scam argue that these money managers
actually are risking their own investments. It's just not
money, in their case, but their ``sweat equity,'' their time,
their expertise. But the same could be said of the lawyer who
takes a case on a contingency fee, the movie actor who
negotiates a cut of the box office receipts, the financier
who chooses to work for a firm known for paying enormous
bonuses during good years. In most, if not all, of such
cases, these people pay income taxes.
And so should partners in these exotic investment firms.
More so because the tax they avoid paying is money that has
to be made up by people of lesser means--or borrowed from
later generations by adding to the budget deficit.
These schemes add insult to injury at a time of increasing
wealth concentration. It is time to end them.

[[Page 1568]]

____
[From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Sept. 19, 2007]

Equity Managers' Loophole; Billion-Dollar Breaks

For years, a relatively few players in the corporate
takeover game have benefitted from a tax loophole that costs
the federal government billions annually.
Now a push is under way in Congress to tax these wealthy
managers of private equity funds at the same income-tax rates
as everyone else. Congress should end this unfairness in the
tax code.
Most workers pay income taxes on a graduated scale, with
marginal tax rates running from a low of 10 percent, to a
high of 35 percent for the wealthiest wage earners. But
managers of private equity funds, who usually do extremely
well for themselves, pay only a capital gains tax rate of 15
percent on most of their income. That's because the tax code
considers their wages ``carried interest,'' even though this
compensation can run into hundreds of millions of dollars per
individual. The preferential treatment can be worth millions
of dollars to such a manager.
Rather than being taxed on compensation for services
rendered, these managers are taxed as though they had
invested a 20-percent stake in the fund. But, even though
they sometimes gain equity stakes in the companies they buy
and manage, they don't have capital at risk in the ventures.
They're really being compensated for their expertise and
effort.
This definitional fiddle creates a class of service
provider that is taxed a preferential rate. Economist Greg
Mankiw, former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers
under President Bush, has said that carried interest should
be taxed at the same rate as other compensation for such
services. As it stands now, an executive in a financial-
services firm is taxed differently from the manager of a
private equity or a hedge fund.
There's no good reason why a person earning $200 million
per year should pay a lower tax rate than a single worker
earning $45,000 annually and paying 20 percent in taxes.
The loophole costs the Treasury several billions of dollars
per year. The sum is small compared with the overall federal
budget. But in a budget season in which Congress and the
president are feuding over a difference of about $22 billion,
such sums do matter.
Some argue that taxing these fund managers at a higher rate
would harm ordinary investors, such as those enrolled in
state employee pension plans, because the fund managers would
demand higher compensation. But the evidence is slim. The
liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonprofit
think tank in Washington, said the impact on investors would
be ``quite small.''
And this glaring inequity shouldn't be preserved on the
presumption that a tiny fraction of it will trickle down to
the folks already paying their fair share.
____

[From the Washington Post, Nov. 8, 2007]

No Pay, No Patch

Nearly everyone wants to ``patch'' the alternative minimum
tax. Not everyone wants to pay to do so. That is the
challenge facing lawmakers as they race to install yet
another temporary fix on the tattered federal tax system in
time for the Internal Revenue Service to produce forms
reflecting the change. How this job is accomplished will show
whether congressional Democrats are willing to live up to the
pay-as-you-go obligations they imposed on themselves when
they retook control of Congress--and whether Republicans can
regain any credible claim to being committed to fiscal
discipline.
The alternative minimum tax was created in 1969 to dun a
tiny number of the super-rich who managed to avoid paying any
income taxes. Because the tax isn't indexed for inflation and
because the 2001 tax cut lowered regular tax rates, the AMT,
without adjustments, will affect millions of taxpayers who
everyone agrees were never its intended targets. But
exempting those millions will cost a lot in forgone revenue,
money that the Bush administration has built into its budget
numbers. Because fixing the problem is expensive and
complicated, lawmakers have chosen for years to slap a Band-
Aid onto it--and bill the cost to future generations. This
year's model totals $50 billion, $76 billion when the cost of
extending expiring tax provisions and other changes is
included.
To its credit, the House Ways and Means Committee has
produced an AMT patch whose costs are offset by other
changes, including eliminating the carried-interest deduction
that allows private equity and hedge fund managers to pay
taxes at far lower rates than other wage-earners. This is far
from a perfect solution: It would take 10 years of revenue to
pay for the one-year patch.
It's preferable, though, to the approach of congressional
Republicans and the Bush administration, which is to not
offset the tax cut with new taxes or spending cuts. House
Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) was illustrative of
the irresponsibility. ``Tax relief pays for itself by
creating more American jobs for more taxpayers to strengthen
our economy,'' he said in a statement. Perhaps Mr. Boehner
believes that the Tax Fairy will simply leave $50 billion
under the IRS's pillow; there is no economic basis for his
statement that ``tax relief pays for itself.'' Moreover, if
Mr. Boehner doesn't like the way Democrats propose to finance
the patch, what would he cut instead?
Republicans may not be the only obstacle to responsibility.
Senate Democrats say they want to comply with the pay-go
requirement, and there were hopeful signs last week from
Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). ``I'm not in favor of
waiving pay-go rules,'' he said. ``I think we cannot waver on
that.'' But Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-
Mont.) has been less definitive, saying only that he'd like
to comply with pay-go to the extent possible; he has also not
been eager to close the carried-interest loophole. Once the
pay-go rule is ignored, though, lawmakers won't be able to
discipline themselves in the future. This is a key test for
the party that wants to wear the mantle of fiscal
responsibility.
____

[From the New York Times, Nov. 8, 2007]

Alternative Tax Showdown

The House and Senate are poised to vote on a vitally
important tax bill that poses a test for each chamber of
Congress. In the House, the vote on a short-term fix for the
alternative minimum tax will test whether Democratic
representatives have the courage of their convictions. In the
Senate, the vote will test whether Democratic senators have
any convictions at all, or just a belief in keeping the world
safe for campaign contributors.
Under current tax law, 23 million taxpayers will owe the
alternative tax for 2007, up from 4 million last year. The
tax was originally intended to apply to multimillionaires.
But most of this year's alternative taxpayers make between
$100,000 and $500,000 and about a third make less than
$100,000. They all have good cause to feel rooked and to
expect help from Congress.
The challenge is the ``pay-as-you-go'' budget rule adopted
when Democrats took control of Congress this year. New tax
relief must be paid for, either by raising taxes elsewhere or
by cutting government benefits like Medicare or Social
Security that cover everyone who is eligible. The one-year
cost of shielding millions of Americans from a tax they
should not have to pay is $51 billion.
The House tax committee met the challenge, drafting a bill
that provides the needed tax relief and plugs the resulting
budget gap, mainly by raising taxes on private equity
partners and hedge fund managers. The bill is good policy.
The tax relief assuages justifiably aggrieved taxpayers. Tax
increases on private equity firms and hedge funds rectify
outdated rules that have allowed the very wealthiest to enjoy
tax rates lower than those paid by middle-income Americans
and, in some cases, to defer taxes indefinitely.
But key Democratic senators, among them New York's Charles
Schumer, who is the main fund-raiser for Senate Democrats,
are balking. They know they must provide alternative tax
relief, but they don't want to tax private equity and hedge
funds to pay for it. Their defense of the industries' morally
indefensible tax breaks is tawdry. As The Washington Post
reported yesterday, in the first nine months of 2007, as
pressure built to dismantle the tax breaks, investment firms
and hedge funds contributed $11.8 million to candidates,
party committees and leadership political action committees.
That's more than was given in 2005 and 2006 combined. More
than two-thirds of that money went to Democrats.
The Senate's equivocating has rubbed off somewhat on the
House. The bill is still expected to pass the House, as early
as tomorrow, but some members have wondered aloud why they
should support a tough measure if the Senate is determined to
kill it.
The answer is that it is the right thing to do. The House
bill holds true to the pay-as-you-go rule when doing so
matters most, that is, when large sums and difficult trade-
offs are at stake. It undoes a tax injustice. And maybe, just
maybe, the money men in the Senate can be swayed by example.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, this week we have the chance in the
Senate to provide health insurance to 4.1 million children in this
country who now don't have it, to cover 11 million children total. All
we have to do is the right thing and pass H.R. 2, the Children's Health
Insurance Program.
I know the distinguished Presiding Officer from Nebraska and the
distinguished Senator from Virginia, who has just spoken so eloquently,
have shared the experience I have had in my home State of Rhode Island,
and that is to travel around and hear personal stories from people
whose lives and whose health have collided with our broken,
dysfunctional health care system. Too often, families in this country
can't afford to pay for the care they need. As our economic troubles
worsen, that problem only grows more acute. Too often, they can't even
get in to see a doctor. Too often, when they

[[Page 1569]]

do receive care, it falls short in quality, in efficiency, in
effectiveness, and in timeliness.
The crisis in our health care system affects all of us, but it is
greatest and it is most tragic when it affects our children. That is
why Congress created the Children's Health Insurance Program which for
years has given millions of uninsured, hard-working American families
access to health care for their kids.
The program has not only expanded health care coverage for children,
it has encouraged States to be flexible, innovative, and responsive in
meeting their families' health care needs. We come from 50 different
States with 50 different sets of history, demographics, and economics,
and as a result, the States come up with different programs. That is
something to celebrate, not to bemoan. The program has safeguarded the
vulnerable, it has united families, and it has invested in the future
of our Nation. It is a special program of all the things that we do
here.
The Children's Health Insurance Program means that children are more
likely to receive medical care for common conditions such as asthma or
ear infections. It means that children end up with higher school
attendance rates, and that children have higher academic achievement.
It means that children have more contacts with medical professionals.
It means that children receive more preventive care. It means that
children go to the emergency room when it is an emergency, and when it
is not, they have someplace else to go that allows them and their
families to stay out of those expensive urgent care settings. So as we
have done for the past 2 years, this week we are working to pass
legislation to ensure that every eligible uninsured child in America
can get regular checkups when they are well and can get medicine when
they are sick.
Not long ago, former President Bush denied children needed health
care coverage by vetoing this legislation. But the American voters have
spoken and we are in a new era in this country--a new era for peace of
mind, for security, and for dignity for American children and for their
families. With a new Congress and a new President committed to health
care for all American families, I could not be more hopeful as we
discuss this bill today.
I am especially proud to serve with my senior Senator, Jack Reed of
Rhode Island, and to support him in this fight. I have been in the
Senate for 2 years now. Before I even got here, Jack Reed was one of
the most prominent, most ardent, and most determined fighters for our
Nation's children. Frankly, it is in significant part due to his
relentless work that we have come this far.
I am proud also to represent a State that has one of the lowest rates
of uninsured adults and children in the Nation. It was not easy. Rhode
Island worked hard over the past 15 years to achieve this success. It
began with the RIte Care Program in 1993. In 2001, the creation of the
Children's Health Insurance Program allowed Rhode Island to further
reduce uninsurance rates in the State. I am proud to be on the team of
former Governor Bruce Sundlun who turned 89 a few days ago. When he was
Governor, he created the original RIte Care Program. His vision and
determination to do this, in a time of grave economic straits for Rhode
Island, has yielded immense rewards. Now, as health care costs
skyrocket and the number of people in this country who lack health
insurance approaches the staggering number of 50 million--50 million
Americans, and so many of them children--we in Congress have an
obligation to strengthen initiatives like RIte Care through which
States have made health care more accessible.
Today, 4.1 million uninsured children are waiting for us to pass this
bill; 4.1 million children who might not see a doctor this winter when
they get the flu because their parents can't afford to pay out of
pocket for the visit; 4.1 million children who might delay needed
vaccinations or other preventive care because their parents have to buy
food instead; 4.1 million children who might not get an inhaler or
insulin or--heaven forbid--chemotherapy because in this economic
downturn, the money just isn't there.
Who could say no to uninsured, vulnerable children? Should we not at
least be able to agree on that? Why would anyone say no? We plan to
raise taxes on cigarettes, a tax that the American Cancer Society says
could prevent nearly 1 million deaths and keep nearly 2 million
children from starting to smoke; a tax with health savings that could
ultimately decrease government costs for government health care
programs; a tax that the Congressional Budget Office confirms will
fully offset this bill so as not to add to our deficit. I don't think
that would be a good reason to deny vulnerable children the safety and
security of health insurance.
During the course of this discussion, some Members have tried to make
this debate about illegal immigration. It is not. We should not permit
the very difficult issue of illegal immigration to affect this bill to
deny millions of children the health care they badly need. That would
be a grave mistake. That would be a wrong.
Let me be very clear: Only children who are legally in the United
States are eligible to receive coverage under Medicaid or the
Children's Health Insurance Program. They must document their
immigration status. Medicaid agencies use information provided by the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services to confirm the status of
legal immigrants applying for benefits. Further, this bill does not
even require States to cover legal immigrant children. It simply
provides and supports that option.
Legal immigrants pay taxes, they serve in our Armed Forces, and just
like the rest of us, they play by the rules. They are our future
citizens, and insuring their children makes sense. This was the law
until 1996 when sweeping restrictions affecting legal immigrants were
made. Since 1996, we have become wiser, and many of those restrictions
have been reversed on a bipartisan basis by Congress. The provision in
this legislation covering legal immigrants is fully consistent with
that trend back to 1996 levels.
This Nation is slowly emerging from a dark time when our ideals and
our virtues were too often hidden in the shadows, when we let our fear
overcome our principles and our better judgment, when we lost sight of
our priorities and left millions of people in the cold and millions of
children uninsured. That time can end now.
This bill is a chance to show these millions of Americans that we
have heard them and that we stand ready to help. We know how tough it
is for working families in this economy. If there is one worry, one
burden we can take off those parents' shoulders so they can be sure
their children have the health insurance every American deserves, we
should stand ready to help. This country should once again own its duty
to protect those who cannot protect themselves and to restore dignity
and hope where it has diminished.
I close by applauding Chairman Baucus and the Finance Committee for
bringing this vitally important and long overdue legislation to the
floor.
I urge all of my colleagues--it would be wonderful if we could do
this together--to allow these 11 million children to be covered by
health insurance, to have access to the health care they need, to grow
up healthy and strong and ready to seize the boundless opportunities
that are at the heart of the American dream.
I think we will find in the months and in the years ahead that there
will be things we cannot do to help families. I know everybody in this
Chamber wants to do everything they can, and we want to work as hard as
we can, but the economic situation is dire, and we are not going to be
able to do everything we would like. But this is something we can do.
This is something we can do for American families and for their
children, and I hope very much we will do it.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 1570]]

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee Assignments

Mr. REID. Mr. President, in accordance with S. Res. 18, I announce
that the following Democratic Members have been assigned to the
following committees: Agriculture, Mr. Bennet and Mrs. Gillibrand;
Banking, Mr. Bennet; Environment and Public Works, Mrs. Gillibrand;
Foreign Relations, Mrs. Gillibrand; Homeland Security, Mr. Bennet;
Aging, Mr. Bennet and Mrs. Gillibrand.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Record will show the appointments.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at 5:25 p.m.
today, the Senate resume consideration of the DeMint amendment, No. 43,
with the time until 5:45 p.m. for debate with respect to the amendment,
with the time equally divided and controlled in the usual form, with no
amendment in order to the amendment prior to a vote; that at 5:45 p.m.
the Senate proceed to vote in relation thereto; that upon disposition
of the DeMint amendment, the Senate resume consideration of the Hatch
amendment, No. 45, with 2 minutes of debate equally divided and
controlled prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no
amendments in order to the amendment prior to a vote; that upon
disposition of the Hatch amendment, the Senate proceed to executive
session and the Banking Committee be discharged from further
consideration of the nomination of Daniel K. Tarullo to be a member of
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; that the Senate
then proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination; that upon
confirmation, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and the
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that the
Senate then resume legislative session; further, that after the first
vote in this sequence, the remaining votes be 10 minutes in duration.
If I could say to Senators within the sound of my voice, we would be
having more votes today, but I conferred with Senator McConnell. The
Finance Committee is involved in marking up the economic recovery plan.
There are scores of amendments they are trying to work through so we
are limiting the number of amendments today. We are going to work hard
tomorrow, as I indicated when we opened today. We are not going to have
morning business all week. We are going to get these amendments
processed as quickly as we can.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I see the very distinguished Senator
from Arkansas in the Chamber to take over managing this bill.
Before I leave the floor, I want to make two points. I have been here
while a great deal of discussion has taken place about 5.4 million
children who are eligible for children's health care but who, through
lack of effort, it is claimed, the State programs are not finding. The
purpose of the argument has been to argue if we could make the States
find these kids, they would be the ones for whom the program was truly
designed, and that the 4.1 million additional children we are going to
help with this legislation are sort of a distraction from that figure.
I have not been able to source that 5.4 million number to anything. I
would note on a population basis, my State of Rhode Island is one
three-hundredth of the country. So if there are 5.4 million kids out
there, in that circumstance, Rhode Island should have, by my math,
18,000 of them. We only have 12,000 kids in the CHIP-funded portion of
what we call the RIte Care Program.
From my own experience, the likelihood of there being 18,000 eligible
children in our small State who cannot be found makes no logical sense
at all, which gives me significant pause about the validity of this 5.4
million number upon which so much of our colleagues' argument stands.
The other point I would make is there are many States that could
reach more eligible children, but the funding is not there for them.
Rhode Island is one such State. When other States return funds, we get
access to that pool, and we can expand our coverage.
So, in fact, by supporting this legislation, you will enable the
State programs to reach whatever that group of kids is, whether it is
5.4 million or 540,000. I do not know what the number is. Madam
President, 5.4 million sounds very unlikely. But even setting that
question aside, the fact that we would vote against this piece of
legislation in order to help those 5.4 million kids makes no sense
whatsoever because this legislation contains both the funding and the
outreach tools to allow the State programs to reach those very kids.
So that argument, at least from this Senator's perspective, appears
to hold no water whatsoever, or at least requires substantially better
justification and support before it should be counted on, at least in
my view, by any Senator as a reason to oppose this piece of
legislation.
With that observation, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 43

Under the previous order, the time until 5:45 will be equally divided
and controlled prior to a vote on amendment No. 43, offered by the
Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint.
The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. DeMINT. Thank you, Madam President.
I wish to take a few minutes to talk about an amendment I am offering
as part of the children's health plan we will be voting on probably
later this week.
I think it is important, as we talk about expanding the program, we
do it responsibly and make sure we do everything we can to keep
personal responsibility as part of the plan. All of us, Republicans and
Democrats, look forward to the day when every American family has a
health insurance plan they can afford and own and keep.
The children's health plan is, I see, maybe an interim step to that.
It was started to help America's poorest children be insured. The plan
we are discussing today, however, expands the children's health plan to
children over 200 percent of poverty. One of the things we want to make
sure does not happen is people who have private insurance and have
taken responsibility for health insurance for their family are not
encouraged to drop their private insurance and to join a government
children's health plan.
There are ways we can do it, and some States already do this. This is
by adding cost-sharing provisions for those who take advantage of the
government children's health plan. That is what my amendment is about:
making sure States that provide Government health coverage to families
over 200 percent of poverty have some cost-sharing arrangement to send
the signal that this is not a permanent subsidy from Government but a
temporary bridge to help families who need some help getting health
insurance for their children to get the help they need.

[[Page 1571]]

So let me talk a little bit about what is in there.
Again, the main goal of this amendment is to stop the people moving
from private plans--that they are paying for and taking responsibility
for--to a Government-sponsored plan so there is accountability, and
that is what we want to make sure is in this system.
We need to remind our colleagues the children's health plan was
created for America's poorest children. I wish a lot of our emphasis
and debate was on: How can we get more children under 200 percent of
poverty actually registered for the program? There are millions of
children today who qualify for the current children's health plan who
are not registered, either for what we call SCHIP or for Medicaid.
Instead of just taking those numbers up and expanding the people who
can take advantage of the program, we should be trying to get those who
are most needy registered for the program. Instead, I am afraid we are
going to crowd out those folks, as we provide insurance for other
families. In some States, under this plan, families making over $70,000
a year, with a family of four, can take advantage of Government health
plans.
So what we are going to have is one person making $70,000 a year
paying for their own private insurance and their neighbor making the
same amount who has Government health care. There are ways we can
discourage it. A number of States already require that the
beneficiaries of this children's health plan pay a copay or a small
part of the cost of the health insurance, and that is what this
amendment does.
My amendment specifically would require that States that are offering
the children's health plan to families above 200 percent of poverty
have some minimum cost-sharing. We protect the beneficiaries by saying
that no State can charge a user of the children's health plan more than
5 percent of their monthly income, and we don't have a minimum. So we
expect most States to have a very minimum cost-sharing plan put in
place.
What we are doing does not replace or change anything that States
already have set up for cost-sharing. In fact, I think it will make it
fairer for them. The way the system will work, unless we pass this
amendment, is the people in States that are participating in the costs
of this plan will help pay more for those States that don't have any
cost-sharing. So it is not fair, if we have some States encouraging
personal responsibility and cost-sharing, to put more of a burden on
them to pay for States that might not do the same.
My belief is that every State would implement for families over 200
percent of poverty a cost-sharing arrangement. What this does is just
lays out some basic parameters that give the States complete
flexibility, whether it is a copay, whether it is a percent of the
insurance, but not to exceed 5 percent of the income of any of the
recipients.
I understand this is the next amendment to be voted on. I encourage
all of my colleagues to do everything we can to stop any incentives
that move people from private insurance to Government insurance, create
some accountability and personal responsibility in this plan for the
ones with higher incomes, and to save more of the dollars for those who
are most needy in the plan.
Again, I encourage a vote, and I reserve the remainder of my time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
during the quorum call be divided evenly, and I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I
understand I have 2\1/2\ minutes left; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DeMINT. And the quorum call will be applied against that time; is
that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Equally applied to the Senator 2\1/2\ minutes
and the time remaining on the majority side.
Mr. DeMINT. If the Senator would agree, I don't have much time left,
and if I could reserve that time. If there is no opposition, obviously,
I don't need to use any additional time.
Mr. PRYOR. That is agreeable.
Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Senator.
Mr. PRYOR. 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. PRYOR. 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. PRYOR. Madam President, I move to table the DeMint amendment No.
43 and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necesarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Louisiana (Mr. Chambliss).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 37, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 16 Leg.]

YEAS--60

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--37

Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker

NOT VOTING--2

Chambliss
Kennedy

The motion was agreed to.

Amendment No. 45

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 45, offered by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch.
The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, to remind my colleagues, the Hatch
amendment, No. 45, says that before a State is permitted to cover legal
immigrants through CHIP and Medicaid, it must demonstrate to the HHS
Secretary that 95 percent of its State children who are citizens under
200 percent of the Federal poverty level are enrolled in either the
State's Medicaid Program or CHIP.
My amendment does not prohibit legal immigrant children from being
covered, but it does set some of the parameters. Again, I believe our
U.S. children who are citizens should be covered first. If you cover 95
percent, then you can go on and do more. Once those kids are covered, I
am happy to work with my colleagues to cover legal immigrant children,
but our U.S. citizen kids should be covered first. That is all I am
saying, and I think it is reasonable.
Mr. President, I think this is a reasonable amendment. I am prepared
to ask unanimous consent to have a voice vote on it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, basically the amendment requires States to
certify that 95 percent of their CHIP

[[Page 1572]]

children, or Medicaid, are being paid first before the children of
legal immigrants. No State meets that requirement.
I might also say the nationwide average for covering children under
200 percent of poverty is 80 percent. No State reaches 95. It is too
high a standard.
More than that, we do include in this bill provisions for bonus
payments to States to encourage them to cover low-income kids first. I
think it would be inappropriate and unfair to make it an ironclad
requirement that States must certify 95 percent. These are kids who are
sick through no fault of their own. Their parents are paying taxes.
They are full citizens--they are legal immigrants, but they are already
incorporated into the system, being taxed, et cetera, and their kids
should not be penalized.
I strongly encourage us not to adopt this amendment because no State
can certify to 95 percent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The Senator from Utah is
recognized.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we withdraw
the call for a rollcall vote and voice-vote this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The rollcall vote has not been ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have conferred with the Republican leader.
This will be the last vote today. The Finance Committee is still
meeting, and they expect to continue working tonight. I spoke to the
chairman just a short time ago. He is going to do everything within his
power to finish the markup tonight. We are going to get back tomorrow
and again have no morning business. We will be back on this bill
tomorrow. Everyone who has amendments to offer, get them ready.

____________________

EXECUTIVE SESSION

______

NOMINATION OF DANIEL K. TARULLO TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the nomination is
discharged and the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider
the nomination, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read the nomination of Daniel K. Tarullo, of
Massachusetts, to be a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Daniel K. Tarullo, of Massachusetts, to be a member of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System. On this question, the yeas and
nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 1, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 17 Ex.]

YEAS--96

Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Burr
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--1

Bunning

NOT VOTING--2

Chambliss
Kennedy

The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Under the previous
order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the
table.
The President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

____________________

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume legislative session.

____________________

CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009--
Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

Economic Recovery

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the severity of this economic crisis
requires the Federal Government to respond quickly and forcefully. The
economic recovery proposal we are considering has two key objectives:
stimulating the economy and creating jobs. Congress currently is
negotiating where the funds will be spent--on infrastructure projects,
on health care and safety net programs, on developing alternative
energy for the 21st century economy. As we decide how to spend these
tax dollars, it is imperative we consider where to spend them or,
rather, on whom. These funds must create American jobs. To do that, we
must ensure that Federal funds are used to buy American services and
American products.
Our economy is suffering from the highest unemployment rate in more
than a decade and a half. In 2008, we lost 2.6 million jobs, the
largest job losses in 1 year in more than six decades. Our unemployment
rate jumped to 7.2 percent. We all know that number doesn't tell the
real story, the real human story. The more accurate measure of
joblessness, the unemployed and the underemployed, or workers whose
hours have been cut, is almost 14 percent. More than 533,000 jobs were
eliminated in December. Yesterday, some of America's strongest, most
prestigious companies announced more than 55,000 job cuts in 1 day.
Among them was General Motors, which announced it would cut a shift at
its Lordstown plant in Mahoning County in northeast Ohio. As President
Obama said:

These are not just numbers on a page. There are families
and communities behind every job.

Communities such as Moraine and Chillicothe and Canton understand
what happens when there is a major layoff. They don't need to hear the
new job numbers. They understand it when small businesses close and
diners empty out.
Manufacturing jobs keep American communities strong, and the steepest
job losses are occurring in manufacturing. Nearly one in four
manufacturing jobs has simply vanished since 2000, and 40,000 factories
have closed in the last 10 years. Last year, manufacturing accounted
for nearly a third of all lost jobs, while factory orders plummeted to
record lows. Inventories are piling up because no one is buying. This
leads to production cuts and then massive job losses that we will
likely see more of this year. President Obama said it is likely going
to get worse in 2009 before it gets better.
A loss of manufacturing is about more than jobs; it is about the loss
of the Nation's middle class. I want to lay out what exactly the
benefits of manufacturing are to this Nation.
Many of us represent large manufacturing workforces. All of us
represent some manufacturing, some in more States than others. We all
recognize or all should recognize the importance of manufacturing to
our national security

[[Page 1573]]

and to our domestic security--for families, neighborhoods, communities,
for the Nation.
Let me cite the benefits of manufacturing:
No. 1, these jobs pay better on average than others.
No. 2, manufacturing jobs have a stronger multiplier effect,
supporting as many as five other jobs. For instance, an auto assembly
plant obviously creates other jobs--suppliers and tool and die shops
and machine shops and parts manufacturers, and all that those jobs
create. Manufacturers are large taxpayers supporting vital public
services and schools in communities across the Nation.
No. 3, if you have a large industrial plant in a school district,
that school district gets an awful lot of help in local property tax
dollars from the manufacturing plant.
No. 4, American manufacturers are on the cutting edge of new
technologies in the clean energy economy of tomorrow.
No. 5, if we are to end our dependence on foreign oil, we need to do
more manufacturing here rather than allowing it to go offshore,
especially in alternative energy.
No. 6, our national security depends on a strong defense industrial
base to supply troops and protect our national interests.
Without a bold economic recovery plan that makes manufacturing a
priority, the job losses will continue throughout this year and into
next.
``Buy American,'' established in 1933 by President Roosevelt,
requires that Federal purchasers prefer U.S. products. In other words,
if the product is made in the United States at a decent price, then
Federal purchasers must buy those products. But over the years, waivers
of those preferences have been abused to create giant loopholes in
``Buy American.'' In other words, when we should be buying American, we
are often buying Chinese or from some country in the European Union or
Mexico. U.S. tax dollars whenever possible should go to create U.S.
jobs. It is pretty simple. It is something people at home simply don't
understand--nor do I--why we, as a country, as a government, don't use
our tax dollars to create American jobs.
I am concerned about the lack of transparency in the waiver process
and how that can lead to lost business, lost jobs, lost work, the
actual steel, iron, cement, and other materials coming from overseas
and not creating jobs in our country.
The Obama administration's stated goal is to make the biggest
investment in the Nation's infrastructure since President Eisenhower
created the Interstate Highway System more than 50 years ago. Imagine
all this infrastructure, steel, concrete, all the materials we are
going to buy with tax dollars, what it will matter if these products
are made in the United States and not somewhere else. That is what we
did mostly with the Interstate Highway System 50 years ago.
So when we are building infrastructure, whether it is water or sewer
lines in Denver or whether it is a bridge in Minneapolis, this ``Buy
American'' provision says we should be buying American and creating
jobs here.
We have a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure that these dollars
are creating jobs. Inclusion of ``Buy American'' requirements in the
recovery proposal would be the most effective way to ensure that tax
dollars are spent in the United States to create jobs. We have a
responsibility to give American manufacturers the opportunity to bid on
the steel and the iron and the other products that will be in demand
from these massive investments in our infrastructure.
We have ``Buy American'' provisions in Federal statutes that provide
that preference to use domestic materials, such as steel and other
products and components, in federally funded highway and transit
projects for State and local authorities. These need to be applied to
the maximum extent possible as we try to revive the economy, as we move
the Obama stimulus package through the Chamber.
Just last week, the Government Accountability Office reported on the
benefits of Buy American policies. This is what the GAO said:

The types of potential benefits to this program include
protecting domestic employment through national
infrastructure improvements that can stimulate economic
activity and create jobs. . . .

This recovery proposal is about creating direct jobs with taxpayer
dollars and then spin-off jobs with taxpayer dollars.
Let me be clear. This is not about stopping or slowing international
trade. It is about using provisions in U.S. law consistent with our
international obligations that allow for a preference for domestically
produced goods financed by our U.S. taxpayer dollars.
Only if we do this will the recovery effort have the impact our towns
and cities so desperately need. Why spend tens of billions--no,
hundreds of billions--of dollars for infrastructure if we are not going
to spend that money on American made products to create jobs directly
and the spin-off jobs that come from that manufacturing?
American taxpayers deserve no less. Congress must act in good faith
to create the most jobs here, especially in manufacturing. Enforcing
the Buy America requirements already on the books and, to the extent we
can, applying them to this stimulus bill is simply the right thing to
do.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to speak of the Children's
Health Insurance Program and the debate we are having in the Senate.
I appreciate what my colleague from Ohio just spoke of, the
tremendous trauma that has been caused across the country with this
terrible recession so many families are living through. I appreciate
the fact he reminded us about what has been happening in our States and
our communities as a result of this economic horror that so many
families are living through. That horror and that trauma will only be
increased in the months and years ahead if we do not pass this
children's health insurance legislation. I think it is directly related
to what we are talking about here when it comes to the terrible
recession so many families are living through.
So I want to speak about the bill and deal with some of the questions
that have been raised about the bill. But in particular, I want to,
first, step back from the bill, from the debate, even step back for a
few minutes from the program itself, to reflect on what the reality is
for families.
I think when we speak of families and children's health insurance we
speak and we think mostly about parents and the relationship they have
to their children and what they want for their children. They, of
course, want their children to succeed in life. They have hopes and
dreams for their children. But, of course, for a parent, and especially
for a mother, who is often providing most of the care for a child, her
initial hopes, her initial fears, her concerns at the beginning of that
child's life are very basic: Will that child be born healthy? Will that
child grow and develop as he or she should?
I was thinking back to 2007 when we were having this debate at that
time, thinking of the love of a mother and what she can provide for a
child, especially a very young child. That mother can provide all of
the protection she can muster for that child, she can envelop or
embrace that child with protection and love and nurturing and all the
wonderful things that a mother--a parent but especially a mother--can
provide for a child. But there are some things that no matter what that
mother does, no matter how much she loves her son or her daughter,
there are some things she cannot provide on her own. She cannot provide
health insurance on her own. She cannot provide medical care if she is
not trained in that profession as a doctor or a nurse.
So there are a lot of mothers out there who have children they worry
about every day of the week. They go to bed worrying what if that child
has a problem in the middle of the night or some kind of a health care
challenge in the middle of the day, what will happen to that child?
So when we are thinking about this debate and this issue, we should
think

[[Page 1574]]

about the love of a mother and what she can and cannot provide. That is
one of the reasons why as a country we come together to solve problems
such as this. We know an individual person cannot build a road, so we
come together and provide public resources to build a road. We know one
person or one family cannot provide law enforcement protection, so we
all contribute to that. The same is true on health care. No matter how
much that mother loves her child, she cannot on her own provide health
insurance.
So what did we do? We created a program which in my State of
Pennsylvania is called the Children's Health Insurance Program--CHIP
for short. The program ``name'' is kind of redundant because the last
word of the acronym is ``Program.'' But the CHIP Program then developed
into a national program, as the Presiding Officer knows from his time
in the House of Representatives, the so-called SCHIP, State Children's
Health Insurance Program. That is what the debate is about.
What did we do? We created a program which now covers 6.7 million
American children, most of whom, probably the overwhelming majority of
whom would not have any health insurance coverage because, as we know,
these are families who are above the income levels for Medicaid but
they are often below or outside the category of families who have
employer-sponsored health insurance. So they are in that gap: lower
middle or middle-income families, in many cases. So we have covered 6.7
million children. That is wonderful. The only problem is there are
millions more who are not covered.
This bill--strip away all the debate, all of the back and forth, all
of the fighting about this--at its core, just as it did a couple years
ago, is to provide health insurance to more than 4 million additional
children. So 6.7 million, roughly, and you add 4.1 million, that is
what you are talking about.
So we have the program in the legislation now to cover more than 10.5
million American children. Few, if any, generations of Americans who
have served in a legislative body could say they cast a vote to cover
that many children. It is a tremendous opportunity for a child, for
their family, for the community and neighborhood they live in, for
their State, and for their country now and in the next months and years
ahead, but it is also important to all of us down the road.
Who would you want to hire 20 years from now? A child we invested in?
A child who had health care in the dawn of his or her life? A child who
had early learning opportunities? A child who had a good healthy start
in life? I think as an employer you would want to hire a person who had
that investment. They are bound to be more productive. So there is a
long-term workforce argument. But even if that argument was not there,
this is the right thing to do for the obvious reasons.
Now, what are we talking about? We are talking about health care and
benefits. There is a long list of benefits I won't go through. We have
charts we have all pointed to, and we will continue to do that.
But just consider one aspect of the benefits, one that I focus on
because I think it is crucial to the life of a child and crucial to
their--I should say, not just crucial, determinative of the kind of
future they are going to have or not have, and that is well-child
visits. One of the benefits that is covered in Pennsylvania is that in
the first year of the life of that child he or she will get six well-
child visits. Every child in America should have that opportunity.
Every family should have the peace of mind to know that if all does not
go well, at least their child has health insurance, and in the first
year of their life they have been to the doctor at least six times, and
they have been to the dentist and any other specialty they can get to
and that the benefits cover.
So if we want to just focus on one benefit of the children's health
insurance: a kid gets to the doctor six times in a year--pretty
important. I am not a doctor, but we all know the benefit, as parents
and as legislators from our work.
Another aspect of this legislation that does not get a lot of
attention: When people hear about a government-inspired initiative, or
a program in this case, that is partially paid for with public dollars,
we often hear about: Well, that is just for communities where people
are low income, but they are covered by Medicaid, so why do we need to
help them? It does not help people kind of across the length and
breadth of the country. It is somehow targeted to one group and,
therefore, it is not good for everyone.
Well, I just made the case about the workforce long term. But one
aspect of this issue in terms of a group of children who are often not
in the headlines but benefit directly and are reliant upon the
Children's Health Insurance Program and the Medicaid Program for
children is that a lot of poorer families with children are in rural
areas--people who live in rural areas across the State of Pennsylvania
and across the country.
In my State of Pennsylvania, when you get outside of Philadelphia and
Pittsburgh and Erie and Harrisburg--a couple of major urban areas--we
are a very rural State. We have literally millions of people who live
in the demographic category that we refer to as rural areas. Those
children--one-third of them--rely upon either the Children's Health
Insurance Program or the Medicaid Program. So it helps a high
percentage of rural children.
In the midst of this economy, when those rural communities in
Pennsylvania and across the country have been disproportionately
adversely impacted by high energy costs, including everything from
gasoline to home heating oil, to all kinds of other energy costs, when
they have also been hit hard by the downturn in the economy--job losses
are rampant in rural communities--when you factor in those realities
with the dependence or reliance they have on this program, it is
critically important we provide as much in the way of resources as we
can and outreach to get those children enrolled in rural areas, as well
as in our urban and even suburban communities.
I want to conclude with a recitation of some myths and facts, some of
which we have heard on the floor in the debate over the last couple
days. I will do just one, two, three, four--about four or five myths.
Myth No. 1, the children's health insurance bill reduces
documentation requirements, allowing illegal immigrants to receive
benefits. That is the myth.
Here are the facts.
Fact No. 1: Under current law, only individuals applying for Medicaid
are subject to the citizenship documentation requirements. This bill
actually extends those requirements to the Children's Health Insurance
Program, requiring documentation in CHIP just like documentation is
required in the Medicaid Program. You would never know that by some of
the debate here.
Fact No. 2 about this documentation issue: Because the requirements
have resulted in the widespread denial of coverage to many citizens,
the children's health insurance bill also gives States a new way to
prove citizenship through matching Social Security Administration
records. So that is further help on documentation.
Fact No. 3 under this section: These citizen documentation provisions
are the same as they were in the children's health insurance bill
passed in the Senate overwhelmingly--overwhelming--with bipartisan
support in 2007. So it is the same. So for those who are creating the
myth that somehow it is new, that is not true.
Myth No. 2: The bill ends the mandatory 5-year waiting period for
legal immigrants to receive benefits--opening the program to abuse by
illegal immigrants. It is another myth.
Fact No. 1 under this myth: The bill allows but does not require--it
allows but does not require--States to cover legal immigrant children
without forcing them to wait 5 years for coverage. Why should a child
who is a legal immigrant or why should a pregnant woman in the same
circumstance--why should they have to wait 5 years? Does that make any
sense at all? Does that make any of us safer or does that make our
country better to have vulnerable people wait to get these benefits,
especially when 23 States are doing this

[[Page 1575]]

now? By listening to the debate, you would think this is some new
concept that just fell out of the sky. Twenty-three States right now
are doing this. So what does this bill do? It allows States to cover
legal immigrant children without forcing them to wait 5 years for
coverage.
Only immigrant children here legally--legally--are eligible for the
benefits provided by Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance
Program. So if anyone uses the word ``illegal'' in this context, you
know automatically they are deliberately attempting to mislead people.
Children and pregnant women who will now be eligible must document
their immigration status. State Medicaid agencies use the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services' automated SAVE system to verify
the immigration status of legal immigrants applying for Medicaid. So
that is a protection that is built into this bill.
The next myth: This bill will allow children from families making
over $80,000 per year to receive coverage while poor children are still
not enrolled.
That is another myth. This bill would extend coverage to 4 million
more low-income children and help struggling families in this time of
economic downturn. The CHIP bill prioritizes enrolling low-income
children by establishing a performance-based system to reward States
for enrolling low-income kids while giving them new tools to do so. So
we incentivize States to go out and enroll more children, which is a
worthy thing to do, and critically important.
Under the bill, States would be allowed to designate CHIP funds to
help families afford private coverage afforded by employers or other
sources.
Finally, under this section, the bill maintains provisions to reduce
the Federal match rate for the cost of covering children above 300
percent of the Federal poverty level.
Let me get to two more myths, and I will conclude.
The next myth: The revenue stream to pay for the Children's Health
Insurance Program with tobacco tax is unsteady and will not be able to
fund the program in the future, increasing the burden on taxpayers.
That is the myth. We have heard that a lot. The fact is, according to
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the proposed $31.5 billion
in spending will be fully paid for by the fee increase to tobacco
products over the authorized 5-year timeframe.
Finally, this myth: Democrats have made unilateral changes to CHIP,
which has jeopardized the bipartisan support of the previous version
passed by the Senate.
Fact: The CHIP legislation introduced this year is almost identical
to the legislation in 2007 which received broad bipartisan support in
the House and the Senate. Two prior bipartisan efforts were blocked by
President Bush when he vetoed the legislation.
Providing health care for children is not a Democratic or Republican
issue. We know that. It is a moral issue and one that all Senators
should support. The few unresolved policy disagreements were put to a
vote in the committee. So we have had a committee vote as well.
So I would conclude tonight with where I began. What is the Senate
going to do when faced with the question, the stark and fundamental
question: Are we going to act this week to cover 4.1 million more
children? It is up or down.
There have been a lot of discussions about so-called immigration
issues which I think have been misleading. A lot of the debate is about
numbers. But we are either going to act to do this, to cover 4 million
kids, or not.
Finally, what will the Senate do this week to speak to that one
mother and to say to her: We understand a little bit--a little bit--
about what you are going through, and we understand that with all of
the love you surround your son or daughter with, we know you cannot
provide them health insurance on your own. We are going to help you
because we have the program that has been in place for 15 years, which
is one of the best pieces of legislation this body or the other body
ever voted on; we know how to help you, and we are going to do
everything we can to help you. We know this economy is especially tough
on that mother and that family. We are going to act to help you through
this difficult period in your life so that you can have the peace of
mind to know that your son or daughter at least--at least--is covered
by health insurance and can get six visits to the doctor in a year.
That is not asking too much of all of us and of the American people, to
show some degree of understanding and some degree of solidarity with
that mother and her children.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and note the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

ERIC HOLDER NOMINATION

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of
Eric Holder to be Attorney General of the United States. As a member of
the Judiciary Committee, I have given especially close consideration to
this nomination. I met privately with Eric Holder, reviewed his record,
listened to his sworn testimony, and I have come to the conclusion that
he will be an outstanding Attorney General.
On January 15 and 16, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Mr.
Holder's nomination where he was asked many questions from the
committee members on both sides of the aisle. He stayed until every
member of the committee had asked every question they wished. Then,
following the hearing, Mr. Holder responded to literally hundreds of
written followup questions from members of the committee.
Last week, the Judiciary Committee was scheduled to vote on his
nomination. Despite a lengthy 2-day hearing which included multiple
outside witnesses and Mr. Holder's timely response to the questions,
the Republicans asked to postpone the committee's vote on Mr. Holder's
nomination. That is their right under the Senate rules, but it is
disappointing that despite Mr. Holder's full cooperation, we have been
unable to move forward on this nomination to this point. As a result,
the crucial position of Attorney General remains unfilled and the Obama
administration's national security team is incomplete.
Due to the delay, the committee will now vote on Mr. Holder's
nomination as early as tomorrow. I urge my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to support the nomination so we can have new leadership in
place at the Justice Department.
I believe Eric Holder has the experience, independence, and
commitment to the rule of law to reform the Justice Department. He will
be one of the most qualified Attorneys General, having previously
served as Deputy Attorney General, U.S. attorney, judge, and a career
Justice Department attorney. Mr. Holder will need to bring all of that
experience to bear to restore the integrity of the Department which has
descended to a sad state today.
However, it is more than just experience that he will bring. The
Attorney General is the people's lawyer, not the President's lawyer, so
he or she needs to have the backbone on occasion, if necessary, to
stand up for what is right, even if it means disagreeing with the
President.
I have had many differences of opinion with John Ashcroft, our former
Attorney General under the previous President, but there was a moment
in history when he was literally in an intensive care unit and asserted
his authority as Attorney General to say no to the President. It took
courage. It took commitment. It took professionalism. We should expect
nothing less of those who serve in that capacity.

[[Page 1576]]

There can be little doubt about Eric Holder's willingness to say no
to the President. He has demonstrated a lot of independence throughout
his career. As Deputy Attorney General, he recommended expanding the
Starr investigation into the Monica Lewinsky affair, and he recommended
the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate a member of
President Clinton's Cabinet. He has been involved in the investigation
and prosecution of Members of Congress in both political parties.
The testimony of former FBI Director Louie Freeh, in support of Mr.
Holder, is a good indication of his independence. No one would accuse
Mr. Freeh of being a partisan Democrat. He was a strong supporter of
former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and also of John McCain's efforts
when he ran for President. He has been a vocal critic of former
President Clinton. Mr. Freeh included his decisions to pardon Marc Rich
and offer commutation to the FALN as things he disagreed with. But Mr.
Freeh enthusiastically supports Mr. Holder's nomination. Here is what
he said:

The Attorney General is not the President's lawyer. . . .
the President has a White House counsel for those purposes.
And I know that Eric Holder understands the difference. I
think he would be very quickly able to say no to the
President if he disagreed with him. And I think that's the
confidence and trust we need in that position.

Mr. Holder is also supported by dozens of other prominent Republican
lawyers, such as former Attorney General William Barr and former Deputy
Attorney General Jim Comey, a man who, incidentally, distinguished
himself during the previous administration in his service at the
Justice Department.
President Obama respects Eric Holder's independence. At his hearing,
Mr. Holder testified about a conversation he had with the President
after he accepted the offer. The President said:

Eric, you've got to understand you have to be different.
You know, we have a pretty good relationship. That's probably
going to change as a result of you taking this position. I
don't want you to do anything that you don't feel comfortable
doing.

What a refreshing exchange. It gives me hope that the Attorney
General, if it is Eric Holder, in this Justice Department will chart a
new and important course for this Nation.
In addition to Mr. Holder's experience and independence, there is
little doubt about his commitment to the rule of law. I voted against
the two previous Attorneys General because of their involvement in one
issue: torture.
As White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales was an architect in the Bush
administration's policy on interrogation, a policy which has come into
criticism not only in the United States but around the world. His
successor, Michael Mukasey, refused to repudiate torture techniques
such as waterboarding. That was unfortunate because Mr. Mukasey really
brought a stellar resume to the job, but that really was a bone in my
throat that I couldn't get beyond, and I voted against his nomination.
Now, during his confirmation hearing, Eric Holder gave a much
different response. When asked directly, he said: ``Waterboarding is
torture.''
Those three words resonated throughout the committee room and across
the Nation among many Americans who had been concerned about this
important issue and literally gave a message to the world that there
was a new day dawning in Washington.
I also asked Mr. Holder the same question I asked Attorneys General
Gonzalez and Mukasey: Does he agree with the Judge Advocates General,
the four highest ranking military lawyers, that the following
interrogation techniques violate the Geneva Conventions: painful stress
position, threatening detainees with dogs, forced nudity, or mock
execution. Mr. Holder said:

The Judge Advocate General Corps are in fact correct that
those techniques violate Common Article 3 of the Geneva
Conventions.

Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have suggested
that Eric Holder's opposition to torture will somehow lead to a witch
hunt against former Bush officials. Frankly, this seems like a weak
excuse to delay the confirmation of a well-qualified nominee.
Here are the facts: President Obama and Eric Holder made it clear
that while no one is above the law, the administration is going to move
forward, not back. The goal to investigate the Bush administration does
not come from the Obama administration but from others such as retired
major general Antonio Taguba, who led the U.S. Army's official
investigation into the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
Here is what General Taguba recently said:

The Commander in Chief and those under him authorized a
systematic regime of torture. . . . there is no longer any
doubt as to whether the [Bush] administration has committed
war crimes.

In the words of General Taguba:

The only question that remains to be answered is whether
those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.

Indeed, the facts are troubling. Former President Bush and former
Vice President Cheney have acknowledged authorizing the use of
waterboarding which the United States had previously prosecuted as a
war crime. Susan Crawford, the Bush administration official who ran the
Guantanamo military commissions, said that the so-called 20th 9/11
hijacker cannot be prosecuted because ``his treatment met the legal
definition of torture.''
Now it appears some Republicans are holding up Eric Holder's
nomination because of the problems of the previous administration. A
headline in the Washington Post this last Sunday highlighted the irony.
It said: ``Bush Doctrine Stalls Holder Confirmation.'' Apparently, some
Republicans are opposing Eric Holder because of their concern that
former Bush administration officials may be prosecuted for committing
war crimes.
Here is what the junior Senator from Texas said:

I want some assurances that we're not going to be engaging
in witch hunts.

But Mr. Holder has made it clear in his testimony there will be no
witch hunts. He testified:

We will follow the evidence, the facts, the law, and let
that take us where it should. But I think President-elect
Obama has said it well. We don't want to criminalize policy
differences that might exist between the outgoing
administration and the administration that is about to take
over.

The junior Senator from Texas also expressed concerns about Eric
Holder's ``intentions . . . with regard to intelligence personnel who
were operating in good faith based upon their understanding of what the
law was.'' But Mr. Holder has made his intentions clear. He testified:

It is, and should be, exceedingly difficult to prosecute
those who carry out policies in a reasonable and good faith
belief that they are lawful based on assurances from the
Department of Justice itself.

What more would you expect a man aspiring to be Attorney General to
say? It certainly would be inappropriate to seek an advance commitment
from any nominee for Attorney General that they will definitely not
investigate allegations of potential criminal activity. No responsible
Attorney General would ever say that, nor should that person be
confirmed if they made that statement.
Senator Lindsey Graham, another Republican member of the Judiciary
Committee, recognizes that fact. Senator Graham, also a military lawyer
still serving, said:

Making a commitment that we'll never prosecute someone is
probably not the right way to proceed.

He went on to say:

I don't expect [Holder] to rule it in or rule it out. In
individual cases if there's allegations of mistreatment,
judges can handle that and you can determine what course to
take.

I think Senator Lindsey Graham has hit the nail on the head. I hope
no one will use this false specter of a witch hunt as an excuse to
oppose a fine nominee.
I say to my colleagues, if you have an objection to Eric Holder based
on his qualifications, vote against him. But don't oppose him because
the previous administration may have been guilty of wrongdoing which
may lead to a prosecution. There are too many hypotheticals in that
position. In fact,

[[Page 1577]]

these misdeeds are the reasons we need Eric Holder's leadership.
Here is what President Obama has said about the need to reform the
Justice Department:

It's time that we had a Department of Justice that upholds
the rule of law and American values, instead of finding ways
to enable a President to subvert them. No more political
parsing or legal loopholes.

I think Eric Holder is the right person to fill the vision of
President Obama. After 8 years of a Justice Department that too many
times put politics before principle, we now have a chance to confirm a
nominee with strong bipartisan support who can restore the Department
to its rightful role as guardian of our fundamental rights.
I urge my colleagues to support Eric Holder's nomination.

Amendment No. 39

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
Baucus amendment No. 39 be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table, and the bill, as thus amended, be considered as
original text for the purpose of further amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 2 on Wednesday, the time until 11
a.m. be for debate with respect to McConnell, et al., amendment No. 40,
with the time equally divided and controlled between the majority and
Republican leaders or their designees; that no amendments be in order
to the amendment prior to a vote in relation to the amendment; that at
11 a.m. the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the McConnell
amendment, No. 40; provided further, if the McConnell amendment is
agreed to, the bill, as thus amended, be considered as original text
for the purpose of further amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of
morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes
each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

FURTHER CHANGES TO S. CON. RES. 70

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 227 of S. Con. Res. 70, the 2009
Budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee
to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in
the resolution for legislation making improvements in health care,
including, under subsection (a), legislation that reauthorizes the
State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. The revisions are
contingent on certain conditions being met, including that such
legislation not worsen the deficit over the period of the total of
fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal
years 2008 through 2018. In addition, section 227 limits the amount of
the adjustment in outlays to no more than $50 billion over the period
of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013.
I find that Senate amendment No. 39, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2009, satisfies the conditions of the reserve
fund to improve America's health. Therefore, pursuant to section 227, I
am adjusting the aggregates in the 2009 budget resolution, as well as
the allocation provided to the Senate Finance Committee.
I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res.
70 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009--S. CON. RES.
70; FURTHER REVISIONS TO THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION
227 DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO IMPROVE AMERICA'S HEALTH

[In billions of dollars]

Section 101
(1)(A) Federal Revenues:
FY 2008...................................................1,875.401
FY 2009...................................................2,033.468
FY 2010...................................................2,212.116
FY 2011...................................................2,420.408
FY 2012...................................................2,513.164
FY 2013...................................................2,633.975
(1)(B) Change in Federal Revenues:
FY 2008......................................................-3.999
FY 2009.....................................................-63.931
FY 2010......................................................28.718
FY 2011......................................................-7.662
FY 2012....................................................-144.431
FY 2013....................................................-116.244
(2) New Budget Authority:
FY 2008...................................................2,564.237
FY 2009...................................................2,548.889
FY 2010...................................................2,574.071
FY 2011...................................................2,701.088
FY 2012...................................................2,744.638
FY 2013...................................................2,871.918
(3) Budget Outlays:
FY 2008...................................................2,466.678
FY 2009...................................................2,575.667
FY 2010...................................................2,630.249
FY 2011...................................................2,718.860
FY 2012...................................................2,728.215
2,861.791.........................................................
____

[In millions of dollars]

Current Allocation to Senate Finance Committee
FY 2008 Budget Authority..................................1,102,801
FY 2008 Outlays...........................................1,104,781
FY 2009 Budget Authority..................................1,092,354
FY 2009 Outlays...........................................1,093,724
FY 2009-2013 Budget Authority.............................6,161,994
FY 2009-2013 Outlays......................................6,170,488
Adjustments
FY 2008 Budget Authority........................................ 0
FY 2008 Outlays................................................. 0
FY 2009 Budget Authority.....................................10,621
FY 2009 Outlays...............................................2,387
FY 2009-2013 Budget Authority................................50,062
FY 2009-2013 Outlays.........................................32,819
Revised Allocation to Senate Finance Committee
FY 2008 Budget Authority..................................1,102,801
FY 2008 Outlays...........................................1,104,781
FY 2009 Budget Authority..................................1,102,975
FY 2009 Outlays...........................................1,096,111
FY 2009-2013 Budget Authority.............................6,212,056
6,203,307-2013 Outlays............................................

____________________

GEITHNER NOMINATION

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate confirmed Timothy
Geithner as the Secretary of Treasury with my support. Mr. Geithner has
the experience and the knowledge to lead the country through these
economic hard times.
The Treasury Department is facing an uphill battle to provide
appropriate monetary policy and regulations to get our economy back on
track. Congress has been working with Federal Reserve and the Treasury
Department to find ways to jump-start our economy. Congress recently
approved the release of the second half of the TARP funds and is
working with the new administration to create an effective economic
stimulus package. I am pleased that President Obama and Mr. Geithner
have committed themselves to restructuring the TARP but stress the
importance of reforms which increase accountability, transparency, and
help homeowners. Furthermore, the Treasury Secretary must implement
meaningful and effective policies to avoid another system-wide failure
and promote long-term economic stability. Mr. Geithner's career in the
Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has made
him well qualified for the difficult task at hand.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss my
vote against the nomination of Mr. Timothy F. Geithner to be Secretary
of the Treasury.
I was originally inclined to support the nomination to enable
President Obama to get his team together and begin addressing the
economic crisis. As I have said publicly, I want to be supportive of
President Obama and I understand the importance of assembling his full
economic team to address

[[Page 1578]]

the critical problems facing our Nation's economy. After considerable
thought, I have decided I cannot support this nomination. I have since
taken a close look at the circumstances of Mr. Geithner's failure to
pay Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes from 2001 to 2004 while
an employee at the International Monetary Fund--IMF. Then, I spoke to
Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley who provided some
additional insight. Based on those factors, I decided to vote against
Mr. Geithner.
International organizations such as the IMF are exempt from the
employer contribution of payroll taxes, so U.S. citizens who work there
are required to pay their portion as if they are self-employed. During
an IRS audit conducted in 2006, it was discovered that Mr. Geithner
failed to pay these taxes and he then paid what was owed for tax years
2003 and 2004. Despite having made the same error in previous years, he
did not pay for 2001 and 2002 because the statute of limitations had
expired. Only after the non-payment was discovered during the vetting
process by the Obama transition team in late-2008 did Mr. Geithner
finally pay for tax years 2001 and 2002.
Mr. Geithner was paid an extra sum, or tax allowance, by the IMF with
the expectation that he would use it to pay the IRS for his payroll tax
liabilities. According to remarks by Senator Grassley at Mr. Geithner's
confirmation hearing, ``Furthermore, the nominee received a tax
allowance from the IMF to pay the difference between the `self-
employed' and `employed' obligations of his Social Security tax.'' At
his confirmation hearing, Mr. Geithner acknowledged receiving various
documents detailing his obligations as an American employee at the IMF.
The IMF provides its employees with a tax manual at the time they are
hired that includes information describing how to pay self-employment
taxes. Page 2 of the document states, ``U.S. citizens who are staff
members are required to pay U.S. tax are entitled to receive tax
allowances.'' Page 12 of the document states, ``Employees of
international organizations are considered self-employed for purposes
of social security taxes. As such, they must pay both the employer's
and the employee's share of social security taxes. The Fund gives you a
tax allowance for the employer's share of social security taxes only.
You are responsible for the employee's portion of this tax.'' Mr.
Geithner signed a document each year in order to receive this extra tax
allowance. At the end of the tax allowance form are the words, ``I
hereby certify that all the information contained herein is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief and that I will pay the taxes for which
I have received tax allowance payments from the Fund.'' Also, the IMF
provides its employees with detailed statements of their liabilities.
These errors set a bad example for other taxpayers when the
Government seeks to collect back taxes. We can be assured that the
precedent set by Mr. Geithner's neglect will be cited repeatedly by
future offenders. Mr. Geithner's conduct would be problemsome on the
confirmation of any high-level officers, but especially so for
Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary has within his jurisdiction
the Internal Revenue Service which is responsible for collecting taxes.
With the full Senate confirming Mr. Geithner, it is a virtual certainty
that other taxpayers will cite his situation as a reason or excuse for
their not having paid taxes. If the issue of failure to pay taxes goes
to court in either civil or criminal proceedings, it will be an obvious
defense or argument by defense counsel in mitigation or defense.
President Obama has placed ethics reform as a top priority for his
administration. In his inaugural address, he said, ``Those of us who
manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely,
reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because
only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their
government.'' That is the appropriate tone to set an example,
especially for young people, where in the past election there has been
a resurgence of interest in voting and government. We ought to do
everything we can to maintain that interest and momentum.

____________________

ECONOMIC STIMULUS

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I also wish to discuss the precarious
state of our United States economy, which is facing one of the most
dire economic crises in history. As a member of the Senate
Appropriations Committee, I understand that it is imperative that the
Federal Government use all means at its disposal to address these
problems.
It is critical as we move forward that the Appropriations Committee
and the Senate focus on spending our Nation's dollars on worthwhile
projects, which both benefit the American people on their merits and
will also lead to an increase in jobs.
To this end, I wish to highlight a few projects in my home State of
Pennsylvania which appear to have significant potential to stimulate
economic investment, as well as return our unemployed workers to the
workforce.
The fastest way to put people to work on transportation
infrastructure projects is to finance highway repairs. These repairs
support construction jobs that can start immediately. Additionally,
infrastructure repairs ensure an acceptable level of safety and
reliability on existing highway networks, which is critical in a State
like Pennsylvania that has 6,000 structurally-deficient bridges.
According to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation,
Pennsylvania could obligate $1.5 billion on 313 shovel-ready highway
repair projects. These projects all focus on Pennsylvania's bridge
deficiencies, pavement needs and safety concerns, as well as create
jobs and achieve meaningful infrastructure improvements. Additionally,
all of the highway infrastructure repairs can be put out to bid within
6 months, with construction starting shortly thereafter.
The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation has also provided me
with a list of 147 public transportation projects totaling $700 million
that, according to transit agencies around the State, are ready to
begin. The projects include replacing catenary pole involved in
electrified train service, station improvements, alternative fuel bus
purchases and intermodal centers.
The Port of Pittsburgh Commission in Pennsylvania has identified over
$580 million in shovel-ready project work that could be started in 6
months, of which $430 million could be completed in 2 years and the
remaining $150 million could be completed in 3 years.
The largest share of that money would be applied to the Lower
Monongahela Improvement Project for Locks and Dams 2-3-4, a project 5
years behind the original completion date of 2004. Without investment
from the economic stimulus, the project will not otherwise be completed
until the 2019-2022 period. Stimulus funding could result in a working,
reliable chamber, a major improvement over the current schedule.
Funding can also be provided for emergency repairs to Emsworth Dam.
These projects would add or preserve tens of thousands of high-
skilled, high-paying jobs for the southwest Pennsylvania region,
including permanent employees at facilities that depend on river
transportation, such as U.S. Steel's Clairton Coke Works,
ArcelorMital's Coke Works, Eastman Materials, Welland Chemical, Kinder
Morgan, Ashland Petroleum, Consol Energy and the Elrama Power Plant.
Previous delays have resulted in increasing costs, interruptions to
service and benefits foregone. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
calculates that the region has already lost over $1.2 billion in
benefits that can never be recuperated.
Health care is one of the largest drivers of our economy and a
worthwhile investment in the physical and economic health of the
country.
In 2002, the Northeastern Pennsylvania Medical Education Development
Consortium was formed to explore the feasibility of locating a new
medical college in northeastern Pennsylvania. A 2006 feasibility study
made the need for a medical school clear. This region of Pennsylvania
has shortages of physicians in many specialties and over one-

[[Page 1579]]

third of the practicing physicians are expected to retire in the next
decade.
To address this critical need, the Commonwealth Medical College is
scheduled to open in 2009 and has already received investments of $35
million from the Pennsylvania Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program
and $25 million from Blue Cross of Northeastern Pennsylvania, as well
as State, Federal, and private philanthropic sources.
Additional funding will be used to support construction of the
college, which will attract medical and biomedical research to
northeastern Pennsylvania, improving the local and regional economy, as
well as the health of the population. Over the next 20 years, the
Commonwealth Medical College is expected to greatly increase the number
of physicians in the area, add $70 million to the local economy and
create 1,000 jobs.
This project also has national implications, as the research
conducted there will focus on healthcare conditions affecting the aging
population, including research on cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
There are numerous higher education projects throughout the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which exemplify the types of activities
that this country should target as it searches for an effective means
to stimulate the economy. These meritorious projects provide necessary
infrastructure improvements to many colleges and universities in my
home State, while at the same time creating a myriad of new jobs and
stimulating the economy. It is my understanding that all of these
projects are ready for construction within 6 months or sooner.
Specifically, the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education,
which represents 14 public universities in my home State, provided me
with a list of 47 projects totaling $445 million. These programs focus
on new building construction, renovations to existing buildings and
energy conservation measures. The Pennsylvania Commission for Community
Colleges, which represents the 14 community colleges throughout
Pennsylvania, also provided me with a list of 34 projects totaling $128
million. Selected projects include building renovation and
construction, public safety programs, infrastructure repairs and
upgrades, and new resources for education and training.
In regard to the private colleges and universities in Pennsylvania,
the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of
Pennsylvania, which represents 86 private institutions, provided me
with a list of 42 projects totaling $385 million. Many of these
projects focus on the construction of new academic buildings, the
renovation and expansion of training facilities and improvements to
existing infrastructure.
In many cities and small towns in Pennsylvania aging sewer pipes and
treatment plants are malfunctioning, leading to sewage contamination of
local freshwater. In many areas across Pennsylvania, and the country,
water infrastructure is 50, 60 years old or much older.
Throughout Pennsylvania the need for funding is great, because
without it many of my constituents, a significant number of whom are
retired and on a fixed income, are facing sewer rate increases of up to
100 percent. An investment in water infrastructure is a wise one, as it
will lead to construction jobs in areas where jobs are often hard to
come by, while relieving a significant financial burden on residents.
In western Pennsylvania, the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority,
which services communities in and around Pittsburgh, is assisting
municipalities in that region seeking to meet clean water compliance
standards. Currently, the Pittsburgh region is facing its largest and
most costly public works project thus far, the rehabilitation and long-
term maintenance of 4,000 miles of sewers that serve nearly one million
residents in the area. Additionally, in central Pennsylvania, the
Borough of Philipsburg's outdated storm and wastewater collection
system overflows during periods of heavy rain. The cost of modernizing
this sewer system is significant, but it is necessary.
While these are just two examples of water and sewer projects in
Pennsylvania, an investment in wastewater infrastructure would create
construction jobs, and ease the financial burden on the residents in
many economically disadvantaged regions of Pennsylvania.
The Environmental Protection Agency's Brownfields Remediation Grant
Program provides funding for private developers to take real property
business sites with environmental concerns and clean them up in order
to redevelop. Redeveloping this land creates space for new businesses--
with new jobs--to expand in areas that might not otherwise be
available. Pennsylvania alone has an estimated 150,000 acres of
brownfields with great potential for re-use.
Brownfields cleanups create jobs not only through the workers needed
to do the cleanups themselves, but subsequently with the new businesses
that occupy the property. I recently met with a developer in
Pennsylvania who is prepared to immediately undertake cleanup projects
totaling $283 million in my home State. Combined, his projects could
create an estimated 322,225 new jobs in Pennsylvania.
For every $1 invested into brownfields cleanups, an estimated $15-20
are immediately returned to the economy in the form of job creation and
State and Federal tax revenue. Jobs created by brownfields cleanups--
both before and after--are taken by locally available workers,
stimulating local economies. This is exactly the result we should be
requiring from every program in the stimulus package.
These projects include cleanups in Bensalem, King of Prussia, Lehman
Township, Bridgeport, Frazer, Norristown, Malvern, Limerick,
Conshohocken, West Norriton, and Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. These are
all areas in Pennsylvania that could certainly use targeted economic
development. I understand that there is a question over how fast this
money can be spent, and I agree that money from the stimulus be put to
use as soon as possible after passage of the bill. However, the
developers with whom I have spoken have all assured me that brownfields
funding can be used within the 120 day benchmark to determine shovel-
ready projects. Programs, such as this one, should be the focus of the
stimulus.
I recently met with a group of Pennsylvania State Senators and
Representatives who expressed their concern over cleanup efforts in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed, a large watershed which covers much of
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. Cleanup efforts from agricultural
runoff and other environmental impacts can be expensive. The Watershed
Rehabilitation Program can mediate some of the enormous costs to
individual landowners--often small business farmers--who are tasked
with the cleanup of their own property.
These cleanup efforts will require labor--stimulating the workforce
while simultaneously making our environment a cleaner place for our
children and grandchildren.
Military construction projects funded through the stimulus must be
identified as priorities by military leadership and be at or near
design completion so that construction can be started in short order.
These projects must help modernize our military support structure and
defense capabilities. The following projects are both shovel-ready and
of vital importance to the State, the military and the Nation.
The End Item Shipping and Receiving Facility at Letterkenny Army
Depot is a perfect example of a shovel-ready project that will create
construction work for Pennsylvanians and will enhance Letterkenny's
capability to support the movement of military equipment. The
identified site is on Federal land, close to utilities, next to rail
and ground transportation and in the depot industrial area. Design is
complete and Congress authorized $7.5 million for the facility in the
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 2007--P.L. 109-365.
Regrettably, this valuable project failed to move forward and
additional funding is needed to complete the project at this time.
Another vital military construction project is the Hermitage
Readiness

[[Page 1580]]

Center, in Hermitage, PA. When complete, the facility will support 128
Pennsylvania Army National Guard members who are currently housed in
substandard and undersized buildings. This project is a high priority
for the Pennsylvania Adjutant General, as land has been acquired and
the design is 99 percent complete. I am told that construction could be
started within 3 months, creating construction jobs almost immediately.
A third military construction project is the Combined Surface
Maintenance Shop at the Fort Indiantown Gap Vehicle Paint Prep Facility
in Annville, PA. This facility will reduce hazardous waste associated
with paint operations, create safer working conditions, increase
productivity and reduce costs. I understand that land and environmental
reviews are complete and the design is 75-percent complete, allowing
for construction within 3 or 4 months, were funds to be made available.
Vital funding in the economic stimulus bill will allow us to improve
the care we provide to our veterans. According to the Pennsylvania
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, necessary improvements to
the Southeastern Veterans' Center in Spring City, PA, could commence
with $17 million in Federal funding. A new long term health care
facility would replace the ten substandard modular units currently on
the premises of the Southeastern Veterans' Center. This proposed
project will include the construction, furnishing and equipping of a
multi-story facility with the capacity to provide skilled nursing care
and dementia care for 120 residents. Further, this project will provide
appropriate housing for the veterans and will enable the Southeastern
Veterans' Center to entirely vacate the substandard modular units,
while reducing costly maintenance.
In addition to major construction projects, I understand that
Pennsylvania has nearly $119 million in non-recurring maintenance and
minor construction projects that are needed and could be completed in
Fiscal Year 2009 were funds made available at this time. The importance
of these smaller projects should not be ignored, as many of them hold
the potential to impact positively the lives of our veterans in short
order.
Providing funds in the economic stimulus package for construction and
maintenance projects at national parks could have a stimulating affect
on the economy and put people to work. Among the projects in
Pennsylvania that could benefit from economic stimulus funding is the
Flight 93 National Memorial, which will honor the 40 passengers and
crewmembers of United Airlines Flight 93 who gave their lives to save
countless others on September 11, 2001. I have worked with members of
the Pennsylvania delegation to secure funding for this most important
project in the annual appropriations bills. However, it is my
understanding that an additional $6.2 million is required for the first
phase of construction to commence.
Additionally, according to the Congressional Research Service, recent
estimates suggest that the National Park Service has a deferred
maintenance backlog of almost $10 billion. Deferred maintenance
projects often include important construction work on buildings,
trails, recreation sites and other infrastructure within the parks. For
example, according to Gettysburg National Military Park officials, the
current maintenance backlog at the park would cost $55 million to
complete. In addition, there are deferred maintenance projects at
Valley Forge National Historical Park, Independence National Historical
Park and the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Park, among
others.
Funding these projects will not only put people to work, but will go
a long way to support the ongoing efforts to preserve, protect and
enhance our country's most precious and historically significant
national treasures.
In conclusion, while I would like to hear further from the
administration and other economic experts to give us guidance on
addressing the current economic crisis, the projects which I have
outlined in Pennsylvania are the kind of expenditures that will provide
the most realistic opportunity to stimulate the economy.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO SENATORS

Ken Salazar

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I stand before the Senate today to voice my
great respect and hope in the Senator from Colorado, the Honorable Ken
Salazar, who has recently left this Chamber in order to serve as
Secretary of the Interior under the Obama administration. It is with
sorrow that I say goodbye to my good friend who has served with honor
and dedication since 2005. Although Ken only served for a few years in
the Senate, he has left his mark on us all and will be remembered for
his dedication and service not only to his country but to Utah's
neighbor the great State of Colorado.
Ken Salazar's personal history is a testament to his character and
accomplishments. His family first settled in America just over 400
years ago, 12 generations back. Ken's parents knew the value of
teaching their eight children about hard work and dedication, and from
them he learned the worth of industry on his family's ranch growing up.
Those early years on the ranch taught Ken about the importance of hard
work, integrity, and dedication. It is also from these early
experiences that Ken grew to love the beauty of the natural resources
our Nation has to offer.
I am confident that the years of experience Mr. Salazar has worked on
environmental policy in the West will serve him well in his new
position as Secretary of the Interior. He has a deep-rooted passion for
clean, renewable, and affordable energy as well as protecting our
country's precious natural resources. I believe he will take quite
naturally to his new role as our Nation's top public lands manager, and
we will be well served by his sensitivity to those natural treasures we
value the most.
In short, Ken Salazar has the experience and the passion required for
the role he has taken on as Secretary. I thank him for his excellent
service in the Senate and look forward to seeing good things from him
in the coming years.

____________________

AFRICA

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in recent years more and more observers
have noted Africa's failing states, ungoverned spaces and pirate-
infested waters, and the threat they pose to our own national security.
I have long raised these concerns on this Senate floor and I am pleased
that they are receiving increasing attention. However, it is not enough
to simply acknowledge Africa's security challenges; nor is it
sufficient to shift resources toward them, although that is a good
start. We must institute long-term strategies to further our national
security goals while developing sustainable partnerships with Africans
that advance our mutual interests and support nascent democratic
institutions.
As a 16-year member and the current chairman of the Subcommittee on
African Affairs, I have closely followed U.S. policy toward the
continent for many years. Too often, I have found that our approach has
been driven by short-sighted tactics designed to buy influence or react
to crises. In the absence of comprehensive interagency strategies,
these tactics often undermine long-term efforts to build civilian
institutions and strengthen the rule of law. This must change if we are
to successfully pursue our strategic objectives on the African
continent. It remains critical--and long overdue--that the United
States develop a carefully planned and long-term approach to both
promoting stability and combating terrorism in Africa. I would like to
offer some thoughts today on key components of such an approach.
During our December recess, I traveled to the headquarters of the new
Africa Command in Stuttgart, Germany and discussed a range of issues
with senior officials there. Although I have been focused on AFRICOM
since its inception--and on the idea of such a command prior to that--I
was reminded during my trip of the very important and strategic roles
that AFRICOM, if

[[Page 1581]]

advanced properly, can play. These roles include helping to develop
effective, well-disciplined militaries that adhere to civilian rule,
strengthening regional peacekeeping missions, and supporting
postconflict demobilization and disarmament processes. If carried out
properly, AFRICOM's work can complement that of the State Department,
USAID, and other U.S. Government agencies working on the continent and
help contribute to lasting peace and stability across Africa.
It is because of the significant need for this important work that we
must support AFRICOM, while also working to ensure that it adheres to
its defined military mandate and defers to the State Department as the
lead on policy matters. The challenge for AFRICOM is to strike the
right balance with our civilian agencies and not become our primary
representation throughout Africa. Serious work remains to be done in
ensuring that the Command is operating within comprehensive interagency
national security strategies and squarely under the authority of our
Chiefs of Mission. I also remain concerned that AFRICOM has been unable
to adequately convey its role within a larger policy framework to
Congress, to the American people or to African governments and regional
organizations--perhaps its most important partners.
It is true that the Command's initial rollout was fraught with
mistakes and the Command understandably received a cool reception on
the continent, among civilian agencies and here in Congress. But I am
confident from my recent meetings that the staff in Stuttgart has
recognized and is learning from these setbacks. Rather than merely
criticizing, we in Congress should work across the spectrum of agencies
here in Washington as well as with AFRICOM's leadership to help craft a
combatant command that is doing the right job, for the right reasons
and can thus be adequately resourced. In the months ahead, I intend to
use my role as chairman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs to do
just that.
I hope, however, that no one thinks for a minute that military tools
alone are sufficient to transform the underlying causes of violence and
instability in Africa. To promote long-term stability, it is crucial
that we strike a better balance between our military relationships and
our support for civilian institutions and the rule of law.
Achieving that balance is no small task and it will only be possible
if we invest seriously in new institutional capacities for our civilian
agencies on the continent. This begins with ensuring our embassies have
the Foreign Service officers and resources they need to do the job
properly. We cannot continue to shortchange our embassies across Africa
while we focus on one or two other locations around the world. We need
to make sure our embassies have sufficient resources to meet the
challenges of today, and to identify the challenges of tomorrow. And we
need to make sure our presence includes the right kind of people--
trained political and economic officers who can get out and about to do
their job.
By expanding our diplomatic presence in Africa, including outside the
capitals, we increase our ability to learn about the continent--its
governments, its people and its cultures. Right now, we do not have the
necessary human resources or expertise on the African continent to
gather this information and anticipate emerging crises or fully
understand existing ones. Diplomatic reporting and open source
collection in Africa are a critical complement to the clandestine work
of the intelligence community, and I have long called for more
resources for both. I have also called for an integrated, interagency
collection and analysis strategy, which is why Senator Hagel and I last
year introduced legislation to establish an independent commission to
address this long-term, systematic problem. This legislation was passed
by the Intelligence Committee last year and, although Senator Hagel has
retired, I intend to reintroduce this legislation this year.
Developing these capacities and a balanced approach is in our
national security interest and is necessary if we are to better address
areas of concern in Africa. At present, there are several devastating
crises that we cannot ignore, including in Congo, Nigeria, the Sahel,
Sudan and Zimbabwe. But I believe one region stands out for its
particular significance to our national security, and that is the Horn
of Africa and specifically the deepening crisis in Somalia. I would
like to spend the rest of my remarks discussing the situation in this
region, where the need for a carefully planned and long-term approach
is particularly urgent.
During my December trip, I also visited Djibouti. There, I met with
many leading figures in Somalia, including the Prime Minister of the
Somali Transitional Federal Government, the leadership of the
opposition Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia, the UN Special
Representative for Somalia, the President of Somaliland and members of
Somalia's civil society. I also met with Djiboutian government
officials and members of civil society, as well as with our diplomats
working on Somalia out of both Djibouti and Nairobi, who are
extraordinary and deeply committed individuals.
Tragically, the situation in Somalia continues to get worse. Six
months ago I stood on the Senate floor to discuss Somalia's
humanitarian crisis--the worst in the world. According to a local human
rights group, an estimated 16,000 people have been killed since the
start of 2007, with over 28,000 people wounded and more than one
million displaced. USAID now estimates that 3.2 million people--soon to
be half of the population--are in need of emergency assistance,
including hundreds of thousands of refugees in neighboring countries.
The stories and images of human suffering coming out of Somalia are
horrifying.
In addition to the humanitarian impact, I am deeply concerned by the
potential impact of this crisis on our national security. With the
Ethiopian army withdrawing, the transitional government remains
deadlocked, new militias are forming, and existing ones continue to
gain new territory. And while the Somalis are a moderate people, the
terrorist group al Shabab has grown in ranks and expanded its reach.
Moreover, just last month, several senior officials, including CIA
Director Hayden and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen, said that al-Qaida is
extending its reach in Somalia to revitalize its operations.
The Bush administration's approach to Somalia--endorsing the
Ethiopian invasion, backing an unpopular transitional government and
launching periodic military strikes in the absence of a broader
coherent strategy--was an abject failure. Without a carefully crafted
strategy for Somalia, we have long relied on short-sighted tactics and
a ``manhunt'' approach, rather than investing fully in efforts to
promote a sustainable peace and help build legitimate and inclusive
institutions. The result has been increased anti-Americanism, which
helps enable extremist groups to effectively recruit and operate.
With the Obama administration now in office, there is a critical
opportunity, as well as an urgent need, to identify the lessons of this
failed policy and signal a break from the past. One of my top
priorities is to work with the Obama administration to develop a new
comprehensive interagency strategy to bring stability to Somalia and
the wider Horn of Africa. Support for the Djibouti process should
continue, but we need to be far sighted about what it will take to
translate diplomatic initiatives into security for the people of
Somalia. That effort must include efforts from the ground up to build
legitimate and inclusive governance institutions that respond to the
needs of ordinary Somalis. For only when those institutions take hold
will we finally be able to limit the appeal of violent extremism and
achieve sustainable peace and security--and bolster our own national
security.

____________________

IDAHOANS SPEAK OUT ON HIGH ENERGY PRICES

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with
me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded
by

[[Page 1582]]

the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking
and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the
concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of
those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting
every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this
purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be
easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious
attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only
detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have
suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to
tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask
unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

You are asking Idahoans to write about gas prices? You mean
you do not know? I think Washington D.C. may as well be
registered as another planet because I think your colleagues
are so far from reality of the rest of the people it is
absolutely outrageous.
Your colleague Barbara Boxer of California said that she
wants Americans to use alternative routes of transportation
and that it is a good thing that gas prices force people to
take the bus, ride bikes, or walk to their destination
because it helps reduce global warming.
I have something to say to you and to Boxer and you can
tell her for me.
I am a driver for a living. I deliver products right here
in Boise. I have to drive I have no choice. I am also a
salesman, and a night supervisor. To Senator Boxer, I live in
Idaho. I do not have the option of riding the bus. I cannot
walk my deliveries or ride my bike with my products? Is she
insane?
I find it absolutely insulting for her to talk down to me
like that. She and her liberal Senators love these high gas
prices because they want to use it as an excuse to make us
live how they want us to live to fight so-called global
warming, while she and Al Gore fly in jets. That's Eco-
Socialism in my opinion.
Senator Crapo, I have three jobs. Three jobs. And I am
still having problems fueling up. I have had to open credit
card accounts for the first time in my life. And my debt is
still going up.
You'd think with three jobs and three paychecks for one
person. I am not married no kids. I would be starving with
fuel prices if I had a family. I am just barely paying my
bills on time as they are, to about $1500 a month not
including gas prices.
Starting in 2005 till 2007, I did very well financially, I
was saving up and putting money away in my savings account. I
loved myself for putting money away. This month in June I had
to take one-quarter of my life savings out of my bank to pay
for bills including gas because the price skyrocketed from $3
to $4 a gallon in one month.
This is outrageous. I am so angry at Congress right now. .
. You have no idea.
I think it is 80 percent the Government's fault for this
and 20 percent the oil companies. The only thing the oil
companies are doing wrong is speculating the price of oil for
really dumb reasons. Like if you so much as sneeze the price
would go up in panic.
Congress has done this because you refuse to drill for oil
in ANWR to save a deer called caribou! Congress is more
worried about a stupid deer than they are about my life? More
worried about the mating season of the caribou than they are
about the economy? My jobs? My gas prices? My bills? My
lifestyle? I am sorry I thought you were the people's
Congress? Not the caribou's congress! Do we have an animal
congress I should know about?
You won't allow drilling off shore? Well did you know that
China is drilling for oil off the coast of Florida? But we
cannot? Why? This is outrageous.
Do not listen to those radical environmentalists. They were
wrong about the second ice age in the 70s. When I was kid in
school in the 1980's, my teachers told me by the year 1999
New York would be underwater and Los Angeles would be a bunch
of Islands. It has not happened. Of course the earth's
temperature changes and jumps over time. The earth's climate
changes all the time, has been since the earth cooled and
formed. The earth's temperature does not stay the same all
the time. There are so many scientists and people who
disagree with Al Gore, but if we disagree we are labeled
``flat-earthers'' and ``Holocaust Deniers.'' How dare Al Gore
tell me that I have no first amendment right to disagree with
him on climate change.
My question for the Republican Party is this. Why did you
not approve drilling for oil when you had Congress lock,
stock, and barrel? In 2002, I cheered when the GOP took back
the Senate and we had both Houses plus the White House. I
yelled, ``Yes! At last we can get some real work done!'' But
what have you done with those four years of three Branches
with GOP? Nothing! You took your voters for granted and then
you were surprised when you lost in 2006.
I have spoken to many Republicans, Moderates, Independents,
Moderate Democrats, and Conservatives who are seriously
thinking of either staying home or voting Democrat based on
the GOP's laziness. Although I do not trust Democrats with
the economy, why should we the voters reward Republicans?
Give us a reason? Answer . . . gas prices! Point out that it
is the Dems who want the price high! Even Barack Obama
admitted that he wanted it to go high just not so fast.
Senator Crapo. You want to help me? A person with three
jobs and struggling with gas prices? I have not had a
vacation since March of 2007! I can't even take a one day
vacation to Jackpot anymore! Senator Crapo I work all seven
days a week! I get no weekends! And I still struggle to pay
gas prices! About $15 a day! Not a week! A day!
Drill here! Drill now! Drill in ANWR! Drill in America!
Tell your friends drill.
Aaron Banks, Boise.
____

Hi. Thank you Senator for your sincere concern for Idaho
Residents.
I am 58 next month, and on disability from a very severe
fire I was trapped in several years ago.
Though I do get an income, this is where it goes:
Receive $625.00 a month
1. $200.00 a month mobile home space rent
2. $156.00 a month mortgage payments for my mobile home . .
. which without the owner of the mobile home, I would not be
on my way to being a first time home owner!
3. $48.00 a month mobile home insurance
4. $40.00 a month vehicle insurance . . . it is a 1988
Plymouth Voyager van that I have had since 1988.
5. $39.00 phone bill . . . which was supposed to reduced
several months ago through my social worker, an still remains
at the normal price and I do not have long distance.
6. $30-40 electricity monthly . . . do not have an air
conditioner for summer but do open my windows and use my
ceiling fans that helps.
7. $125-and up in winter for gas to run my heater monthly .
. . that is after I receive fuel assistance which for some
reason only lasts 1-2 months and only use the heater to warm
up the area so can start my wood stove which is usually one-
half hour.
So if I am lucky, all I can afford to do is put up to
$20.00 a month in gas which gives me almost 1/4 tank and that
has to last the month.
I have medical problems that mean many trips to the doctor
and pharmacy, and with such a low amount of gas I have to
depend on others for rides when I run out of gas.
Thank you for your sincere concern and we are all hoping
and praying that gas will once again come down to where
people like me can afford to purchase more.
Loretta Lowerre, Nampa.
____

First of all, I am disappointed that you provide prefixes
for all kinds of people except the only class of people (with
one exception--MSgt) that have official (not courteous)
titles in these United States--the military. My title is
Colonel.
Second, from your letter on gas prices that you sent me,
you are starting to understand that the Congress holds most
of the blame for high oil (and thus gas) prices. Congress has
failed to act in the thirty years since the last gas crisis,
continually failing to take responsible action to make sure
domestic supplies are developed and used to reduce dependence
on foreign oil.
It should be clear that the single most deleterious action
of Congress over the last forty years was the Environmental
Protection Act. It has desperately needed revision since the
early seventies and because it was not, the economic impact
on America has been extreme. The inability to build domestic
gas refineries, increase domestic oil production and take
advantage of resources in ANWR are only a few of the
unintended and disastrous impacts of that act. An
environmentalist has only to write a single letter to cause
the price of any such proposal to escalade exponentially. The
latest case of the proposed nuclear reactor in Idaho is an
example. One man writing one letter can cause the waste of
hundreds of thousands of dollars to ``prove'' the lack of
environmental impacts of such a proposal.
The price of a house in Idaho has risen by 10-15 percent,
for instance, because of the ludicrous and technically flawed
environmental studies and reactions on the spotted owl.
Still no action in Congress to alleviate the situation. We
simply need someone to stand up and take the actions
necessary to replace political correctness with what used to
be common sense.
So the bottom line, Senator, is that Congress bears the
responsibility to stop passing stupid laws and start reigning
in those that are hurting the nation's ability to do the
right things rather than the politically correct things. Do
you have the courage to start?
Robert Keenan, Meridian.
____

You asked what the high gas prices are doing to me. It has
become very difficult to even do normal things. I cannot
afford to go

[[Page 1583]]

up town and buy necessary things. Since I am on Social
Security Disability my sister and I have been living off my
money. Since my sister does not have a car and I cannot
afford to buy one for her, nor could I afford the gas. She
would love to go to work. How would she get there? Idaho, and
particularly this area has a really horrible public
transportation system. It truly is a disgrace to our state.
My sister walks as much as possible. Our nation needs to stop
depending on foreign oil. I love all the animals and have
tried to protect them as much as possible, but we need to
start taking care of our families first.
The oil companies are making over the profit margin; that
is disgusting by itself. I do not trust one thing they say or
do. Therefore, we need to have alternative fuel. The wind can
run electricity. The air can fuel a car, water can do both,
after seeing the pictures of a car that runs on air. America,
the greatest country in the world needs to step up to the
plate. Oil companies need to step up to the plate before they
become the dinosaurs. Therefore, we need to drill. Do it.
Many families like mine are being devastated by the high
gasoline prices which makes high food prices we cannot
afford. Thank you for your time.
Marian Ruhling, Nampa.
____

Hello--This is in response to a solicitation from Senator
Crapo regarding personal stories on how high energy prices
are affecting lives.
Greed is the source of most of the world's evil. I know I
sound like an ideologue, but please read on.
It is hard to disaggregate the effects of the high cost of
energy from other economic hits our family is experiencing.
When construction activity slowed in Valley and Adams County,
wage earning families left our valleys looking for jobs
elsewhere. So long, Tamarack?
The resulting reduced school enrollment (now compounded by
the end of Craig-Wyden) in our districts led me to being one
of the teachers RIF'd from the Council School District.
Fortunately, I found work part-time in the McCall School
District. Unfortunately, this 70 mile, round-trip commute (in
my 2000 140,000+ mile Dodge AWD Caravan--needed for
unpredictable roads) costs me $9.00-$12.00 a trip! I would
like to buy a more fuel efficient Subaru--but I cannot afford
to.)
My school-age children suffer because programs are being
severely reduced--Shop and Art are gone. Some high school
courses will only be offered every other year. Summer school
for poor learners is truncated. Field trips? Sports? Are you
kidding? Both are severely reduced. How can our small-town
children go out and experience the world when there isn't
even money for gas?
As consumers, our family lives so far from ``the source''
that not only gas, but also milk and other basic commodities
seem to cost at least 25 percent more than they did a year
ago. Last year I was able to find milk for $2.29 gallon; now
milk costs close to $4.00/gallon. Healthy bread costs close
to $4.00/loaf. As a family, we certainly have not received a
COLA to offset these price increases.
As middle-class professionals (my husband is a forester)
and as parents, the drain on our budget means belt-tightening
for any of ``fun things'' like vacation trips. Additionally,
we have experienced a health crisis (and have met our
catastrophic limits). I now must commute to Fruitland (140
miles round trip) every 2 weeks for chemo; in the fall I will
need to commute 5 days a week for radiation for 6 weeks! (My
doctor cavalierly denied me two prescriptions for drugs since
they are also available OTC. ``They only cost a few
dollars.'' He casually shrugged off my request for RXs. Well,
the two drugs cost more than $30 altogether. I do not think
that the upper-middle-class and upper-class have a clue that
there is an exponential difference between a few bucks (a
latte) and $30--a chance to visit a museum or movie, or
halfway fill up a gas tank to make it to a chemo session!)
I believe that our tax system rewards the rich on the backs
of the poor and middle class. I believe that oil companies
and owners of stocks are making fortunes as the little guy
suffers.
I believe we should take global warning seriously and allow
tax credits for the development of alternative energy. We
need to take recycling very seriously. We also need to be a
world economic partner on a fair playing field (Kyoto
convention), quit out-sourcing to countries that do not
provide the labor protections we do to our workers, and build
respectful relationships among all peoples and all cultures--
as a first step to world peace and understanding and a step
away from the ugliness of war.
I also believe that limiting population growth and sharing
the world's resource's equably is the only way we will ever
establish peace on earth.
Locally, for our family, what have been the effects of high
energy costs? Higher food and medical costs, loss of job,
reduced school programs for my children, dwindled savings,
``making do'' with older cars and housing needs, fewer
amenities, no vacation.
Glad you asked.
Lynn, Fruitvale.
____

I read your letter sent out today.
Glad to hear that at least one of our Senators in
Washington gets it. I hope there are more of you in DC that
can support the policies you want to support in your letter.
We do need to start drilling again in the US and Off-Shore.
We need to make sure that we take precautions to avoid damage
to the environment. We cannot sacrifice one for the other.
But we must start drilling again, and do so in a respective
manner of Mother Nature.
And we are going to need some new refining capability.
Again, do it new technology and with respect to our
environment. Build it in Eastern Idaho--we have the space and
we could use the jobs and economic boost. Tough to get oil
here, but if they need a place for it, bring it here.
We must start the nuclear programs again. We need to build
some new reactors soon. I do not know for sure, but I am
betting some of our older reactors are getting long in the
tooth, and if they go off the grid, then what happens?
Besides we need more power and money spent to renew our grid
system.
We need to take a serious look at Ethanol. I am not sure it
is all it is being promoted to be. I am not sure the benefits
outweigh all of the costs. With the flooding in the Midwest,
I wonder what the cost of corn will be now? But it is not
just food issues, but the processing issues as well.
Wind Power should be promoted as well. But a Nuclear Power
Plant is much easier on the eyes than 1000 wind towers, and
not as susceptible to the changes in the wind.
Coal alternatives should be looked at as well. We need to
check if the benefits we can gain from technology like coal
gasification are valid and have low impact. Some of the
claims you hear and read about look promising. But as I am
learning with Ethanol, there may be some significant costs to
chase this type of technology.
But the short of it--we need to develop our energy and
become more independent. The amount of jobs created would be
incredible in the process. You want a better health care
system and less unemployment and less government care
programs--just set the energy companies loose (for a change)
and see this economy rebound in a heartbeat. These energy
companies can afford health care plans and benefits for their
workers. Our current policies are killing us--and I really
hope there are enough Senators and Representatives in DC to
turn this around. We have been shooting ourselves in the foot
for more than 20 years. Guess it took that long for the
``brain'' to finally realize the pain in doing so.
Good Luck.
Stephen Kaiser, Rigby.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO ARDIS DUMETT

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Ardis Dumett
for her 20 years of service to the U.S. Senate and the people of
Washington State. Ardis has served on my staff for the last 16 years of
her distinguished public career. For 4 years prior to her service in my
office, she worked for the revered Senator Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson. On
January 20, Ardis retired from my office. We are sad to see her go and
hope that she enjoys her well-earned retirement.
Throughout her career, Ardis has been a thoughtful and dedicated
public servant. Initially, as my constituent services director, she led
by example in her commitment and compassion to the constituents of
Washington State. Covering immigration and environmental casework, she
ensured the people of my State were well served by their Federal
Government.
As the director of special projects in my Seattle office, she worked
on numerous issues on my behalf over the years, ranging from the
environment and emergency response to tribes and the transfer of
military property. She worked tirelessly to guarantee that our State's
people and communities received a fair process--and often a successful
outcome--when working with Federal agencies. Over the years I have
received many notes from constituents thanking me for Ardis' diligent
work.
I would like to thank Ardis for her years of service to me and the
people of Washington State. Her career is a tremendous example of
public service; and her dedication to her work is truly appreciated. I
wish her all the best in her future endeavors.

____________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

______

UNI-CAPITOL WASHINGTON INTERNSHIP PROGRAMME 2009

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I am proud to be involved for a
third year in

[[Page 1584]]

the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Programme, UCWIP, an exchange
program in which outstanding college students from Australia's top
universities compete to serve as interns for the U.S. Congress. The
program is in its 10th year of bringing the Washington experience to
our friends from Australia, firsthand. In addition to working in
congressional offices, the program provides students with a number of
other opportunities and activities including visits to historic sites,
visits to government agencies, meetings with government leaders, and
educational events.
This year, Nicholas Tam, a student from Melbourne University in
Australia, is taking a 2-month hiatus from his law degree to help me
serve Idaho constituents. Of the program, Nick says, ``Working with
Senator Crapo has been a gateway to developing a nuanced, sophisticated
understanding of the United States and its precise position and role in
the world. UCWIP has been culturally enriching and enhancing of my own
professional development. It has been a real privilege to aid in the
advancement of strong conservative principles whilst working here in
the United States Senate.'' Nick is a terrific temporary addition to my
staff and, like past interns, an intelligent individual, hard worker
and personable.
Director Eric Federing and his wife Daphne have shown a decade of
tireless commitment to enlarging the educational experience of
Australian students. Now with 81 program alumni, this educational and
highly successful exchange program has earned a rightful place among
leading international academic exchange opportunities. I am honored to
continue to participate in this well-crafted and successful
program.

____________________

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

A message from the President of the United States was communicated to
the Senate by Mrs. Neiman, one of his secretaries.

____________________

EXECUTIVE MESSAGE REFERRED

As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
a message from the President of the United States submitting a
nomination which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
(The nomination received today is printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)

____________________

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

At 4:52 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, without amendment:

S. 181. An act to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,
and to modify the operation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or
other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each
time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory
compensation decision or other practice, and for other
purposes.

The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following
concurrent resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:

H. Con. Res. 26. Concurrent resolution providing for an
adjournment of the House.

____________________

EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

The following communications were laid before the Senate, together
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as
indicated:

EC-547. A communication from the General Counsel, Federal
Housing Finance Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Golden Parachute Payments''
(RIN2590-AA08) received in the Office of the President of the
Senate on January 24, 2009; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-548. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Media
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of
Section 73.622(i), Final DTV Table of Allotments, Television
Broadcast Stations; Rio Grande City, Texas'' (MB Docket No.
08-141) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on January 24, 2009; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-549. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Media
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Implementation of Short-term Analog Flash and Emergency
Readiness Act; Establishment of DTV Transition `Analog
Nightlight' Program'' (MB Docket No. 08-255) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on January 24, 2009; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-550. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of
State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to
the certification to Congress on the effectiveness of the
Australia Group; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-551. A communication from the Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department
of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the quarterly
report of the Department of Justice's Office of Privacy and
Civil Liberties; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
EC-552. A communication from the Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department
of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled
``Secure Our Schools Program, FY 2008--Annual Report to
Congress''; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. INOUYE, from the Committee on Appropriations,
without amendment:
S. 336. An original bill making supplemental appropriations
for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment,
energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed,
and State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes (Rept. No.
111-3).

____________________

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:

By Mr. LEVIN for the Committee on Armed Services.
Air Force nominations beginning with Brigadier General
Donald A. Haught and ending with Colonel William M. Ziegler,
which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in
the Congressional Record on January 7, 2009.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Brig. Gen. John M.
Croley and ending with Brig. Gen. Tracy L. Garrett, which
nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the
Congressional Record on January 8, 2009.
Army nominations beginning with Brigadier General Peter M.
Aylward and ending with Colonel Michael T. White, which
nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the
Congressional Record on January 14, 2009.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I
report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in
the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save
the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these
nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of
Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Air Force nomination of Edmund P. Zynda II, to be Major.
Air Force nomination of Daniel C. Gibson, to be Major.
Air Force nominations beginning with Donald L. Marshall and
ending with Charles E. Peterson, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 7, 2009.
Air Force nominations beginning with Paul J. Cushman and
ending with Luis F. Sambolin, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 7, 2009.
Air Force nominations beginning with Christopher S. Allen
and ending with Deepa Hariprasad, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 7, 2009.
Air Force nomination of Ryan R. Pendleton, to be Lieutenant
Colonel.
Air Force nomination of Howard L. Duncan, to be Lieutenant
Colonel.
Air Force nominations beginning with Jeffrey R. Grunow and
ending with Pamela T. Scott, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 7, 2009.
Air Force nomination of Eugene M. Gaspard, to be Colonel.
Air Force nominations beginning with Michael R. Powell and
ending with Valerie R. Taylor, which nominations were
received by

[[Page 1585]]

the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 7, 2009.
Air Force nominations beginning with Mary Elizabeth Brown
and ending with Gerald J. Laursen, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 7, 2009.
Air Force nominations beginning with Gary R. Califf and
ending with C. Michael Padazinski, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 7, 2009.
Air Force nominations beginning with Stephen Scott Baker
and ending with Phillip E. Parker, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 7, 2009.
Air Force nominations beginning with Joseph Allen Banna and
ending with Joseph Tock, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 7, 2009.
Air Force nominations beginning with Keith A. Acree and
ending with Steven L. Youssi, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 7, 2009.
Army nomination of Scott A. Gronewold, to be Colonel.
Army nominations beginning with Robert L. Kaspar, Jr. and
ending with David K. Scales, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 7, 2009.
Army nomination of Emmett W. Mosley, to be Colonel.
Army nominations beginning with Andrew C. Meverden and
ending with April M. Snyder, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 7, 2009.
Army nominations beginning with Douglas M. Coldwell and
ending with Stephen Montaldi, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 7, 2009.
Army nomination of Thomas S. Carey, to be Major.
Army nomination of Scottie M. Eppler, to be Major.
Army nomination of Pierre R. Pierce, to be Major.
Army nominations beginning with Cheryl A. Creamer and
ending with Aga E. Kirby, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 7, 2009.
Army nominations beginning with Kathryn A. Belill and
ending with Suzanne R. Todd, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 7, 2009.
Army nominations beginning with Christopher Allen and
ending with D060522, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 7,
2009.
Army nominations beginning with John L. Ament and ending
with Wendy G. Woodall, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 7,
2009.
Army nominations beginning with Terryl L. Aitken and ending
with Sarahtyah T. Wilson, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 7, 2009.
Marine Corps nomination of Matthew E. Sutton, to be
Lieutenant Colonel.
Marine Corps nomination of Andrew N. Sullivan, to be
Lieutenant Colonel.
Marine Corps nomination of Tracy G. Brooks, to be
Lieutenant Colonel.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Peter M. Barack,
Jr. and ending with Jacob D. Leighty III, which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 7, 2009.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with David G. Boone and
ending with James A. Jones, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 7, 2009.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with William A. Burwell
and ending with Balwindar K. Rawalayvandevoort, which
nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the
Congressional Record on January 7, 2009.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Kurt J. Hastings
and ending with Calvin W. Smith, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 7, 2009.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with James P. Miller,
Jr. and ending with Marc Tarter, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 7, 2009.
Marine Corps nomination of David S. Pummell, to be Major.
Marine Corps nomination of Robert M. Manning, to be Major.
Marine Corps nomination of Michael A. Symes, to be Major.
Marine Corps nomination of Paul A. Shirley, to be Major.
Marine Corps nomination of Richard D. Kohler, to be Major.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Julie C. Hendrix
and ending with Mauro Morales, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 7, 2009.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Christopher N.
Norris and ending with Samuel W. Spencer III, which
nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the
Congressional Record on January 7, 2009.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Anthony M. Nesbit
and ending with Paul Zacharzuk, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 7, 2009.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Gregory R. Biehl
and ending with Bryan S. Teet, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 7, 2009.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Travis R. Avent and
ending with Gregg R. Edwards, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 7, 2009.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Jose A. Falche and
ending with Clennon Roe III, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 7, 2009.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Keith D. Burgess
and ending with Brian J. Spooner, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 7, 2009.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Mark L. Hobin and
ending with Terry G. Norris, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 7, 2009.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Kevin J. Anderson
and ending with Edward P. Wojnaroski, Jr., which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 7, 2009.
Navy nomination of Steven J. Shauberger, to be Lieutenant
Commander.
Navy nomination of Karen M. Stokes, to be Lieutenant
Commander.
Navy nominations beginning with Craig W. Aimone and ending
with Matthew M. Wills, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 7,
2009.

(Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the
recommendation that they be confirmed.)

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

____________________

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

By Mr. VITTER (for himself and Ms. Landrieu):
S. Res. 22. A resolution recognizing the goals of Catholic
Schools Week and honoring the valuable contributions of
Catholic schools in the United States; considered and agreed
to.

[[Page 1586]]

By Mr. CASEY (for himself, Mr. Specter, Ms. Snowe, and
Ms. Collins):
S. Res. 23. A resolution honoring the life of Andrew Wyeth;
considered and agreed to.

____________________

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 66

At the request of Mr. Inouye, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 66, a bill to amend title 10,
United States Code, to permit former members of the Armed Forces who
have a service-connected disability rated as total to travel on
military aircraft in the same manner and to the same extent as retired
members of the Armed Forces are entitled to travel on such aircraft.

S. 85

At the request of Mr. Vitter, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Coburn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 85, a bill to amend title X
of the Public Health Service Act to prohibit family planning grants
from being awarded to any entity that performs abortions.

S. 96

At the request of Mr. Vitter, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Coburn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 96, a bill to prohibit
certain abortion-related discrimination in governmental activities.

S. 133

At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Thune) was added as a cosponsor of S. 133, a bill to
prohibit any recipient of emergency Federal economic assistance from
using such funds for lobbying expenditures or political contributions,
to improve transparency, enhance accountability, encourage responsible
corporate governance, and for other purposes.

S. 213

At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mr. Schumer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 213, a bill to amend title
49, United States Code, to ensure air passengers have access to
necessary services while on a grounded air carrier, and for other
purposes.

S. 256

At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from
Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) was added as a cosponsor of S. 256, a bill to
enhance the ability to combat methamphetamine.

S. 271

At the request of Ms. Cantwell, the names of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) and
the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) were added as cosponsors
of S. 271, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
incentives to accelerate the production and adoption of plug-in
electric vehicles and related component parts.

S. 298

At the request of Mr. Isakson, the names of the Senator from Texas
(Mr. Cornyn) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch) were added as
cosponsors of S. 298, a bill to establish a Financial Markets
Commission, and for other purposes.

S. 326

At the request of Mr. McConnell, the name of the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Enzi) was added as a cosponsor of S. 326, a bill to amend title
XXI of the Social Security Act to reauthorize the State Children's
Health Insurance Program through fiscal year 2013, and for other
purposes.

S. 328

At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the names of the Senator from
Arkansas (Mr. Pryor), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl), the
Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Casey) and the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) were added as cosponsors
of S. 328, a bill to postpone the DTV transition date.

S. RES. 9

At the request of Mr. Lugar, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Inhofe) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 9, a resolution
commemorating 90 years of U.S.-Polish diplomatic relations, during
which Poland has proven to be an exceptionally strong partner to the
United States in advancing freedom around the world.

____________________

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Brown,
and Mr. Sanders):
S. 330. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
deliver a meaningful benefit and lower prescription drug prices under
the Medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the 6 years since Congress passed the
Medicare Modernization Act, life for seniors has become increasingly
difficult. The majority of seniors live on a fixed income, but face the
challenge of paying more with less as the costs for everything continue
to rise. Housing costs, basic nutrition, and healthcare needs are more
expensive.
The addition of a prescription drug benefit to Medicare was long
overdue, and many senior citizens and people with disabilities are
relieved to finally have drug coverage. But the drug benefit was not
structured like the rest of Medicare. For all other Medicare benefits,
seniors can choose whether to receive benefits directly through
Medicare or through a private insurance plan. The overwhelming majority
choose the Medicare-run option for their hospital and physician
coverage.
Unfortunately, no such choice is available for prescription drugs.
Medicare beneficiaries must enroll in a private insurance plan to
obtain drug coverage and with that are subjected to the multiple
changes drug plans are allowed to impose on seniors year after year.
Each drug plan has its own premium, cost-sharing requirements, list
of covered drugs, and pharmacy network. After you have identified the
right drug plan, you have to go through the whole process again at the
end of the year because your plan may have changed the drugs it covers
or added new restrictions on how to access covered drugs.
Seniors are having trouble identifying which of the dozens of private
drug plans works best for them. The complexity of the program has made
beneficiaries more vulnerable to aggressive and deceptive marketing
practices as some insurers try to steer seniors into more profitable
Medicare Advantage plans. Some seniors have been signed up for Medicare
Advantage plans without their knowledge, and, unfortunately, there have
also been dishonest insurance agents who have misrepresented what
benefits would be covered. Anyone who has visited a senior center or
spoken with an elderly relative knows that the complexity of the drug
benefit has created much confusion.
Drug plans often do not tell beneficiaries that they can appeal a
drug plan's decision to deny coverage for a drug, even though they are
required to do so. Beneficiaries who do appeal soon find that it is a
long and difficult process.
Multiple studies have shown that private drug plans have not been
effective negotiators, which means seniors end up paying more than they
should. A report by Avalere Health released in late 2008 revealed that
the average beneficiary will see a 24 percent increase in their monthly
premiums for 2009. The top 10 most popular plans by enrollment will
increase their premiums by more than 30 percent.
Today, I am introducing the Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and
Choice Act. The bill would create a Medicare-operated drug plan that
would compete with private drug plans and would give the Health and
Human Services Secretary leverage to negotiate with drug companies to
lower drug prices.
The Health and Human Services Secretary would have the tools to
negotiate with drug companies, including the use of drug formulary. The
best medical evidence would determine which drugs are covered in the
formulary, and the formulary would be used to promote safety,
appropriate use of drugs, and value.

[[Page 1587]]

The bill would establish an appeals process that is efficient,
imposes minimal administrative burdens, and ensures timely procurement
of non-formulary drugs or non-preferred drugs when medically necessary.
This is the kind of drug plan that Medicare beneficiaries are looking
for. According to a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, two-thirds
of seniors want the option of getting drug coverage directly from
Medicare, and over 80 percent favor allowing the Government to
negotiate with drug companies for lower prices.
Seniors want the ability to choose a Medicare-administered drug plan
and deserve a simpler, more dependable, and less costly program that
prioritizes their needs. Let's give them this option--just as they have
this choice with every other benefit covered by Medicare.
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. 330

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 ``Medicare Prescription Drug
Savings and Choice Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICARE OPERATED PRESCRIPTION DRUG
PLAN OPTION.

(a) In General.--Subpart 2 of part D of the Social Security
Act is amended by inserting after section 1860D-11 (42 U.S.C.
1395w-111) the following new section:

``medicare operated prescription drug plan option

``Sec. 1860D-11A. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this part, for each year (beginning with
2010), in addition to any plans offered under section 1860D-
11, the Secretary shall offer one or more medicare operated
prescription drug plans (as defined in subsection (c)) with a
service area that consists of the entire United States and
shall enter into negotiations in accordance with subsection
(b) with pharmaceutical manufacturers to reduce the purchase
cost of covered part D drugs for eligible part D individuals
who enroll in such a plan.
``(b) Negotiations.--Notwithstanding section 1860D-11(i),
for purposes of offering a medicare operated prescription
drug plan under this section, the Secretary shall negotiate
with pharmaceutical manufacturers with respect to the
purchase price of covered part D drugs in a Medicare operated
prescription drug plan and shall encourage the use of more
affordable therapeutic equivalents to the extent such
practices do not override medical necessity as determined by
the prescribing physician. To the extent practicable and
consistent with the previous sentence, the Secretary shall
implement strategies similar to those used by other Federal
purchasers of prescription drugs, and other strategies,
including the use of a formulary and formulary incentives in
subsection (e), to reduce the purchase cost of covered part D
drugs.
``(c) Medicare Operated Prescription Drug Plan Defined.--
For purposes of this part, the term `medicare operated
prescription drug plan' means a prescription drug plan that
offers qualified prescription drug coverage and access to
negotiated prices described in section 1860D-2(a)(1)(A). Such
a plan may offer supplemental prescription drug coverage in
the same manner as other qualified prescription drug coverage
offered by other prescription drug plans.
``(d) Monthly Beneficiary Premium.--
``(1) Qualified prescription drug coverage.--The monthly
beneficiary premium for qualified prescription drug coverage
and access to negotiated prices described in section 1860D-
2(a)(1)(A) to be charged under a medicare operated
prescription drug plan shall be uniform nationally. Such
premium for months in 2010 and each succeeding year shall be
based on the average monthly per capita actuarial cost of
offering the medicare operated prescription drug plan for the
year involved, including administrative expenses.
``(2) Supplemental prescription drug coverage.--Insofar as
a medicare operated prescription drug plan offers
supplemental prescription drug coverage, the Secretary may
adjust the amount of the premium charged under paragraph (1).
``(e) Use of a Formulary and Formulary Incentives.--
``(1) In general.--With respect to the operation of a
medicare operated prescription drug plan, the Secretary shall
establish and apply a formulary (and may include formulary
incentives described in paragraph (2)(C)(ii)) in accordance
with this subsection in order to--
``(A) increase patient safety;
``(B) increase appropriate use and reduce inappropriate use
of drugs; and
``(C) reward value.
``(2) Development of initial formulary.--
``(A) In general.--In selecting covered part D drugs for
inclusion in a formulary. the Secretary shall consider
clinical benefit and price.
``(B) Role of ahrq.--The Director of the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality shall be responsible for
assessing the clinical benefit of covered part D drugs and
making recommendations to the Secretary regarding which drugs
should be included in the formulary. In conducting such
assessments and making such recommendations, the Director
shall--
``(i) consider safety concerns including those identified
by the Federal Food and Drug Administration;
``(ii) use available data and evaluations, with priority
given to randomized controlled trials, to examine clinical
effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, safety, and
enhanced compliance with a drug regimen;
``(iii) use the same classes of drugs developed by United
States Pharmacopeia for this part;
``(iv) consider evaluations made by--

``(I) the Director under section 1013 of Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of
2003;
``(II) other Federal entities, such as the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs; and
``(III) other private and public entities, such as the Drug
Effectiveness Review Project and Medicaid programs; and

``(v) recommend to the Secretary--

``(I) those drugs in a class that provide a greater
clinical benefit, including fewer safety concerns or less
risk of side-effects, than another drug in the same class
that should be included in the formulary;
``(II) those drugs in a class that provide less clinical
benefit, including greater safety concerns or a greater risk
of side-effects, than another drug in the same class that
should be excluded from the formulary; and
``(III) drugs in a class with same or similar clinical
benefit for which it would be appropriate for the Secretary
to competitively bid (or negotiate) for placement on the
formulary.

``(C) Consideration of ahrq recommendations.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary, after taking into
consideration the recommendations under subparagraph (B)(v),
shall establish a formulary, and formulary incentives, to
encourage use of covered part D drugs that--

``(I) have a lower cost and provide a greater clinical
benefit than other drugs;
``(II) have a lower cost than other drugs with same or
similar clinical benefit; and
``(III) drugs that have the same cost but provide greater
clinical benefit than other drugs.

``(ii) Formulary incentives.--The formulary incentives
under clause (i) may be in the form of one or more of the
following:

``(I) Tiered copayments.
``(II) Reference pricing.
``(III) Prior authorization.
``(IV) Step therapy.
``(V) Medication therapy management.
``(VI) Generic drug substitution.

``(iii) Flexibility.--In applying such formulary incentives
the Secretary may decide not to impose any cost-sharing for a
covered part D drug for which--

``(I) the elimination of cost sharing would be expected to
increase compliance with a drug regimen; and
``(II) compliance would be expected to produce savings
under part A or B or both.

``(3) Limitations on formulary.--In any formulary
established under this subsection, the formulary may not be
changed during a year, except--
``(A) to add a generic version of a covered part D drug
that entered the market;
``(B) to remove such a drug for which a safety problem is
found; and
``(C) to add a drug that the Secretary identifies as a drug
which treats a condition for which there has not previously
been a treatment option or for which a clear and significant
benefit has been demonstrated over other covered part D
drugs.
``(4) Adding drugs to the initial formulary.--
``(A) Use of advisory committee.--The Secretary shall
establish and appoint an advisory committee (in this
paragraph referred to as the `advisory committee')--
``(i) to review petitions from drug manufacturers, health
care provider organizations, patient groups, and other
entities for inclusion of a drug in, or other changes to,
such formulary; and
``(ii) to recommend any changes to the formulary
established under this subsection.
``(B) Composition.--The advisory committee shall be
composed of 9 members and shall include representatives of
physicians, pharmacists, and consumers and others with
expertise in evaluating prescription drugs. The Secretary
shall select members based on their knowledge of
pharmaceuticals and the Medicare population. Members shall be
deemed to be special Government employees for purposes of
applying the conflict of interest provisions under section
208 of title 18, United States Code, and no waiver of such
provisions for such a member shall be permitted.

[[Page 1588]]

``(C) Consultation.--The advisory committee shall consult,
as necessary, with physicians who are specialists in treating
the disease for which a drug is being considered.
``(D) Request for studies.--The advisory committee may
request the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or an
academic or research institution to study and make a report
on a petition described in subparagraph (A)(ii) in order to
assess--
``(i) clinical effectiveness;
``(ii) comparative effectiveness;
``(iii) safety; and
``(iv) enhanced compliance with a drug regimen.
``(E) Recommendations.--The advisory committee shall make
recommendations to the Secretary regarding--
``(i) whether a covered part D drug is found to provide a
greater clinical benefit, including fewer safety concerns or
less risk of side-effects, than another drug in the same
class that is currently included in the formulary and should
be included in the formulary;
``(ii) whether a covered part D drug is found to provide
less clinical benefit, including greater safety concerns or a
greater risk of side-effects, than another drug in the same
class that is currently included in the formulary and should
not be included in the formulary; and
``(iii) whether a covered part D drug has the same or
similar clinical benefit to a drug in the same class that is
currently included in the formulary and whether the drug
should be included in the formulary.
``(F) Limitations on review of manufacturer petitions.--The
advisory committee shall not review a petition of a drug
manufacturer under subparagraph (A)(ii) with respect to a
covered part D drug unless the petition is accompanied by the
following:
``(i) Raw data from clinical trials on the safety and
effectiveness of the drug.
``(ii) Any data from clinical trials conducted using active
controls on the drug or drugs that are the current standard
of care.
``(iii) Any available data on comparative effectiveness of
the drug.
``(iv) Any other information the Secretary requires for the
advisory committee to complete its review.
``(G) Response to recommendations.--The Secretary shall
review the recommendations of the advisory committee and if
the Secretary accepts such recommendations the Secretary
shall modify the formulary established under this subsection
accordingly. Nothing in this section shall preclude the
Secretary from adding to the formulary a drug for which the
Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or
the advisory committee has not made a recommendation.
``(H) Notice of changes.--The Secretary shall provide
timely notice to beneficiaries and health professionals about
changes to the formulary or formulary incentives.
``(f) Informing Beneficiaries.--The Secretary shall take
steps to inform beneficiaries about the availability of a
Medicare operated drug plan or plans including providing
information in the annual handbook distributed to all
beneficiaries and adding information to the official public
Medicare website related to prescription drug coverage
available through this part.
``(g) Application of All Other Requirements for
Prescription Drug Plans.--Except as specifically provided in
this section, any Medicare operated drug plan shall meet the
same requirements as apply to any other prescription drug
plan, including the requirements of section 1860D-4(b)(1)
relating to assuring pharmacy access).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1860D-3(a) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-103(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(4) Availability of the medicare operated prescription
drug plan.--A medicare operated prescription drug plan (as
defined in section 1860D-11A(c)) shall be offered nationally
in accordance with section 1860D-11A.''.
(2)(A) Section 1860D-3 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-103) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(c) Provisions Only Applicable in 2006, 2007, 2008, and
2009.--The provisions of this section shall only apply with
respect to 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.''.
(B) Section 1860D-11(g) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
111(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(8) No authority for fallback plans after 2009.--A
fallback prescription drug plan shall not be available after
December 31, 2009.''.
(3) Section 1860D-13(c)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
113(c)(3)) is amended--
(A) in the heading, by inserting ``and medicare operated
prescription drug plans'' after ``Fallback plans''; and
(B) by inserting ``or a medicare operated prescription drug
plan'' after ``a fallback prescription drug plan''.
(4) Section 1860D-16(b)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C.1395w-
116(b)(1)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon 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 new subparagraph:
``(E) payments for expenses incurred with respect to the
operation of medicare operated prescription drug plans under
section 1860D-11A.''.
(5) Section 1860D-41(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
151(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(19) Medicare operated prescription drug plan.--The term
`medicare operated prescription drug plan' has the meaning
given such term in section 1860D-11A(c).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section
101 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003.

SEC. 3. IMPROVED APPEALS PROCESS UNDER THE MEDICARE OPERATED
PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN.

Section 1860D-4(h) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1305w-104(h)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(4) Appeals process for medicare operated prescription
drug plan.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a well-
defined process for appeals for denials of benefits under
this part under the medicare operated prescription drug plan.
Such process shall be efficient, impose minimal
administrative burdens, and ensure the timely procurement of
non-formulary drugs or exemption from formulary incentives
when medically necessary. Medical necessity shall be based on
professional medical judgment, the medical condition of the
beneficiary, and other medical evidence. Such appeals process
shall include--
``(i) an initial review and determination made by the
Secretary; and
``(ii) for appeals denied during the initial review and
determination, the option of an external review and
determination by an independent entity selected by the
Secretary.
``(B) Consultation in development of process.--In
developing the appeals process under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall consult with consumer and patient groups, as
well as other key stakeholders to ensure the goals described
in subparagraph (A) are achieved.''.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Brownback):
S. 332. A bill to establish a comprehensive interagency response to
reduce lung cancer mortality in a timely manner; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Lung Cancer
Mortality Reduction Act, calling for a new effort to combat this often
deadly form of cancer. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Brownback,
the Co-Chair of the Senate Cancer Coalition, and a strong voice on a
variety of cancer issues.
This bill will renew and improve the Federal Government's efforts to
combat lung cancer. It will affirm the goal of a 50 percent reduction
in lung cancer mortality by 2015.
It will authorize a Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Program, with
interagency coordination, to develop and implement a plan to meet this
goal.
It will authorize $75 million for lung cancer research programs in
the National Heart Lung Blood Institute, National Institute of
Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences, and Centers for Disease Control.
It will create a new incentive program in the Food and Drug
Administration to be modeled on the Orphan Drug Act for the development
of chemoprevention drugs for lung cancer and precancerous lung disease.
These are drugs that could prevent precancer from progressing into
full-blown disease.
It will improve coordination disparity programs to ensure that the
burdens of lung cancer on minority populations are addressed.
We have made great strides against many types of cancer in the last
several decades. However, these gains are uneven.
When the National Cancer Act was passed in 1971, lung cancer had a 5-
year survival rate of only 12 percent. After decades of research
efforts and scientific advances, this survival rate remains only 15
percent. In contrast, the 5-year survival rates of breast, prostate,
and colon cancer have risen to 89 percent, 99 percent and 65 percent
respectively.
A lung cancer diagnosis can be devastating. The average life
expectancy following a lung cancer diagnosis is only 9 months.
This is because far too many patients are not diagnosed with lung
cancer

[[Page 1589]]

until it has progressed to the later stages. Lung cancer can be hard to
diagnose, and symptoms may at first appear to be other illnesses. As a
result, only 16 percent of lung cancer patients are diagnosed when
their cancer is still localized, and is the most treatable.
Lung cancer still lacks early detection technology, to find cancer
when it is most treatable. Mammograms can find breast cancer, and
colonoscopies can find dangerous colon polyps. But there is no
equivalent test for lung cancer at this time.
Under this legislation, the National Cancer Institute has clear
authority to work with other institutes on this early detection
research. Coordination between all branches of the National Institutes
of Health, including those with expertise on lungs, imaging, and cancer
will be necessary to make this long overdue progress.
Lung cancer lags behind other cancers, in part, due to stigma from
smoking. Make no mistake, tobacco use causes the majority of lung
cancer cases. Tobacco cessation is a critical component of reducing
lung cancer mortality. Less smoking means less lung cancer. Period.
But tobacco use does not fully explain lung cancer. Approximately 15
percent of the people who die from lung cancer never smoked. A study
published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2007 tracked the
incidence of lung cancer in 1 million people ages 40 to 79. It found
that about 20 percent of female lung cancer patients were nonsmokers
and 8 percent of male patients were nonsmokers.
These patients may have been exposed to second hand smoke, or they
may have been exposed to radon, asbestos, chromium, or other chemicals.
There could be other causes and associations that have not yet been
discovered, genetic predispositions or other environmental exposures.
Dana Reeve put a face on these statistics, with her brave fight
against lung cancer. Dana Reeve was a nonsmoker, and still was
diagnosed with lung cancer at the age of 44. She died a mere 7 months
later, leaving a young son.
Dana Reeve's story shows that smoking cannot fully explain lung
cancer. Everyone in this country could stop smoking today, and yet we
would still face a lung cancer epidemic. According to the Lung Cancer
Alliance, over 60 percent of new lung cancer cases occur in those who
never smoked, or who quit smoking.
I believe that we have the expertise and technology to make serious
progress against this deadly cancer, and to reach the goal of halving
lung cancer mortality by 2015.
We need this legislation to ensure that our Government's resources
are focused on this mission in the most efficient way possible.
Agency efforts must be coordinated, and every part of the National
Institutes of Health that may have some ideas to lend should be
participating. That is what the Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Program
will accomplish.
We can do better for Americans diagnosed with lung cancer. I ask my
colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 332

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 ``Lung Cancer Mortality
Reduction Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for
both men and women, accounting for 28 percent of all cancer
deaths.
(2) Lung cancer kills more people annually than breast
cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer, liver cancer,
melanoma, and kidney cancer combined.
(3) Since the enactment of the National Cancer Act of 1971
(Public Law 92-218; 85 Stat. 778), coordinated and
comprehensive research has raised the 5-year survival rates
for breast cancer to 88 percent, for prostate cancer to 99
percent, and for colon cancer to 64 percent.
(4) However, the 5-year survival rate for lung cancer is
still only 15 percent and a similar coordinated and
comprehensive research effort is required to achieve
increases in lung cancer survivability rates.
(5) Sixty percent of lung cancer cases are now diagnosed as
nonsmokers or former smokers.
(6) Two-thirds of nonsmokers diagnosed with lung cancer are
women.
(7) Certain minority populations, such as African-American
males, have disproportionately high rates of lung cancer
incidence and mortality, notwithstanding their similar
smoking rate.
(8) Members of the baby boomer generation are entering
their sixties, the most common age at which people develop
lung cancer.
(9) Tobacco addiction and exposure to other lung cancer
carcinogens such as Agent Orange and other herbicides and
battlefield emissions are serious problems among military
personnel and war veterans.
(10) Significant and rapid improvements in lung cancer
mortality can be expected through greater use and access to
lung cancer screening tests for at-risk individuals.
(11) Additional strategies are necessary to further enhance
the existing tests and therapies available to diagnose and
treat lung cancer in the future.
(12) The August 2001 Report of the Lung Cancer Progress
Review Group of the National Cancer Institute stated that
funding for lung cancer research was ``far below the levels
characterized for other common malignancies and far out of
proportion to its massive health impact''.
(13) The Report of the Lung Cancer Progress Review Group
identified as its ``highest priority'' the creation of
integrated, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional research
consortia organized around the problem of lung cancer.
(14) The United States must enhance its response to the
issues raised in the Report of the Lung Cancer Progress
Review Group, and this can be accomplished through the
establishment of a coordinated effort designed to reduce the
lung cancer mortality rate by 50 percent by 2016 and through
targeted funding to support this coordinated effort.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING INVESTMENT IN LUNG
CANCER RESEARCH.

It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) lung cancer mortality reduction should be made a
national public health priority; and
(2) a comprehensive mortality reduction program coordinated
by the Secretary of Health and Human Services is justified
and necessary to adequately address and reduce lung cancer
mortality.

SEC. 4. LUNG CANCER MORTALITY REDUCTION PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Subpart 1 of part C of title IV of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 417G. LUNG CANCER MORTALITY REDUCTION PROGRAM.

``(a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of enactment of the Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Act of
2009, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Director of
the National Institutes of Health, the Director of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Commissioner
of the Food and Drug Administration, the Administrator of the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Director of the
National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities,
and other members of the Lung Cancer Advisory Board
established under section 6 of the Lung Cancer Mortality
Reduction Act of 2009, shall implement a comprehensive
program to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the mortality
rate of lung cancer by 2016.
``(b) Requirements.--The program implemented under
subsection (a) shall include at least the following:
``(1) With respect to the National Institutes of Health--
``(A) a strategic review and prioritization by the National
Cancer Institute of research grants to achieve the goal of
the program in reducing lung cancer mortality;
``(B) the provision of funds to enable the Airway Biology
and Disease Branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute to expand its research programs to include
predispositions to lung cancer, the interrelationship between
lung cancer and other pulmonary and cardiac disease, and the
diagnosis and treatment of these interrelationships;
``(C) the provision of funds to enable the National
Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering to expand
its Quantum Grant Program and Image-Guided Interventions
programs to expedite the development of computer assisted
diagnostic, surgical, treatment, and drug testing innovations
to reduce lung cancer mortality; and
``(D) the provision of funds to enable the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to implement
research programs relative to lung cancer incidence.
``(2) With respect to the Food and Drug Administration--
``(A) the establishment of a lung cancer mortality
reduction drug program under subchapter G of chapter V of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; and

[[Page 1590]]

``(B) compassionate access activities under section 561 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb).
``(3) With respect to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the establishment of a lung cancer mortality
reduction program under section 1511.
``(4) With respect to the Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality, the conduct of a biannual review of lung cancer
screening, diagnostic and treatment protocols, and the
issuance of updated guidelines.
``(5) The cooperation and coordination of all minority and
health disparity programs within the Department of Health and
Human Services to ensure that all aspects of the Lung Cancer
Mortality Reduction Program adequately address the burden of
lung cancer on minority and rural populations.
``(6) The cooperation and coordination of all tobacco
control and cessation programs within agencies of the
Department of Health and Human Services to achieve the goals
of the Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Program with
particular emphasis on the coordination of drug and other
cessation treatments with early detection protocols.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section--
``(1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 for the activities
described in subsection (b)(1)(B), and such sums as may be
necessary for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2014;
``(2) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 for the activities
described in subsection (b)(1)(C), and such sums as may be
necessary for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2014;
``(3) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 for the activities
described in subsection (b)(1)(D), and such sums as may be
necessary for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2014; and
``(4) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 for the activities
described in subsection (b)(3), and such sums as may be
necessary for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2014.''.
(b) Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.--Chapter V of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``Subchapter G--Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Programs

``SEC. 581. LUNG CANCER MORTALITY REDUCTION PROGRAM.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall implement a program
to provide incentives of the type provided for in subchapter
B of this chapter for the development of chemoprevention
drugs for precancerous conditions of the lung, drugs for
targeted therapeutic treatments and vaccines for lung cancer,
and new agents to curtail or prevent nicotine addiction. The
Secretary shall model the program implemented under this
section on the program provided for under subchapter B of
this chapter with respect to certain drugs.
``(b) Application of Provisions.--The Secretary shall apply
the provisions of subchapter B of this chapter to drugs,
biological products, and devices for the prevention or
treatment of lung cancer, including drugs, biological
products, and devices for chemoprevention of precancerous
conditions of the lungs, vaccination against the development
of lung cancer, and therapeutic treatment for lung cancer.
``(c) Board.--The Board established under section 6 of the
Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Act of 2009 shall monitor the
program implemented under this section.''.
(c) Access to Unapproved Therapies.--Section 561(e) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb(e)) is
amended by inserting before the period the following: ``and
shall include providing compassionate access to drugs,
biological products, and devices under the program under
section 581, with substantial consideration being given to
whether the totality of information available to the
Secretary regarding the safety and effectiveness of an
investigational drug, as compared to the risk of morbidity
and death from the disease, indicates that a patient may
obtain more benefit than risk if treated with the drug,
biological product, or device.''.
(d) CDC.--Title XV of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 300k et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 1511. LUNG CANCER MORTALITY REDUCTION PROGRAM.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish and
implement an early disease research and management program
targeted at the high incidence and mortality rates among
minority and low-income populations.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to carry
out this section.''.

SEC. 5. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS.

The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs shall coordinate with the Secretary of Health and
Human Services--
(1) in the development of the Lung Cancer Mortality
Reduction Program under section 417E of part C of title IV of
the Public Health Service Act, as amended by section 4;
(2) in the implementation within the Department of Defense
and the Department of Veterans Affairs of an early detection
and disease management research program for military
personnel and veterans whose smoking history and exposure to
carcinogens during active duty service has increased their
risk for lung cancer; and
(3) in the implementation of coordinated care programs for
military personnel and veterans diagnosed with lung cancer.

SEC. 6. LUNG CANCER ADVISORY BOARD.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall establish a Lung Cancer Advisory Board (referred to in
this section as the ``Board'') to monitor the programs
established under this Act (and the amendments made by this
Act), and provide annual reports to Congress concerning
benchmarks, expenditures, lung cancer statistics, and the
public health impact of such programs.
(b) Composition.--The Board shall be composed of--
(1) the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(2) the Secretary of Defense;
(3) the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; and
(4) two representatives each from the fields of--
(A) clinical medicine focused on lung cancer;
(B) lung cancer research;
(C) imaging;
(D) drug development; and
(E) lung cancer advocacy,
to be appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services.

SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

For the purpose of carrying out the programs under this Act
(and the amendments made by this Act), there is authorized to
be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of
fiscal years 2010 through 2014.
______

By Mr. LUGAR:
S. 334. A bill to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory
treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of
Moldova; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
designed to extend permanent normal trade relations to Moldova. Moldova
is still subject to the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to
the Trade Act of 1974, which sanctions nations for failure to comply
with freedom of emigration requirements. This bill would repeal
permanently the application of Jackson-Vanik to Moldova.
Moldova is a small country located in Europe between Ukraine and
Romania. Throughout the Cold War it was a part of the Soviet Union. It
gained its independence from the Soviet Union on August 27, 1991. The
United States has supported Moldova in its journey toward democracy and
sovereignty.
The United States enjoys good relations with Moldova and has
encouraged Moldovan efforts to integrate with Euro-Atlantic
institutions. Moldova has been selected to participate in the Eastern
Partnership, an initiative proposed by the European Union in 2008,
which will facilitate the creation of free trade agreements, energy
security plans, and closer economic ties between the EU and Moldova.
Since declaring independence from the Soviet Union in 1992, Moldova
has enacted a series of democratic and free market reforms. In 2001,
Moldova became a member of the World Trade Organization. Furthermore,
Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin has recently expressed his desire
to sign an accord to strengthen relations between Moldova and the
European Union this year. Until the United States terminates
application of Jackson-Vanik on Moldova, the U.S. will not benefit from
Moldova's market access commitments nor can it resort to WTO dispute
resolution mechanisms. While all other WTO members currently enjoy
these benefits, the U.S. does not.
The Republic of Moldova has been evaluated every year and granted
normal trade relations with the United States through annual
presidential waivers from the effects of Jackson-Vanik. The Moldovan
constitution guarantees its citizens the right to emigrate and this
right is respected in practice. Most emigration restrictions were
eliminated in 1991 and virtually no problems with emigration have been
reported in the 16 years since independence. More specifically, Moldova
does not impose emigration restrictions on members of the Jewish
community. Synagogues function openly and without harassment. As a
result, the administration finds that Moldova is in full compliance
with Jackson-Vanik's provisions.
Since declaring independence from the Soviet Union in 1992, Moldova
has

[[Page 1591]]

enacted a series of democratic and free market reforms. Parliamentary
elections in 2005 and local elections in 2007 generally complied with
international standards for democratic elections.
Moldova has also contributed constructively towards a resolution of
the long-standing separatist conflict in the country's Transniestria
region, most recently by proposing a series of confidence-building
measures and working groups. In addition, trade increased between the
two parties by 30 percent in 2007.
The United States and Moldova have established a strong record of
achievement in security cooperation. In 1997 the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative
Threat Reduction Program responded to a Moldovan request for
assistance. The U.S. purchased and secured 14 nuclear-capable MiG-29Cs
from Moldova. These fighter aircraft were built by the former Soviet
Union to launch nuclear weapons. Moldova expressed concern that these
aircraft were unsecure due to the lack of funds and equipment necessary
to ensure they were not stolen or smuggled out of the country.
Specifically, emissaries from Iran had shown great interest and had
attempted to acquire the aircraft. These planes were not destroyed.
They were disassembled and shipped to Wright Patterson Air Force Base
because they can be used by American experts for research purposes.
Moldova has made small, but important, troop contributions in Iraq.
These contributions include significant demining capabilities and
contingents of combat troops. I am pleased that the United States
remains prepared to assist in weapons and ammunition disposal and force
relocation assistance to help deal with the costs of military
realignments in Moldova and to assist with military downsizing and
reforms.
One of the areas where we can deepen U.S.-Moldovan relations is
bilateral trade. In light of its adherence to freedom of emigration
requirements, compliance with threat reduction and cooperation in the
global war on terrorism, the products of Moldova should not be subject
to the sanctions of Jackson-Vanik. The U.S. must remain committed and
engaged in assisting Moldova in pursuing economic and development
reforms. The government in Chisinau still has important work to do in
these critical areas. The support and encouragement of the U.S. and the
international community will be key to encouraging the Government of
Moldova to take the necessary steps to initiate reform. The permanent
waiver of Jackson-Vanik and establishment of permanent normal trade
relations will be the foundation on which further progress in a
burgeoning economic and energy partnership can be made.
I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in supporting this
important legislation. It is essential that we act promptly to bolster
this important relationship and promote stability in this region.

____________________

SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

______

SENATE RESOLUTION 22--RECOGNIZING THE GOALS OF CATHOLIC SCHOOLS WEEK
AND HONORING THE VALUABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF CATHOLIC SCHOOLS IN THE
UNITED STATES

Mr. VITTER (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

S. Res. 22

Whereas Catholic schools in the United States have received
international acclaim for academic excellence while providing
students with lessons that extend far beyond the classroom;
Whereas Catholic schools present a broad curriculum that
emphasizes the lifelong development of moral, intellectual,
physical, and social values in the young people of the United
States;
Whereas Catholic schools in the United States today educate
2,270,913 students and maintain a student-to-teacher ratio of
14 to 1;
Whereas the faculty members of Catholic schools teach a
highly diverse body of students;
Whereas the graduation rate for all Catholic school
students is 95 percent;
Whereas 83 percent of Catholic high school graduates go on
to college;
Whereas Catholic schools produce students strongly
dedicated to their faith, values, families, and communities
by providing an intellectually stimulating environment rich
in spiritual character and moral development; and
Whereas in the 1972 pastoral message concerning Catholic
education, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
stated, ``Education is one of the most important ways by
which the Church fulfills its commitment to the dignity of
the person and building of community. Community is central to
education ministry, both as a necessary condition and an
ardently desired goal. The educational efforts of the Church,
therefore, must be directed to forming persons-in-community;
for the education of the individual Christian is important
not only to his solitary destiny, but also the destinies of
the many communities in which he lives.'': Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes the goals of Catholic Schools Week, an event
cosponsored by the National Catholic Educational Association
and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that
recognizes the vital contributions of thousands of Catholic
elementary and secondary schools in the United States; and
(2) commends Catholic schools, students, parents, and
teachers across the United States for their ongoing
contributions to education, and for the vital role they play
in promoting and ensuring a brighter, stronger future for the
United States.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 23--HONORING THE LIFE OF ANDREW WYETH

Mr. CASEY (for himself, Mr. Specter, Ms. Snowe, and Ms. Collins)
submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

S. Res. 23

Whereas Andrew Wyeth was one of the most popular American
artists of the twentieth century, whose paintings presented
to the world his impressions of rural American landscapes and
lives;
Whereas Andrew Wyeth was born in Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania
on July 12, 1917, where he spent much of his life and where
today stands the Brandywine River Museum, a museum dedicated
to the works of the Wyeth family;
Whereas Andrew Wyeth died the morning of January 16, 2009,
at the age of 91, in his home in Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania;
Whereas it is the intent of the Senate to recognize and pay
tribute to the life of Andrew Wyeth, his passion for
painting, his contribution to the world of art, and his deep
understanding of the human condition;
Whereas Andrew Wyeth was born the son of famed illustrator
N.C. Wyeth and grew up surrounded by artists in an
environment that encouraged imagination and free-thinking;
Whereas Andrew Wyeth became an icon who focused his work on
family and friends in Chadds Ford and in coastal Maine, where
he spent his summers and where he met Christina Olson, the
subject of his famed painting `Christina's World';
Whereas Andrew Wyeth's paintings were immensely popular
among the public but sometimes disparaged by critics for
their lack of color and bleak landscapes portraying isolation
and alienation;
Whereas Andrew Wyeth's works could be controversial, as
they sparked dialogue and disagreement in the art world
concerning the natures of realism and modernism;
Whereas Andrew Wyeth was immensely patriotic and an
independent thinker who broke with many of his peers on the
issues of the day;
Whereas Andrew Wyeth was a beloved figure in Chadds Ford
and had his own seat at the corner table of the Chadds Ford
Inn, where reproductions of his art line the walls;
Whereas Andrew Wyeth received the Presidential Medal of
Freedom in 1963 and the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor in
1988;
Whereas Andrew Wyeth let it be known that he lived to paint
and never lost his simplicity and caring for people despite
his immense fame and successful career; and
Whereas the passing of Andrew Wyeth is a great loss to the
world of art, and his life should be honored with highest
praise and appreciation for his paintings which remain with
us although he is gone: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes Andrew Wyeth as a treasure of the United
States and one of the most popular artists of the twentieth
century; and
(2) recognizes the outstanding contributions of Andrew
Wyeth to the art world and to the community of Chadds Ford,
Pennsylvania.

____________________

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED

SA 39. Mr. REID (for Mr. Baucus) proposed an amendment to
the bill H.R. 2, to amend

[[Page 1592]]

title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve
the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other
purposes.
SA 40. Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Vitter, Mr.
Chambliss, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Burr, Mr.
Isakson, Mr. Graham, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Brownback,
Mr. Cochran, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Thune, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Bennett,
Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Wicker) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2,
supra.
SA 41. Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Roberts,
Mr. Vitter, and Mr. Chambliss) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra.
SA 42. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 43. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 39 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr.
Baucus) to the bill H.R. 2, supra.
SA 44. Mr. DeMINT (for himself and Mr. Vitter) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 45. Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr.
Wicker) proposed an amendment to amendment SA 39 proposed by
Mr. Reid (for Mr. Baucus) to the bill H.R. 2, supra.
SA 46. Mr. KYL submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 47. Mr. COBURN (for himself and Mr. Thune) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 48. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 49. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 50. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 51. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 52. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 53. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 54. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 55. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 56. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 57. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 58. Mr. WEBB (for himself, Mrs. Hagan, and Mr. Sanders)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 59. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 60. Mr. WICKER (for himself and Mr. Cochran) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R.
2, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 61. Mr. BINGAMAN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 62. Mr. BINGAMAN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 63. Mr. BINGAMAN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 64. Mr. BINGAMAN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 65. Mr. MARTINEZ (for himself, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Wicker,
Mr. Bunning, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Johanns, Mr.
Brownback, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Chambliss, and Mr. DeMint)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 66. Mr. CORNYN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 67. Mr. CORNYN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 68. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 69. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 70. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 71. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 72. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 73. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.

____________________

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS

SA 39. Mr. REID (for Mr. Baucus) proposed an amendment to the bill
H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and
improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other
purposes; as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY ACT;
REFERENCES; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Children's
Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009''.
(b) Amendments to Social Security Act.--Except as otherwise
specifically provided, whenever in this Act an amendment is
expressed in terms of an amendment to or repeal of a section
or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be
made to that section or other provision of the Social
Security Act.
(c) References to CHIP; Medicaid; Secretary.--In this Act:
(1) CHIP.--The term ``CHIP'' means the State Children's
Health Insurance Program established under title XXI of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.).
(2) Medicaid.--The term ``Medicaid'' means the program for
medical assistance established under title XIX of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
(d) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; amendments to Social Security Act; references;
table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purpose.
Sec. 3. General effective date; exception for State legislation;
contingent effective date; reliance on law.

TITLE I--FINANCING

Subtitle A--Funding

Sec. 101. Extension of CHIP.
Sec. 102. Allotments for States and territories for fiscal years 2009
through 2013.
Sec. 103. Child Enrollment Contingency Fund.
Sec. 104. CHIP performance bonus payment to offset additional
enrollment costs resulting from enrollment and retention
efforts.
Sec. 105. Two-year initial availability of CHIP allotments.
Sec. 106. Redistribution of unused allotments.
Sec. 107. Option for qualifying States to receive the enhanced portion
of the CHIP matching rate for Medicaid coverage of
certain children.
Sec. 108. One-time appropriation.
Sec. 109. Improving funding for the territories under CHIP and
Medicaid.

Subtitle B--Focus on Low-Income Children and Pregnant Women

Sec. 111. State option to cover low-income pregnant women under CHIP
through a State plan amendment.
Sec. 112. Phase-out of coverage for nonpregnant childless adults under
CHIP; conditions for coverage of parents.
Sec. 113. Elimination of counting Medicaid child presumptive
eligibility costs against title XXI allotment.
Sec. 114. Limitation on matching rate for States that propose to cover
children with effective family income that exceeds 300
percent of the poverty line.
Sec. 115. State authority under Medicaid.

TITLE II--OUTREACH AND ENROLLMENT

Subtitle A--Outreach and Enrollment Activities

Sec. 201. Grants and enhanced administrative funding for outreach and
enrollment.
Sec. 202. Increased outreach and enrollment of Indians.

[[Page 1593]]

Sec. 203. State option to rely on findings from an Express Lane agency
to conduct simplified eligibility determinations.

Subtitle B--Reducing Barriers to Enrollment

Sec. 211. Verification of declaration of citizenship or nationality for
purposes of eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP.
Sec. 212. Reducing administrative barriers to enrollment.
Sec. 213. Model of Interstate coordinated enrollment and coverage
process.
Sec. 214. Permitting States to ensure coverage without a 5-year delay
of certain children and pregnant women under the Medicaid
program and CHIP.

TITLE III--REDUCING BARRIERS TO PROVIDING PREMIUM ASSISTANCE

Subtitle A--Additional State Option for Providing Premium Assistance

Sec. 301. Additional State option for providing premium assistance.
Sec. 302. Outreach, education, and enrollment assistance.

Subtitle B--Coordinating Premium Assistance With Private Coverage

Sec. 311. Special enrollment period under group health plans in case of
termination of Medicaid or CHIP coverage or eligibility
for assistance in purchase of employment-based coverage;
coordination of coverage.

TITLE IV--STRENGTHENING QUALITY OF CARE AND HEALTH OUTCOMES

Sec. 401. Child health quality improvement activities for children
enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP.
Sec. 402. Improved availability of public information regarding
enrollment of children in CHIP and Medicaid.
Sec. 403. Application of certain managed care quality safeguards to
CHIP.

TITLE V--IMPROVING ACCESS TO BENEFITS

Sec. 501. Dental benefits.
Sec. 502. Mental health parity in CHIP plans.
Sec. 503. Application of prospective payment system for services
provided by Federally-qualified health centers and rural
health clinics.
Sec. 504. Premium grace period.
Sec. 505. Clarification of coverage of services provided through
school-based health centers.
Sec. 506. Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

TITLE VI--PROGRAM INTEGRITY AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Program Integrity and Data Collection

Sec. 601. Payment error rate measurement (``PERM'').
Sec. 602. Improving data collection.
Sec. 603. Updated Federal evaluation of CHIP.
Sec. 604. Access to records for IG and GAO audits and evaluations.
Sec. 605. No Federal funding for illegal aliens; disallowance for
unauthorized expenditures.

Subtitle B--Miscellaneous Health Provisions

Sec. 611. Deficit Reduction Act technical corrections.
Sec. 612. References to title XXI.
Sec. 613. Prohibiting initiation of new health opportunity account
demonstration programs.
Sec. 614. Adjustment in computation of Medicaid FMAP to disregard an
extraordinary employer pension contribution.
Sec. 615. Clarification treatment of regional medical center.
Sec. 616. Extension of Medicaid DSH allotments for Tennessee and
Hawaii.
Sec. 617. GAO report on Medicaid managed care payment rates.

Subtitle C--Other Provisions

Sec. 621. Outreach regarding health insurance options available to
children.
Sec. 622. Sense of the Senate regarding access to affordable and
meaningful health insurance coverage.

TITLE VII--REVENUE PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. Increase in excise tax rate on tobacco products.
Sec. 702. Administrative improvements.
Sec. 703. Treasury study concerning magnitude of tobacco smuggling in
the United States.
Sec. 704. Time for payment of corporate estimated taxes.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

It is the purpose of this Act to provide dependable and
stable funding for children's health insurance under titles
XXI and XIX of the Social Security Act in order to enroll all
six million uninsured children who are eligible, but not
enrolled, for coverage today through such titles.

SEC. 3. GENERAL EFFECTIVE DATE; EXCEPTION FOR STATE
LEGISLATION; CONTINGENT EFFECTIVE DATE;
RELIANCE ON LAW.

(a) General Effective Date.--Unless otherwise provided in
this Act, subject to subsections (b) through (d), this Act
(and the amendments made by this Act) shall take effect on
April 1, 2009, and shall apply to child health assistance and
medical assistance provided on or after that date.
(b) Exception for State Legislation.--In the case of a
State plan under title XIX or State child health plan under
XXI of the Social Security Act, which the Secretary of Health
and Human Services determines requires State legislation in
order for the respective plan to meet one or more additional
requirements imposed by amendments made by this Act, the
respective plan shall not be regarded as failing to comply
with the requirements of such title solely on the basis of
its failure to meet such an additional requirement before the
first day of the first calendar quarter beginning after the
close of the first regular session of the State legislature
that begins after the date of enactment of this Act. For
purposes of the previous sentence, in the case of a State
that has a 2-year legislative session, each year of the
session shall be considered to be a separate regular session
of the State legislature.
(c) Coordination of CHIP Funding for Fiscal Year 2009.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, insofar as funds
have been appropriated under section 2104(a)(11), 2104(k), or
2104(l) of the Social Security Act, as amended by section 201
of Public Law 110-173, to provide allotments to States under
CHIP for fiscal year 2009--
(1) any amounts that are so appropriated that are not so
allotted and obligated before April 1, 2009 are rescinded;
and
(2) any amount provided for CHIP allotments to a State
under this Act (and the amendments made by this Act) for such
fiscal year shall be reduced by the amount of such
appropriations so allotted and obligated before such date.
(d) Reliance on Law.--With respect to amendments made by
this Act (other than title VII) that become effective as of a
date--
(1) such amendments are effective as of such date whether
or not regulations implementing such amendments have been
issued; and
(2) Federal financial participation for medical assistance
or child health assistance furnished under title XIX or XXI,
respectively, of the Social Security Act on or after such
date by a State in good faith reliance on such amendments
before the date of promulgation of final regulations, if any,
to carry out such amendments (or before the date of guidance,
if any, regarding the implementation of such amendments)
shall not be denied on the basis of the State's failure to
comply with such regulations or guidance.

TITLE I--FINANCING

Subtitle A--Funding

SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF CHIP.

Section 2104(a) (42 U.S.C. 1397dd(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (10), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by amending paragraph (11), by striking ``each of
fiscal years 2008 and 2009'' and inserting ``fiscal year
2008''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(12) for fiscal year 2009, $10,562,000,000;
``(13) for fiscal year 2010, $12,520,000,000;
``(14) for fiscal year 2011, $13,459,000,000;
``(15) for fiscal year 2012, $14,982,000,000; and
``(16) for fiscal year 2013, for purposes of making 2 semi-
annual allotments--
``(A) $2,850,000,000 for the period beginning on October 1,
2012, and ending on March 31, 2013, and
``(B) $2,850,000,000 for the period beginning on April 1,
2013, and ending on September 30, 2013.''.

SEC. 102. ALLOTMENTS FOR STATES AND TERRITORIES FOR FISCAL
YEARS 2009 THROUGH 2013.

Section 2104 (42 U.S.C. 1397dd) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``subsection (d)''
and inserting ``subsections (d) and (m)'';
(2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``subsection (d)''
and inserting ``subsections (d) and (m)(4)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(m) Allotments for Fiscal Years 2009 Through 2013.--
``(1) For fiscal year 2009.--
``(A) For the 50 states and the district of columbia.--
Subject to the succeeding provisions of this paragraph and
paragraph (4), the Secretary shall allot for fiscal year 2009
from the amount made available under subsection (a)(12), to
each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia 110
percent of the highest of the following amounts for such
State or District:
``(i) The total Federal payments to the State under this
title for fiscal year 2008, multiplied by the allotment
increase factor determined under paragraph (5) for fiscal
year 2009.
``(ii) The amount allotted to the State for fiscal year
2008 under subsection (b), multiplied by the allotment
increase factor determined under paragraph (5) for fiscal
year 2009.
``(iii) The projected total Federal payments to the State
under this title for fiscal year 2009, as determined on the
basis of the

[[Page 1594]]

February 2009 projections certified by the State to the
Secretary by not later than March 31, 2009.
``(B) For the commonwealths and territories.--Subject to
the succeeding provisions of this paragraph and paragraph
(4), the Secretary shall allot for fiscal year 2009 from the
amount made available under subsection (a)(12) to each of the
commonwealths and territories described in subsection (c)(3)
an amount equal to the highest amount of Federal payments to
the commonwealth or territory under this title for any fiscal
year occurring during the period of fiscal years 1999 through
2008, multiplied by the allotment increase factor determined
under paragraph (5) for fiscal year 2009, except that
subparagraph (B) thereof shall be applied by substituting
`the United States' for `the State'.
``(C) Adjustment for qualifying states.--In the case of a
qualifying State described in paragraph (2) of section
2105(g), the Secretary shall permit the State to submit a
revised projection described in subparagraph (A)(iii) in
order to take into account changes in such projections
attributable to the application of paragraph (4) of such
section.
``(2) For fiscal years 2010 through 2012.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (4) and (6), from
the amount made available under paragraphs (13) through (15)
of subsection (a) for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2012,
respectively, the Secretary shall compute a State allotment
for each State (including the District of Columbia and each
commonwealth and territory) for each such fiscal year as
follows:
``(i) Growth factor update for fiscal year 2010.--For
fiscal year 2010, the allotment of the State is equal to the
sum of--

``(I) the amount of the State allotment under paragraph (1)
for fiscal year 2009; and
``(II) the amount of any payments made to the State under
subsection (k), (l), or (n) for fiscal year 2009,

multiplied by the allotment increase factor under paragraph
(5) for fiscal year 2010.
``(ii) Rebasing in fiscal year 2011.--For fiscal year 2011,
the allotment of the State is equal to the Federal payments
to the State that are attributable to (and countable towards)
the total amount of allotments available under this section
to the State in fiscal year 2010 (including payments made to
the State under subsection (n) for fiscal year 2010 as well
as amounts redistributed to the State in fiscal year 2010),
multiplied by the allotment increase factor under paragraph
(5) for fiscal year 2011.
``(iii) Growth factor update for fiscal year 2012.--For
fiscal year 2012, the allotment of the State is equal to the
sum of--

``(I) the amount of the State allotment under clause (ii)
for fiscal year 2011; and
``(II) the amount of any payments made to the State under
subsection (n) for fiscal year 2011,

multiplied by the allotment increase factor under paragraph
(5) for fiscal year 2012.
``(3) For fiscal year 2013.--
``(A) First half.--Subject to paragraphs (4) and (6), from
the amount made available under subparagraph (A) of paragraph
(16) of subsection (a) for the semi-annual period described
in such paragraph, increased by the amount of the
appropriation for such period under section 108 of the
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of
2009, the Secretary shall compute a State allotment for each
State (including the District of Columbia and each
commonwealth and territory) for such semi-annual period in an
amount equal to the first half ratio (described in
subparagraph (D)) of the amount described in subparagraph
(C).
``(B) Second half.--Subject to paragraphs (4) and (6), from
the amount made available under subparagraph (B) of paragraph
(16) of subsection (a) for the semi-annual period described
in such paragraph, the Secretary shall compute a State
allotment for each State (including the District of Columbia
and each commonwealth and territory) for such semi-annual
period in an amount equal to the amount made available under
such subparagraph, multiplied by the ratio of--
``(i) the amount of the allotment to such State under
subparagraph (A); to
``(ii) the total of the amount of all of the allotments
made available under such subparagraph.
``(C) Full year amount based on rebased amount.--The amount
described in this subparagraph for a State is equal to the
Federal payments to the State that are attributable to (and
countable towards) the total amount of allotments available
under this section to the State in fiscal year 2012
(including payments made to the State under subsection (n)
for fiscal year 2012 as well as amounts redistributed to the
State in fiscal year 2012), multiplied by the allotment
increase factor under paragraph (5) for fiscal year 2013.
``(D) First half ratio.--The first half ratio described in
this subparagraph is the ratio of--
``(i) the sum of--

``(I) the amount made available under subsection
(a)(16)(A); and
``(II) the amount of the appropriation for such period
under section 108 of the Children's Health Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2009; to

``(ii) the sum of the--

``(I) amount described in clause (i); and
``(II) the amount made available under subsection
(a)(16)(B).

``(4) Proration rule.--If, after the application of this
subsection without regard to this paragraph, the sum of the
allotments determined under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) for a
fiscal year (or, in the case of fiscal year 2013, for a semi-
annual period in such fiscal year) exceeds the amount
available under subsection (a) for such fiscal year or
period, the Secretary shall reduce each allotment for any
State under such paragraph for such fiscal year or period on
a proportional basis.
``(5) Allotment increase factor.--The allotment increase
factor under this paragraph for a fiscal year is equal to the
product of the following:
``(A) Per capita health care growth factor.--1 plus the
percentage increase in the projected per capita amount of
National Health Expenditures from the calendar year in which
the previous fiscal year ends to the calendar year in which
the fiscal year involved ends, as most recently published by
the Secretary before the beginning of the fiscal year.
``(B) Child population growth factor.--1 plus the
percentage increase (if any) in the population of children in
the State from July 1 in the previous fiscal year to July 1
in the fiscal year involved, as determined by the Secretary
based on the most recent published estimates of the Bureau of
the Census before the beginning of the fiscal year involved,
plus 1 percentage point.
``(6) Increase in allotment to account for approved program
expansions.--In the case of one of the 50 States or the
District of Columbia that--
``(A) has submitted to the Secretary, and has approved by
the Secretary, a State plan amendment or waiver request
relating to an expansion of eligibility for children or
benefits under this title that becomes effective for a fiscal
year (beginning with fiscal year 2010 and ending with fiscal
year 2013); and
``(B) has submitted to the Secretary, before the August 31
preceding the beginning of the fiscal year, a request for an
expansion allotment adjustment under this paragraph for such
fiscal year that specifies--
``(i) the additional expenditures that are attributable to
the eligibility or benefit expansion provided under the
amendment or waiver described in subparagraph (A), as
certified by the State and submitted to the Secretary by not
later than August 31 preceding the beginning of the fiscal
year; and
``(ii) the extent to which such additional expenditures are
projected to exceed the allotment of the State or District
for the year,

subject to paragraph (4), the amount of the allotment of the
State or District under this subsection for such fiscal year
shall be increased by the excess amount described in
subparagraph (B)(i). A State or District may only obtain an
increase under this paragraph for an allotment for fiscal
year 2010 or fiscal year 2012.
``(7) Availability of amounts for semi-annual periods in
fiscal year 2013.--Each semi-annual allotment made under
paragraph (3) for a period in fiscal year 2013 shall remain
available for expenditure under this title for periods after
the end of such fiscal year in the same manner as if the
allotment had been made available for the entire fiscal
year.''.

SEC. 103. CHILD ENROLLMENT CONTINGENCY FUND.

Section 2104 (42 U.S.C. 1397dd), as amended by section 102,
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(n) Child Enrollment Contingency Fund.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is hereby established in the
Treasury of the United States a fund which shall be known as
the `Child Enrollment Contingency Fund' (in this subsection
referred to as the `Fund'). Amounts in the Fund shall be
available without further appropriations for payments under
this subsection.
``(2) Deposits into fund.--
``(A) Initial and subsequent appropriations.--Subject to
subparagraphs (B) and (D), out of any money in the Treasury
of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated to the Fund--
``(i) for fiscal year 2009, an amount equal to 20 percent
of the amount made available under paragraph (12) of
subsection (a) for the fiscal year; and
``(ii) for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2012 (and for
each of the semi-annual allotment periods for fiscal year
2013), such sums as are necessary for making payments to
eligible States for such fiscal year or period, but not in
excess of the aggregate cap described in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Aggregate cap.--The total amount available for
payment from the Fund for each of fiscal years 2010 through
2012 (and for each of the semi-annual allotment periods for
fiscal year 2013), taking into account deposits made under
subparagraph (C), shall not exceed 20 percent of the amount
made available under subsection (a) for the fiscal year or
period.
``(C) Investment of fund.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall invest, in interest bearing securities of the United
States, such currently available portions of the Fund as are
not immediately required for payments from

[[Page 1595]]

the Fund. The income derived from these investments
constitutes a part of the Fund.
``(D) Availability of excess funds for performance
bonuses.--Any amounts in excess of the aggregate cap
described in subparagraph (B) for a fiscal year or period
shall be made available for purposes of carrying out section
2105(a)(3) for any succeeding fiscal year and the Secretary
of the Treasury shall reduce the amount in the Fund by the
amount so made available.
``(3) Child enrollment contingency fund payments.--
``(A) In general.--If a State's expenditures under this
title in fiscal year 2009, fiscal year 2010, fiscal year
2011, fiscal year 2012, or a semi-annual allotment period for
fiscal year 2013, exceed the total amount of allotments
available under this section to the State in the fiscal year
or period (determined without regard to any redistribution it
receives under subsection (f) that is available for
expenditure during such fiscal year or period, but including
any carryover from a previous fiscal year) and if the average
monthly unduplicated number of children enrolled under the
State plan under this title (including children receiving
health care coverage through funds under this title pursuant
to a waiver under section 1115) during such fiscal year or
period exceeds its target average number of such enrollees
(as determined under subparagraph (B)) for that fiscal year
or period, subject to subparagraph (D), the Secretary shall
pay to the State from the Fund an amount equal to the product
of--
``(i) the amount by which such average monthly caseload
exceeds such target number of enrollees; and
``(ii) the projected per capita expenditures under the
State child health plan (as determined under subparagraph (C)
for the fiscal year), multiplied by the enhanced FMAP (as
defined in section 2105(b)) for the State and fiscal year
involved (or in which the period occurs).
``(B) Target average number of child enrollees.--In this
paragraph, the target average number of child enrollees for a
State--
``(i) for fiscal year 2009 is equal to the monthly average
unduplicated number of children enrolled in the State child
health plan under this title (including such children
receiving health care coverage through funds under this title
pursuant to a waiver under section 1115) during fiscal year
2008 increased by the population growth for children in that
State for the year ending on June 30, 2007 (as estimated by
the Bureau of the Census) plus 1 percentage point; or
``(ii) for a subsequent fiscal year (or semi-annual period
occurring in a fiscal year) is equal to the target average
number of child enrollees for the State for the previous
fiscal year increased by the child population growth factor
described in subsection (m)(5)(B) for the State for the prior
fiscal year.
``(C) Projected per capita expenditures.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A)(ii), the projected per capita expenditures
under a State child health plan--
``(i) for fiscal year 2009 is equal to the average per
capita expenditures (including both State and Federal
financial participation) under such plan for the targeted
low-income children counted in the average monthly caseload
for purposes of this paragraph during fiscal year 2008,
increased by the annual percentage increase in the projected
per capita amount of National Health Expenditures (as
estimated by the Secretary) for 2009; or
``(ii) for a subsequent fiscal year (or semi-annual period
occurring in a fiscal year) is equal to the projected per
capita expenditures under such plan for the previous fiscal
year (as determined under clause (i) or this clause)
increased by the annual percentage increase in the projected
per capita amount of National Health Expenditures (as
estimated by the Secretary) for the year in which such
subsequent fiscal year ends.
``(D) Proration rule.--If the amounts available for payment
from the Fund for a fiscal year or period are less than the
total amount of payments determined under subparagraph (A)
for the fiscal year or period, the amount to be paid under
such subparagraph to each eligible State shall be reduced
proportionally.
``(E) Timely payment; reconciliation.--Payment under this
paragraph for a fiscal year or period shall be made before
the end of the fiscal year or period based upon the most
recent data for expenditures and enrollment and the
provisions of subsection (e) of section 2105 shall apply to
payments under this subsection in the same manner as they
apply to payments under such section.
``(F) Continued reporting.--For purposes of this paragraph
and subsection (f), the State shall submit to the Secretary
the State's projected Federal expenditures, even if the
amount of such expenditures exceeds the total amount of
allotments available to the State in such fiscal year or
period.
``(G) Application to commonwealths and territories.--No
payment shall be made under this paragraph to a commonwealth
or territory described in subsection (c)(3) until such time
as the Secretary determines that there are in effect methods,
satisfactory to the Secretary, for the collection and
reporting of reliable data regarding the enrollment of
children described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) in order to
accurately determine the commonwealth's or territory's
eligibility for, and amount of payment, under this
paragraph.''.

SEC. 104. CHIP PERFORMANCE BONUS PAYMENT TO OFFSET ADDITIONAL
ENROLLMENT COSTS RESULTING FROM ENROLLMENT AND
RETENTION EFFORTS.

Section 2105(a) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(a)) is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(3) Performance bonus payment to offset additional
medicaid and chip child enrollment costs resulting from
enrollment and retention efforts.--
``(A) In general.--In addition to the payments made under
paragraph (1), for each fiscal year (beginning with fiscal
year 2009 and ending with fiscal year 2013), the Secretary
shall pay from amounts made available under subparagraph (E),
to each State that meets the condition under paragraph (4)
for the fiscal year, an amount equal to the amount described
in subparagraph (B) for the State and fiscal year. The
payment under this paragraph shall be made, to a State for a
fiscal year, as a single payment not later than the last day
of the first calendar quarter of the following fiscal year.
``(B) Amount for above baseline medicaid child enrollment
costs.--Subject to subparagraph (E), the amount described in
this subparagraph for a State for a fiscal year is equal to
the sum of the following amounts:
``(i) First tier above baseline medicaid enrollees.--An
amount equal to the number of first tier above baseline child
enrollees (as determined under subparagraph (C)(i)) under
title XIX for the State and fiscal year, multiplied by 15
percent of the projected per capita State Medicaid
expenditures (as determined under subparagraph (D)) for the
State and fiscal year under title XIX.
``(ii) Second tier above baseline medicaid enrollees.--An
amount equal to the number of second tier above baseline
child enrollees (as determined under subparagraph (C)(ii))
under title XIX for the State and fiscal year, multiplied by
62.5 percent of the projected per capita State Medicaid
expenditures (as determined under subparagraph (D)) for the
State and fiscal year under title XIX.
``(C) Number of first and second tier above baseline child
enrollees; baseline number of child enrollees.--For purposes
of this paragraph:
``(i) First tier above baseline child enrollees.--The
number of first tier above baseline child enrollees for a
State for a fiscal year under title XIX is equal to the
number (if any, as determined by the Secretary) by which--

``(I) the monthly average unduplicated number of qualifying
children (as defined in subparagraph (F)) enrolled during the
fiscal year under the State plan under title XIX,
respectively; exceeds
``(II) the baseline number of enrollees described in clause
(iii) for the State and fiscal year under title XIX,
respectively;

but not to exceed 10 percent of the baseline number of
enrollees described in subclause (II).
``(ii) Second tier above baseline child enrollees.--The
number of second tier above baseline child enrollees for a
State for a fiscal year under title XIX is equal to the
number (if any, as determined by the Secretary) by which--

``(I) the monthly average unduplicated number of qualifying
children (as defined in subparagraph (F)) enrolled during the
fiscal year under title XIX as described in clause (i)(I);
exceeds
``(II) the sum of the baseline number of child enrollees
described in clause (iii) for the State and fiscal year under
title XIX, as described in clause (i)(II), and the maximum
number of first tier above baseline child enrollees for the
State and fiscal year under title XIX, as determined under
clause (i).

``(iii) Baseline number of child enrollees.--Subject to
subparagraph (H), the baseline number of child enrollees for
a State under title XIX--

``(I) for fiscal year 2009 is equal to the monthly average
unduplicated number of qualifying children enrolled in the
State plan under title XIX during fiscal year 2007 increased
by the population growth for children in that State from 2007
to 2008 (as estimated by the Bureau of the Census) plus 4
percentage points, and further increased by the population
growth for children in that State from 2008 to 2009 (as
estimated by the Bureau of the Census) plus 4 percentage
points;
``(II) for each of fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012, is
equal to the baseline number of child enrollees for the State
for the previous fiscal year under title XIX, increased by
the population growth for children in that State from the
calendar year in which the respective fiscal year begins to
the succeeding calendar year (as estimated by the Bureau of
the Census) plus 3.5 percentage points;
``(III) for each of fiscal years 2013, 2014, and 2015, is
equal to the baseline number of child enrollees for the State
for the previous fiscal year under title XIX, increased by
the population growth for children in that State from the
calendar year in which the respective fiscal year begins to
the succeeding calendar year (as estimated by the Bureau of
the Census) plus 3 percentage points; and
``(IV) for a subsequent fiscal year is equal to the
baseline number of child enrollees for

[[Page 1596]]

the State for the previous fiscal year under title XIX,
increased by the population growth for children in that State
from the calendar year in which the fiscal year involved
begins to the succeeding calendar year (as estimated by the
Bureau of the Census) plus 2 percentage points.

``(D) Projected per capita state medicaid expenditures.--
For purposes of subparagraph (B), the projected per capita
State Medicaid expenditures for a State and fiscal year under
title XIX is equal to the average per capita expenditures
(including both State and Federal financial participation)
for children under the State plan under such title, including
under waivers but not including such children eligible for
assistance by virtue of the receipt of benefits under title
XVI, for the most recent fiscal year for which actual data
are available (as determined by the Secretary), increased
(for each subsequent fiscal year up to and including the
fiscal year involved) by the annual percentage increase in
per capita amount of National Health Expenditures (as
estimated by the Secretary) for the calendar year in which
the respective subsequent fiscal year ends and multiplied by
a State matching percentage equal to 100 percent minus the
Federal medical assistance percentage (as defined in section
1905(b)) for the fiscal year involved.
``(E) Amounts available for payments.--
``(i) Initial appropriation.--Out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated
$3,225,000,000 for fiscal year 2009 for making payments under
this paragraph, to be available until expended.
``(ii) Transfers.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title, the following amounts shall also be available,
without fiscal year limitation, for making payments under
this paragraph:

``(I) Unobligated national allotment.--

``(aa) Fiscal years 2009 through 2012.--As of December 31
of fiscal year 2009, and as of December 31 of each succeeding
fiscal year through fiscal year 2012, the portion, if any, of
the amount appropriated under subsection (a) for such fiscal
year that is unobligated for allotment to a State under
subsection (m) for such fiscal year or set aside under
subsection (a)(3) or (b)(2) of section 2111 for such fiscal
year.
``(bb) First half of fiscal year 2013.--As of December 31
of fiscal year 2013, the portion, if any, of the sum of the
amounts appropriated under subsection (a)(16)(A) and under
section 108 of the Children's Health Insurance
Reauthorization Act of 2009 for the period beginning on
October 1, 2012, and ending on March 31, 2013, that is
unobligated for allotment to a State under subsection (m) for
such fiscal year or set aside under subsection (b)(2) of
section 2111 for such fiscal year.
``(cc) Second half of fiscal year 2013.--As of June 30 of
fiscal year 2013, the portion, if any, of the amount
appropriated under subsection (a)(16)(B) for the period
beginning on April 1, 2013, and ending on September 30, 2013,
that is unobligated for allotment to a State under subsection
(m) for such fiscal year or set aside under subsection (b)(2)
of section 2111 for such fiscal year.

``(II) Unexpended allotments not used for redistribution.--
As of November 15 of each of fiscal years 2010 through 2013,
the total amount of allotments made to States under section
2104 for the second preceding fiscal year (third preceding
fiscal year in the case of the fiscal year 2006, 2007, and
2008 allotments) that is not expended or redistributed under
section 2104(f) during the period in which such allotments
are available for obligation.
``(III) Excess child enrollment contingency funds.--As of
October 1 of each of fiscal years 2010 through 2013, any
amount in excess of the aggregate cap applicable to the Child
Enrollment Contingency Fund for the fiscal year under section
2104(n).
``(IV) Unexpended transitional coverage block grant for
nonpregnant childless adults.--As of October 1, 2011, any
amounts set aside under section 2111(a)(3) that are not
expended by September 30, 2011.

``(iii) Proportional reduction.--If the sum of the amounts
otherwise payable under this paragraph for a fiscal year
exceeds the amount available for the fiscal year under this
subparagraph, the amount to be paid under this paragraph to
each State shall be reduced proportionally.
``(F) Qualifying children defined.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, subject
to clauses (ii) and (iii), the term `qualifying children'
means children who meet the eligibility criteria (including
income, categorical eligibility, age, and immigration status
criteria) in effect as of July 1, 2008, for enrollment under
title XIX, taking into account criteria applied as of such
date under title XIX pursuant to a waiver under section 1115.
``(ii) Limitation.--A child described in clause (i) who is
provided medical assistance during a presumptive eligibility
period under section 1920A shall be considered to be a
`qualifying child' only if the child is determined to be
eligible for medical assistance under title XIX.
``(iii) Exclusion.--Such term does not include any children
for whom the State has made an election to provide medical
assistance under paragraph (4) of section 1903(v).
``(G) Application to commonwealths and territories.--The
provisions of subparagraph (G) of section 2104(n)(3) shall
apply with respect to payment under this paragraph in the
same manner as such provisions apply to payment under such
section.
``(H) Application to states that implement a Medicaid
expansion for children after fiscal year 2008.--In the case
of a State that provides coverage under section 115 of the
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of
2009 for any fiscal year after fiscal year 2008--
``(i) any child enrolled in the State plan under title XIX
through the application of such an election shall be
disregarded from the determination for the State of the
monthly average unduplicated number of qualifying children
enrolled in such plan during the first 3 fiscal years in
which such an election is in effect; and
``(ii) in determining the baseline number of child
enrollees for the State for any fiscal year subsequent to
such first 3 fiscal years, the baseline number of child
enrollees for the State under title XIX for the third of such
fiscal years shall be the monthly average unduplicated number
of qualifying children enrolled in the State plan under title
XIX for such third fiscal year.
``(4) Enrollment and retention provisions for children.--
For purposes of paragraph (3)(A), a State meets the condition
of this paragraph for a fiscal year if it is implementing at
least 5 of the following enrollment and retention provisions
(treating each subparagraph as a separate enrollment and
retention provision) throughout the entire fiscal year:
``(A) Continuous eligibility.--The State has elected the
option of continuous eligibility for a full 12 months for all
children described in section 1902(e)(12) under title XIX
under 19 years of age, as well as applying such policy under
its State child health plan under this title.
``(B) Liberalization of asset requirements.--The State
meets the requirement specified in either of the following
clauses:
``(i) Elimination of asset test.--The State does not apply
any asset or resource test for eligibility for children under
title XIX or this title.
``(ii) Administrative verification of assets.--The State--

``(I) permits a parent or caretaker relative who is
applying on behalf of a child for medical assistance under
title XIX or child health assistance under this title to
declare and certify by signature under penalty of perjury
information relating to family assets for purposes of
determining and redetermining financial eligibility; and
``(II) takes steps to verify assets through means other
than by requiring documentation from parents and applicants
except in individual cases of discrepancies or where
otherwise justified.

``(C) Elimination of in-person interview requirement.--The
State does not require an application of a child for medical
assistance under title XIX (or for child health assistance
under this title), including an application for renewal of
such assistance, to be made in person nor does the State
require a face-to-face interview, unless there are
discrepancies or individual circumstances justifying an in-
person application or face-to-face interview.
``(D) Use of joint application for medicaid and chip.--The
application form and supplemental forms (if any) and
information verification process is the same for purposes of
establishing and renewing eligibility for children for
medical assistance under title XIX and child health
assistance under this title.
``(E) Automatic renewal (use of administrative renewal).--
``(i) In general.--The State provides, in the case of
renewal of a child's eligibility for medical assistance under
title XIX or child health assistance under this title, a pre-
printed form completed by the State based on the information
available to the State and notice to the parent or caretaker
relative of the child that eligibility of the child will be
renewed and continued based on such information unless the
State is provided other information. Nothing in this clause
shall be construed as preventing a State from verifying,
through electronic and other means, the information so
provided.
``(ii) Satisfaction through demonstrated use of ex parte
process.--A State shall be treated as satisfying the
requirement of clause (i) if renewal of eligibility of
children under title XIX or this title is determined without
any requirement for an in-person interview, unless sufficient
information is not in the State's possession and cannot be
acquired from other sources (including other State agencies)
without the participation of the applicant or the applicant's
parent or caretaker relative.
``(F) Presumptive eligibility for children.--The State is
implementing section 1920A under title XIX as well as,
pursuant to section 2107(e)(1), under this title.
``(G) Express lane.--The State is implementing the option
described in section 1902(e)(13) under title XIX as well as,
pursuant to section 2107(e)(1), under this title.
``(H) Premium assistance subsidies.--The State is
implementing the option of providing premium assistance
subsidies under section 2105(c)(10) or section 1906A.''.

[[Page 1597]]

SEC. 105. TWO-YEAR INITIAL AVAILABILITY OF CHIP ALLOTMENTS.

Section 2104(e) (42 U.S.C. 1397dd(e)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(e) Availability of Amounts Allotted.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
amounts allotted to a State pursuant to this section--
``(A) for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2008, shall
remain available for expenditure by the State through the end
of the second succeeding fiscal year; and
``(B) for fiscal year 2009 and each fiscal year thereafter,
shall remain available for expenditure by the State through
the end of the succeeding fiscal year.
``(2) Availability of amounts redistributed.--Amounts
redistributed to a State under subsection (f) shall be
available for expenditure by the State through the end of the
fiscal year in which they are redistributed.''.

SEC. 106. REDISTRIBUTION OF UNUSED ALLOTMENTS.

(a) Beginning With Fiscal Year 2007.--
(1) In general.--Section 2104(f) (42 U.S.C. 1397dd(f)) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary'';
(B) by striking ``States that have fully expended the
amount of their allotments under this section.'' and
inserting ``States that the Secretary determines with respect
to the fiscal year for which unused allotments are available
for redistribution under this subsection, are shortfall
States described in paragraph (2) for such fiscal year, but
not to exceed the amount of the shortfall described in
paragraph (2)(A) for each such State (as may be adjusted
under paragraph (2)(C)).''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Shortfall states described.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), with
respect to a fiscal year, a shortfall State described in this
subparagraph is a State with a State child health plan
approved under this title for which the Secretary estimates
on the basis of the most recent data available to the
Secretary, that the projected expenditures under such plan
for the State for the fiscal year will exceed the sum of--
``(i) the amount of the State's allotments for any
preceding fiscal years that remains available for expenditure
and that will not be expended by the end of the immediately
preceding fiscal year;
``(ii) the amount (if any) of the child enrollment
contingency fund payment under subsection (n); and
``(iii) the amount of the State's allotment for the fiscal
year.
``(B) Proration rule.--If the amounts available for
redistribution under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year are less
than the total amounts of the estimated shortfalls determined
for the year under subparagraph (A), the amount to be
redistributed under such paragraph for each shortfall State
shall be reduced proportionally.
``(C) Retrospective adjustment.--The Secretary may adjust
the estimates and determinations made under paragraph (1) and
this paragraph with respect to a fiscal year as necessary on
the basis of the amounts reported by States not later than
November 30 of the succeeding fiscal year, as approved by the
Secretary.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to redistribution of allotments made for fiscal
year 2007 and subsequent fiscal years.
(b) Redistribution of Unused Allotments for Fiscal Year
2006.--Section 2104(k) (42 U.S.C. 1397dd(k)) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``the First 2
Quarters of'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the first 2 quarters
of''; and
(3) in paragraph (6)--
(A) by striking ``the first 2 quarters of''; and
(B) by striking ``March 31'' and inserting ``September
30''.

SEC. 107. OPTION FOR QUALIFYING STATES TO RECEIVE THE
ENHANCED PORTION OF THE CHIP MATCHING RATE FOR
MEDICAID COVERAGE OF CERTAIN CHILDREN.

(a) In General.--Section 2105(g) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(g)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), as amended by section 201(b)(1) of
Public Law 110-173--
(A) by inserting ``subject to paragraph (4),'' after
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law,''; and
(B) by striking ``2008, or 2009'' and inserting ``or
2008''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Option for allotments for fiscal years 2009 through
2013.--
``(A) Payment of enhanced portion of matching rate for
certain expenditures.--In the case of expenditures described
in subparagraph (B), a qualifying State (as defined in
paragraph (2)) may elect to be paid from the State's
allotment made under section 2104 for any of fiscal years
2009 through 2013 (insofar as the allotment is available to
the State under subsections (e) and (m) of such section) an
amount each quarter equal to the additional amount that would
have been paid to the State under title XIX with respect to
such expenditures if the enhanced FMAP (as determined under
subsection (b)) had been substituted for the Federal medical
assistance percentage (as defined in section 1905(b)).
``(B) Expenditures described.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), the expenditures described in this subparagraph are
expenditures made after the date of the enactment of this
paragraph and during the period in which funds are available
to the qualifying State for use under subparagraph (A), for
the provision of medical assistance to individuals residing
in the State who are eligible for medical assistance under
the State plan under title XIX or under a waiver of such plan
and who have not attained age 19 (or, if a State has so
elected under the State plan under title XIX, age 20 or 21),
and whose family income equals or exceeds 133 percent of the
poverty line but does not exceed the Medicaid applicable
income level.''.
(b) Repeal of Limitation on Availability of Fiscal Year
2009 Allotments.--Paragraph (2) of section 201(b) of the
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (Public
Law 110-173) is repealed.

SEC. 108. ONE-TIME APPROPRIATION.

There is appropriated to the Secretary, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $11,706,000,000 to
accompany the allotment made for the period beginning on
October 1, 2012, and ending on March 31, 2013, under section
2104(a)(16)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1397dd(a)(16)(A)) (as added by section 101), to remain
available until expended. Such amount shall be used to
provide allotments to States under paragraph (3) of section
2104(m) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397dd(i)), as
added by section 102, for the first 6 months of fiscal year
2013 in the same manner as allotments are provided under
subsection (a)(16)(A) of such section 2104 and subject to the
same terms and conditions as apply to the allotments provided
from such subsection (a)(16)(A).

SEC. 109. IMPROVING FUNDING FOR THE TERRITORIES UNDER CHIP
AND MEDICAID.

Section 1108(g) (42 U.S.C. 1308(g)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Exclusion of certain expenditures from payment
limits.--With respect to fiscal years beginning with fiscal
year 2009, if Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the
Northern Mariana Islands, or American Samoa qualify for a
payment under subparagraph (A)(i), (B), or (F) of section
1903(a)(3) for a calendar quarter of such fiscal year, the
payment shall not be taken into account in applying
subsection (f) (as increased in accordance with paragraphs
(1), (2), and (3) of this subsection) to such commonwealth or
territory for such fiscal year.''.

Subtitle B--Focus on Low-Income Children and Pregnant Women

SEC. 111. STATE OPTION TO COVER LOW-INCOME PREGNANT WOMEN
UNDER CHIP THROUGH A STATE PLAN AMENDMENT.

(a) In General.--Title XXI (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.), as
amended by section 112(a), is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:

``SEC. 2112. OPTIONAL COVERAGE OF TARGETED LOW-INCOME
PREGNANT WOMEN THROUGH A STATE PLAN AMENDMENT.

``(a) In General.--Subject to the succeeding provisions of
this section, a State may elect through an amendment to its
State child health plan under section 2102 to provide
pregnancy-related assistance under such plan for targeted
low-income pregnant women.
``(b) Conditions.--A State may only elect the option under
subsection (a) if the following conditions are satisfied:
``(1) Minimum income eligibility levels for pregnant women
and children.--The State has established an income
eligibility level--
``(A) for pregnant women under subsection
(a)(10)(A)(i)(III), (a)(10)(A)(i)(IV), or (l)(1)(A) of
section 1902 that is at least 185 percent (or such higher
percent as the State has in effect with regard to pregnant
women under this title) of the poverty line applicable to a
family of the size involved, but in no case lower than the
percent in effect under any such subsection as of July 1,
2008; and
``(B) for children under 19 years of age under this title
(or title XIX) that is at least 200 percent of the poverty
line applicable to a family of the size involved.
``(2) No chip income eligibility level for pregnant women
lower than the state's medicaid level.--The State does not
apply an effective income level for pregnant women under the
State plan amendment that is lower than the effective income
level (expressed as a percent of the poverty line and
considering applicable income disregards) specified under
subsection (a)(10)(A)(i)(III), (a)(10)(A)(i)(IV), or
(l)(1)(A) of section 1902, on the date of enactment of this
paragraph to be eligible for medical assistance as a pregnant
woman.
``(3) No coverage for higher income pregnant women without
covering lower income pregnant women.--The State does not
provide coverage for pregnant women with

[[Page 1598]]

higher family income without covering pregnant women with a
lower family income.
``(4) Application of requirements for coverage of targeted
low-income children.--The State provides pregnancy-related
assistance for targeted low-income pregnant women in the same
manner, and subject to the same requirements, as the State
provides child health assistance for targeted low-income
children under the State child health plan, and in addition
to providing child health assistance for such women.
``(5) No preexisting condition exclusion or waiting
period.--The State does not apply any exclusion of benefits
for pregnancy-related assistance based on any preexisting
condition or any waiting period (including any waiting period
imposed to carry out section 2102(b)(3)(C)) for receipt of
such assistance.
``(6) Application of cost-sharing protection.--The State
provides pregnancy-related assistance to a targeted low-
income woman consistent with the cost-sharing protections
under section 2103(e) and applies the limitation on total
annual aggregate cost sharing imposed under paragraph (3)(B)
of such section to the family of such a woman.
``(7) No waiting list for children.--The State does not
impose, with respect to the enrollment under the State child
health plan of targeted low-income children during the
quarter, any enrollment cap or other numerical limitation on
enrollment, any waiting list, any procedures designed to
delay the consideration of applications for enrollment, or
similar limitation with respect to enrollment.
``(c) Option To Provide Presumptive Eligibility.--A State
that elects the option under subsection (a) and satisfies the
conditions described in subsection (b) may elect to apply
section 1920 (relating to presumptive eligibility for
pregnant women) to the State child health plan in the same
manner as such section applies to the State plan under title
XIX.
``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) Pregnancy-related assistance.--The term `pregnancy-
related assistance' has the meaning given the term `child
health assistance' in section 2110(a) with respect to an
individual during the period described in paragraph (2)(A).
``(2) Targeted low-income pregnant woman.--The term
`targeted low-income pregnant woman' means an individual--
``(A) during pregnancy and through the end of the month in
which the 60-day period (beginning on the last day of her
pregnancy) ends;
``(B) whose family income exceeds 185 percent (or, if
higher, the percent applied under subsection (b)(1)(A)) of
the poverty line applicable to a family of the size involved,
but does not exceed the income eligibility level established
under the State child health plan under this title for a
targeted low-income child; and
``(C) who satisfies the requirements of paragraphs (1)(A),
(1)(C), (2), and (3) of section 2110(b) in the same manner as
a child applying for child health assistance would have to
satisfy such requirements.
``(e) Automatic Enrollment for Children Born to Women
Receiving Pregnancy-Related Assistance.--If a child is born
to a targeted low-income pregnant woman who was receiving
pregnancy-related assistance under this section on the date
of the child's birth, the child shall be deemed to have
applied for child health assistance under the State child
health plan and to have been found eligible for such
assistance under such plan or to have applied for medical
assistance under title XIX and to have been found eligible
for such assistance under such title, as appropriate, on the
date of such birth and to remain eligible for such assistance
until the child attains 1 year of age. During the period in
which a child is deemed under the preceding sentence to be
eligible for child health or medical assistance, the child
health or medical assistance eligibility identification
number of the mother shall also serve as the identification
number of the child, and all claims shall be submitted and
paid under such number (unless the State issues a separate
identification number for the child before such period
expires).
``(f) States Providing Assistance Through Other Options.--
``(1) Continuation of other options for providing
assistance.--The option to provide assistance in accordance
with the preceding subsections of this section shall not
limit any other option for a State to provide--
``(A) child health assistance through the application of
sections 457.10, 457.350(b)(2), 457.622(c)(5), and
457.626(a)(3) of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations (as in
effect after the final rule adopted by the Secretary and set
forth at 67 Fed. Reg. 61956-61974 (October 2, 2002)), or
``(B) pregnancy-related services through the application of
any waiver authority (as in effect on June 1, 2008).
``(2) Clarification of authority to provide postpartum
services.--Any State that provides child health assistance
under any authority described in paragraph (1) may continue
to provide such assistance, as well as postpartum services,
through the end of the month in which the 60-day period
(beginning on the last day of the pregnancy) ends, in the
same manner as such assistance and postpartum services would
be provided if provided under the State plan under title XIX,
but only if the mother would otherwise satisfy the
eligibility requirements that apply under the State child
health plan (other than with respect to age) during such
period.
``(3) No inference.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed--
``(A) to infer congressional intent regarding the legality
or illegality of the content of the sections specified in
paragraph (1)(A); or
``(B) to modify the authority to provide pregnancy-related
services under a waiver specified in paragraph (1)(B).''.
(b) Additional Conforming Amendments.--
(1) No cost sharing for pregnancy-related benefits.--
Section 2103(e)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1397cc(e)(2)) is amended--
(A) in the heading, by inserting ``OR PREGNANCY-RELATED
ASSISTANCE'' after ``PREVENTIVE SERVICES''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``or for pregnancy-related assistance''.
(2) No waiting period.--Section 2102(b)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C.
1397bb(b)(1)(B)) is amended--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``, and'' at the end and
inserting a semicolon;
(B) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) may not apply a waiting period (including a waiting
period to carry out paragraph (3)(C)) in the case of a
targeted low-income pregnant woman provided pregnancy-related
assistance under section 2112.''.

SEC. 112. PHASE-OUT OF COVERAGE FOR NONPREGNANT CHILDLESS
ADULTS UNDER CHIP; CONDITIONS FOR COVERAGE OF
PARENTS.

(a) Phase-Out Rules.--
(1) In general.--Title XXI (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 2111. PHASE-OUT OF COVERAGE FOR NONPREGNANT CHILDLESS
ADULTS; CONDITIONS FOR COVERAGE OF PARENTS.

``(a) Termination of Coverage for Nonpregnant Childless
Adults.--
``(1) No new chip waivers; automatic extensions at state
option through 2009.--Notwithstanding section 1115 or any
other provision of this title, except as provided in this
subsection--
``(A) the Secretary shall not on or after the date of the
enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2009, approve or renew a waiver,
experimental, pilot, or demonstration project that would
allow funds made available under this title to be used to
provide child health assistance or other health benefits
coverage to a nonpregnant childless adult; and
``(B) notwithstanding the terms and conditions of an
applicable existing waiver, the provisions of paragraph (2)
shall apply for purposes of any period beginning on or after
January 1, 2010, in determining the period to which the
waiver applies, the individuals eligible to be covered by the
waiver, and the amount of the Federal payment under this
title.
``(2) Termination of chip coverage under applicable
existing waivers at the end of 2009.--
``(A) In general.--No funds shall be available under this
title for child health assistance or other health benefits
coverage that is provided to a nonpregnant childless adult
under an applicable existing waiver after December 31, 2009.
``(B) Extension upon state request.--If an applicable
existing waiver described in subparagraph (A) would otherwise
expire before January 1, 2010, notwithstanding the
requirements of subsections (e) and (f) of section 1115, a
State may submit, not later than September 30, 2009, a
request to the Secretary for an extension of the waiver. The
Secretary shall approve a request for an extension of an
applicable existing waiver submitted pursuant to this
subparagraph, but only through December 31, 2009.
``(C) Application of enhanced fmap.--The enhanced FMAP
determined under section 2105(b) shall apply to expenditures
under an applicable existing waiver for the provision of
child health assistance or other health benefits coverage to
a nonpregnant childless adult during the period beginning on
the date of the enactment of this subsection and ending on
December 31, 2009.
``(3) State option to apply for medicaid waiver to continue
coverage for nonpregnant childless adults.--
``(A) In general.--Each State for which coverage under an
applicable existing waiver is terminated under paragraph
(2)(A) may submit, not later than September 30, 2009, an
application to the Secretary for a waiver under section 1115
of the State plan under title XIX to provide medical
assistance to a nonpregnant childless adult whose coverage is
so terminated (in this subsection referred to as a `Medicaid
nonpregnant childless adults waiver').
``(B) Deadline for approval.--The Secretary shall make a
decision to approve or deny an application for a Medicaid
nonpregnant childless adults waiver submitted under

[[Page 1599]]

subparagraph (A) within 90 days of the date of the submission
of the application. If no decision has been made by the
Secretary as of December 31, 2009, on the application of a
State for a Medicaid nonpregnant childless adults waiver that
was submitted to the Secretary by September 30, 2009, the
application shall be deemed approved.
``(C) Standard for budget neutrality.--The budget
neutrality requirement applicable with respect to
expenditures for medical assistance under a Medicaid
nonpregnant childless adults waiver shall--
``(i) in the case of fiscal year 2010, allow expenditures
for medical assistance under title XIX for all such adults to
not exceed the total amount of payments made to the State
under paragraph (2)(B) for fiscal year 2009, increased by the
percentage increase (if any) in the projected nominal per
capita amount of National Health Expenditures for 2010 over
2009, as most recently published by the Secretary; and
``(ii) in the case of any succeeding fiscal year, allow
such expenditures to not exceed the amount in effect under
this subparagraph for the preceding fiscal year, increased by
the percentage increase (if any) in the projected nominal per
capita amount of National Health Expenditures for the
calendar year that begins during the year involved over the
preceding calendar year, as most recently published by the
Secretary.
``(b) Rules and Conditions for Coverage of Parents of
Targeted Low-Income Children.--
``(1) Two-year period; automatic extension at state option
through fiscal year 2011.--
``(A) No new chip waivers.--Notwithstanding section 1115 or
any other provision of this title, except as provided in this
subsection--
``(i) the Secretary shall not on or after the date of the
enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2009 approve or renew a waiver,
experimental, pilot, or demonstration project that would
allow funds made available under this title to be used to
provide child health assistance or other health benefits
coverage to a parent of a targeted low-income child; and
``(ii) notwithstanding the terms and conditions of an
applicable existing waiver, the provisions of paragraphs (2)
and (3) shall apply for purposes of any fiscal year beginning
on or after October 1, 2011, in determining the period to
which the waiver applies, the individuals eligible to be
covered by the waiver, and the amount of the Federal payment
under this title.
``(B) Extension upon state request.--If an applicable
existing waiver described in subparagraph (A) would otherwise
expire before October 1, 2011, and the State requests an
extension of such waiver, the Secretary shall grant such an
extension, but only, subject to paragraph (2)(A), through
September 30, 2011.
``(C) Application of enhanced fmap.--The enhanced FMAP
determined under section 2105(b) shall apply to expenditures
under an applicable existing waiver for the provision of
child health assistance or other health benefits coverage to
a parent of a targeted low-income child during the third and
fourth quarters of fiscal year 2009 and during fiscal years
2010 and 2011.
``(2) Rules for fiscal years 2012 through 2013.--
``(A) Payments for coverage limited to block grant funded
from state allotment.--Any State that provides child health
assistance or health benefits coverage under an applicable
existing waiver for a parent of a targeted low-income child
may elect to continue to provide such assistance or coverage
through fiscal year 2012 or 2013, subject to the same terms
and conditions that applied under the applicable existing
waiver, unless otherwise modified in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Terms and conditions.--
``(i) Block grant set aside from state allotment.--If the
State makes an election under subparagraph (A), the Secretary
shall set aside for the State for each such fiscal year an
amount equal to the Federal share of 110 percent of the
State's projected expenditures under the applicable existing
waiver for providing child health assistance or health
benefits coverage to all parents of targeted low-income
children enrolled under such waiver for the fiscal year (as
certified by the State and submitted to the Secretary by not
later than August 31 of the preceding fiscal year). In the
case of fiscal year 2013, the set aside for any State shall
be computed separately for each period described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 2104(a)(16) and any
reduction in the allotment for either such period under
section 2104(m)(4) shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to
such set aside.
``(ii) Payments from block grant.--The Secretary shall pay
the State from the amount set aside under clause (i) for the
fiscal year, an amount for each quarter of such fiscal year
equal to the applicable percentage determined under clause
(iii) or (iv) for expenditures in the quarter for providing
child health assistance or other health benefits coverage to
a parent of a targeted low-income child.
``(iii) Enhanced fmap only in fiscal year 2012 for states
with significant child outreach or that achieve child
coverage benchmarks; fmap for any other states.--For purposes
of clause (ii), the applicable percentage for any quarter of
fiscal year 2012 is equal to--

``(I) the enhanced FMAP determined under section 2105(b) in
the case of a State that meets the outreach or coverage
benchmarks described in any of subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)
of paragraph (3) for fiscal year 2011; or
``(II) the Federal medical assistance percentage (as
determined under section 1905(b) without regard to clause (4)
of such section) in the case of any other State.

``(iv) Amount of federal matching payment in 2013.--For
purposes of clause (ii), the applicable percentage for any
quarter of fiscal year 2013 is equal to--

``(I) the REMAP percentage if--

``(aa) the applicable percentage for the State under clause
(iii) was the enhanced FMAP for fiscal year 2012; and
``(bb) the State met either of the coverage benchmarks
described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (3) for
fiscal year 2012; or

``(II) the Federal medical assistance percentage (as so
determined) in the case of any State to which subclause (I)
does not apply.

For purposes of subclause (I), the REMAP percentage is the
percentage which is the sum of such Federal medical
assistance percentage and a number of percentage points equal
to one-half of the difference between such Federal medical
assistance percentage and such enhanced FMAP.
``(v) No federal payments other than from block grant set
aside.--No payments shall be made to a State for expenditures
described in clause (ii) after the total amount set aside
under clause (i) for a fiscal year has been paid to the
State.
``(vi) No increase in income eligibility level for
parents.--No payments shall be made to a State from the
amount set aside under clause (i) for a fiscal year for
expenditures for providing child health assistance or health
benefits coverage to a parent of a targeted low-income child
whose family income exceeds the income eligibility level
applied under the applicable existing waiver to parents of
targeted low-income children on the date of enactment of the
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of
2009.
``(3) Outreach or coverage benchmarks.--For purposes of
paragraph (2), the outreach or coverage benchmarks described
in this paragraph are as follows:
``(A) Significant child outreach campaign.--The State--
``(i) was awarded a grant under section 2113 for fiscal
year 2011;
``(ii) implemented 1 or more of the enrollment and
retention provisions described in section 2105(a)(4) for such
fiscal year; or
``(iii) has submitted a specific plan for outreach for such
fiscal year.
``(B) High-performing state.--The State, on the basis of
the most timely and accurate published estimates of the
Bureau of the Census, ranks in the lowest \1/3\ of States in
terms of the State's percentage of low-income children
without health insurance.
``(C) State increasing enrollment of low-income children.--
The State qualified for a performance bonus payment under
section 2105(a)(3)(B) for the most recent fiscal year
applicable under such section.
``(4) Rules of construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed as prohibiting a State from submitting an
application to the Secretary for a waiver under section 1115
of the State plan under title XIX to provide medical
assistance to a parent of a targeted low-income child that
was provided child health assistance or health benefits
coverage under an applicable existing waiver.
``(c) Applicable Existing Waiver.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.--The term `applicable existing waiver'
means a waiver, experimental, pilot, or demonstration project
under section 1115, grandfathered under section 6102(c)(3) of
the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, or otherwise conducted
under authority that--
``(A) would allow funds made available under this title to
be used to provide child health assistance or other health
benefits coverage to--
``(i) a parent of a targeted low-income child;
``(ii) a nonpregnant childless adult; or
``(iii) individuals described in both clauses (i) and (ii);
and
``(B) was in effect during fiscal year 2009.
``(2) Definitions.--
``(A) Parent.--The term `parent' includes a caretaker
relative (as such term is used in carrying out section 1931)
and a legal guardian.
``(B) Nonpregnant childless adult.--The term `nonpregnant
childless adult' has the meaning given such term by section
2107(f).''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 2107(f) (42 U.S.C. 1397gg(f)) is amended--
(i) by striking ``, the Secretary'' and inserting ``:
``(1) The Secretary'';
(ii) in the first sentence, by inserting ``or a parent (as
defined in section 2111(c)(2)(A)), who is not pregnant, of a
targeted low-income child'' before the period;
(iii) by striking the second sentence; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

[[Page 1600]]

``(2) The Secretary may not approve, extend, renew, or
amend a waiver, experimental, pilot, or demonstration project
with respect to a State after the date of enactment of the
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of
2009 that would waive or modify the requirements of section
2111.''.
(B) Section 6102(c) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
(Public Law 109-171; 120 Stat. 131) is amended by striking
``Nothing'' and inserting ``Subject to section 2111 of the
Social Security Act, as added by section 112 of the
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of
2009, nothing''.
(b) GAO Study and Report.--
(1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study of whether--
(A) the coverage of a parent, a caretaker relative (as such
term is used in carrying out section 1931), or a legal
guardian of a targeted low-income child under a State health
plan under title XXI of the Social Security Act increases the
enrollment of, or the quality of care for, children, and
(B) such parents, relatives, and legal guardians who enroll
in such a plan are more likely to enroll their children in
such a plan or in a State plan under title XIX of such Act.
(2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall report
the results of the study to the Committee on Finance of the
Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House
of Representatives, including recommendations (if any) for
changes in legislation.

SEC. 113. ELIMINATION OF COUNTING MEDICAID CHILD PRESUMPTIVE
ELIGIBILITY COSTS AGAINST TITLE XXI ALLOTMENT.

(a) In General.--Section 2105(a)(1) (42 U.S.C.
1397ee(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``(or, in the case of expenditures described in subparagraph
(B), the Federal medical assistance percentage (as defined in
the first sentence of section 1905(b)))''; and
(2) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the
following new subparagraph:
``(B) [reserved]''.
(b) Amendments to Medicaid.--
(1) Eligibility of a newborn.--Section 1902(e)(4) (42
U.S.C. 1396a(e)(4)) is amended in the first sentence by
striking ``so long as the child is a member of the woman's
household and the woman remains (or would remain if pregnant)
eligible for such assistance''.
(2) Application of qualified entities to presumptive
eligibility for pregnant women under medicaid.--Section
1920(b) (42 U.S.C. 1396r-1(b)) is amended by adding after
paragraph (2) the following flush sentence:
``The term `qualified provider' also includes a qualified
entity, as defined in section 1920A(b)(3).''.

SEC. 114. LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR STATES THAT PROPOSE
TO COVER CHILDREN WITH EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME
THAT EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE.

(a) FMAP Applied to Expenditures.--Section 2105(c) (42
U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(8) Limitation on matching rate for expenditures for
child health assistance provided to children whose effective
family income exceeds 300 percent of the poverty line.--
``(A) FMAP applied to expenditures.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (B), for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year
2009, the Federal medical assistance percentage (as
determined under section 1905(b) without regard to clause (4)
of such section) shall be substituted for the enhanced FMAP
under subsection (a)(1) with respect to any expenditures for
providing child health assistance or health benefits coverage
for a targeted low-income child whose effective family income
would exceed 300 percent of the poverty line but for the
application of a general exclusion of a block of income that
is not determined by type of expense or type of income.
``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any
State that, on the date of enactment of the Children's Health
Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, has an
approved State plan amendment or waiver to provide, or has
enacted a State law to submit a State plan amendment to
provide, expenditures described in such subparagraph under
the State child health plan.''.
(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in the amendments made
by this section shall be construed as--
(1) changing any income eligibility level for children
under title XXI of the Social Security Act; or
(2) changing the flexibility provided States under such
title to establish the income eligibility level for targeted
low-income children under a State child health plan and the
methodologies used by the State to determine income or assets
under such plan.

SEC. 115. STATE AUTHORITY UNDER MEDICAID.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including the
fourth sentence of subsection (b) of section 1905 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) or subsection (u) of
such section, at State option, the Secretary shall provide
the State with the Federal medical assistance percentage
determined for the State for Medicaid with respect to
expenditures described in section 1905(u)(2)(A) of such Act
or otherwise made to provide medical assistance under
Medicaid to a child who could be covered by the State under
CHIP.

TITLE II--OUTREACH AND ENROLLMENT

Subtitle A--Outreach and Enrollment Activities

SEC. 201. GRANTS AND ENHANCED ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDING FOR
OUTREACH AND ENROLLMENT.

(a) Grants.--Title XXI (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.), as
amended by section 111, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 2113. GRANTS TO IMPROVE OUTREACH AND ENROLLMENT.

``(a) Outreach and Enrollment Grants; National Campaign.--
``(1) In general.--From the amounts appropriated under
subsection (g), subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary shall
award grants to eligible entities during the period of fiscal
years 2009 through 2013 to conduct outreach and enrollment
efforts that are designed to increase the enrollment and
participation of eligible children under this title and title
XIX.
``(2) Ten percent set aside for national enrollment
campaign.--An amount equal to 10 percent of such amounts
shall be used by the Secretary for expenditures during such
period to carry out a national enrollment campaign in
accordance with subsection (h).
``(b) Priority for Award of Grants.--
``(1) In general.--In awarding grants under subsection (a),
the Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities that--
``(A) propose to target geographic areas with high rates
of--
``(i) eligible but unenrolled children, including such
children who reside in rural areas; or
``(ii) racial and ethnic minorities and health disparity
populations, including those proposals that address cultural
and linguistic barriers to enrollment; and
``(B) submit the most demonstrable evidence required under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (c).
``(2) Ten percent set aside for outreach to indian
children.--An amount equal to 10 percent of the funds
appropriated under subsection (g) shall be used by the
Secretary to award grants to Indian Health Service providers
and urban Indian organizations receiving funds under title V
of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1651 et
seq.) for outreach to, and enrollment of, children who are
Indians.
``(c) Application.--An eligible entity that desires to
receive a grant under subsection (a) shall submit an
application to the Secretary in such form and manner, and
containing such information, as the Secretary may decide.
Such application shall include--
``(1) evidence demonstrating that the entity includes
members who have access to, and credibility with, ethnic or
low-income populations in the communities in which activities
funded under the grant are to be conducted;
``(2) evidence demonstrating that the entity has the
ability to address barriers to enrollment, such as lack of
awareness of eligibility, stigma concerns and punitive fears
associated with receipt of benefits, and other cultural
barriers to applying for and receiving child health
assistance or medical assistance;
``(3) specific quality or outcomes performance measures to
evaluate the effectiveness of activities funded by a grant
awarded under this section; and
``(4) an assurance that the eligible entity shall--
``(A) conduct an assessment of the effectiveness of such
activities against the performance measures;
``(B) cooperate with the collection and reporting of
enrollment data and other information in order for the
Secretary to conduct such assessments; and
``(C) in the case of an eligible entity that is not the
State, provide the State with enrollment data and other
information as necessary for the State to make necessary
projections of eligible children and pregnant women.
``(d) Dissemination of Enrollment Data and Information
Determined From Effectiveness Assessments; Annual Report.--
The Secretary shall--
``(1) make publicly available the enrollment data and
information collected and reported in accordance with
subsection (c)(4)(B); and
``(2) submit an annual report to Congress on the outreach
and enrollment activities conducted with funds appropriated
under this section.
``(e) Maintenance of Effort for States Awarded Grants; No
State Match Required.--In the case of a State that is awarded
a grant under this section--
``(1) the State share of funds expended for outreach and
enrollment activities under the State child health plan shall
not be less than the State share of such funds expended in
the fiscal year preceding the first fiscal year for which the
grant is awarded; and
``(2) no State matching funds shall be required for the
State to receive a grant under this section.
``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means
any of the following:

[[Page 1601]]

``(A) A State with an approved child health plan under this
title.
``(B) A local government.
``(C) An Indian tribe or tribal consortium, a tribal
organization, an urban Indian organization receiving funds
under title V of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25
U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), or an Indian Health Service provider.
``(D) A Federal health safety net organization.
``(E) A national, State, local, or community-based public
or nonprofit private organization, including organizations
that use community health workers or community-based doula
programs.
``(F) A faith-based organization or consortia, to the
extent that a grant awarded to such an entity is consistent
with the requirements of section 1955 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-65) relating to a grant award to
nongovernmental entities.
``(G) An elementary or secondary school.
``(2) Federal health safety net organization.--The term
`Federal health safety net organization' means--
``(A) a Federally-qualified health center (as defined in
section 1905(l)(2)(B));
``(B) a hospital defined as a disproportionate share
hospital for purposes of section 1923;
``(C) a covered entity described in section 340B(a)(4) of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 256b(a)(4)); and
``(D) any other entity or consortium that serves children
under a federally funded program, including the special
supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and
children (WIC) established under section 17 of the Child
Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786), the Head Start and
Early Head Start programs under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C.
9801 et seq.), the school lunch program established under the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, and an
elementary or secondary school.
``(3) Indians; indian tribe; tribal organization; urban
indian organization.--The terms `Indian', `Indian tribe',
`tribal organization', and `urban Indian organization' have
the meanings given such terms in section 4 of the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1603).
``(4) Community health worker.--The term `community health
worker' means an individual who promotes health or nutrition
within the community in which the individual resides--
``(A) by serving as a liaison between communities and
health care agencies;
``(B) by providing guidance and social assistance to
community residents;
``(C) by enhancing community residents' ability to
effectively communicate with health care providers;
``(D) by providing culturally and linguistically
appropriate health or nutrition education;
``(E) by advocating for individual and community health or
nutrition needs; and
``(F) by providing referral and followup services.
``(g) Appropriation.--There is appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
$100,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 through
2013, for the purpose of awarding grants under this section.
Amounts appropriated and paid under the authority of this
section shall be in addition to amounts appropriated under
section 2104 and paid to States in accordance with section
2105, including with respect to expenditures for outreach
activities in accordance with subsections (a)(1)(D)(iii) and
(c)(2)(C) of that section.
``(h) National Enrollment Campaign.--From the amounts made
available under subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall
develop and implement a national enrollment campaign to
improve the enrollment of underserved child populations in
the programs established under this title and title XIX. Such
campaign may include--
``(1) the establishment of partnerships with the Secretary
of Education and the Secretary of Agriculture to develop
national campaigns to link the eligibility and enrollment
systems for the assistance programs each Secretary
administers that often serve the same children;
``(2) the integration of information about the programs
established under this title and title XIX in public health
awareness campaigns administered by the Secretary;
``(3) increased financial and technical support for
enrollment hotlines maintained by the Secretary to ensure
that all States participate in such hotlines;
``(4) the establishment of joint public awareness outreach
initiatives with the Secretary of Education and the Secretary
of Labor regarding the importance of health insurance to
building strong communities and the economy;
``(5) the development of special outreach materials for
Native Americans or for individuals with limited English
proficiency; and
``(6) such other outreach initiatives as the Secretary
determines would increase public awareness of the programs
under this title and title XIX.''.
(b) Enhanced Administrative Funding for Translation or
Interpretation Services Under CHIP and Medicaid.--
(1) CHIP.--Section 2105(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(a)(1)), as
amended by section 113, is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting
``(or, in the case of expenditures described in subparagraph
(D)(iv), the higher of 75 percent or the sum of the enhanced
FMAP plus 5 percentage points)'' after ``enhanced FMAP''; and
(B) in subparagraph (D)--
(i) in clause (iii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (v); and
(iii) by inserting after clause (iii) the following new
clause:
``(iv) for translation or interpretation services in
connection with the enrollment of, retention of, and use of
services under this title by, individuals for whom English is
not their primary language (as found necessary by the
Secretary for the proper and efficient administration of the
State plan); and''.
(2) Medicaid.--
(A) Use of medicaid funds.--Section 1903(a)(2) (42 U.S.C.
1396b(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(E) an amount equal to 75 percent of so much of the sums
expended during such quarter (as found necessary by the
Secretary for the proper and efficient administration of the
State plan) as are attributable to translation or
interpretation services in connection with the enrollment of,
retention of, and use of services under this title by,
children of families for whom English is not the primary
language; plus''.
(B) Use of community health workers for outreach
activities.--
(i) In general.--Section 2102(c)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1397bb(c)(1)) is amended by inserting ``(through community
health workers and others)'' after ``Outreach''.
(ii) In federal evaluation.--Section 2108(c)(3)(B) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1397hh(c)(3)(B)) is amended by inserting
``(such as through community health workers and others)''
after ``including practices''.

SEC. 202. INCREASED OUTREACH AND ENROLLMENT OF INDIANS.

(a) In General.--Section 1139 (42 U.S.C. 1320b-9) is
amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 1139. IMPROVED ACCESS TO, AND DELIVERY OF, HEALTH CARE
FOR INDIANS UNDER TITLES XIX AND XXI.

``(a) Agreements With States for Medicaid and CHIP Outreach
On or Near Reservations To Increase the Enrollment of Indians
in Those Programs.--
``(1) In general.--In order to improve the access of
Indians residing on or near a reservation to obtain benefits
under the Medicaid and State children's health insurance
programs established under titles XIX and XXI, the Secretary
shall encourage the State to take steps to provide for
enrollment on or near the reservation. Such steps may include
outreach efforts such as the outstationing of eligibility
workers, entering into agreements with the Indian Health
Service, Indian Tribes, Tribal Organizations, and Urban
Indian Organizations to provide outreach, education regarding
eligibility and benefits, enrollment, and translation
services when such services are appropriate.
``(2) Construction.--Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be
construed as affecting arrangements entered into between
States and the Indian Health Service, Indian Tribes, Tribal
Organizations, or Urban Indian Organizations for such
Service, Tribes, or Organizations to conduct administrative
activities under such titles.
``(b) Requirement To Facilitate Cooperation.--The
Secretary, acting through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, shall take such steps as are necessary to
facilitate cooperation with, and agreements between, States
and the Indian Health Service, Indian Tribes, Tribal
Organizations, or Urban Indian Organizations with respect to
the provision of health care items and services to Indians
under the programs established under title XIX or XXI.
``(c) Definition of Indian; Indian Tribe; Indian Health
Program; Tribal Organization; Urban Indian Organization.--In
this section, the terms `Indian', `Indian Tribe', `Indian
Health Program', `Tribal Organization', and `Urban Indian
Organization' have the meanings given those terms in section
4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.''.
(b) Nonapplication of 10 Percent Limit on Outreach and
Certain Other Expenditures.--Section 2105(c)(2) (42 U.S.C.
1397ee(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Nonapplication to certain expenditures.--The
limitation under subparagraph (A) shall not apply with
respect to the following expenditures:
``(i) Expenditures to increase outreach to, and the
enrollment of, indian children under this title and title
xix.--Expenditures for outreach activities to families of
Indian children likely to be eligible for child health
assistance under the plan or medical assistance under the
State plan under title XIX (or under a waiver of such plan),
to inform such families of the availability of, and to assist
them in enrolling their children in, such plans, including
such activities conducted under grants, contracts, or
agreements entered into under section 1139(a).''.

SEC. 203. STATE OPTION TO RELY ON FINDINGS FROM AN EXPRESS
LANE AGENCY TO CONDUCT SIMPLIFIED ELIGIBILITY
DETERMINATIONS.

(a) Application Under Medicaid and CHIP Programs.--

[[Page 1602]]

(1) Medicaid.--Section 1902(e) (42 U.S.C. 1396a(e)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(13) Express Lane Option.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Option to use a finding from an express lane
agency.--At the option of the State, the State plan may
provide that in determining eligibility under this title for
a child (as defined in subparagraph (G)), the State may rely
on a finding made within a reasonable period (as determined
by the State) from an Express Lane agency (as defined in
subparagraph (F)) when it determines whether a child
satisfies one or more components of eligibility for medical
assistance under this title. The State may rely on a finding
from an Express Lane agency notwithstanding sections
1902(a)(46)(B) and 1137(d) or any differences in budget unit,
disregard, deeming or other methodology, if the following
requirements are met:
``(I) Prohibition on determining children ineligible for
coverage.--If a finding from an Express Lane agency would
result in a determination that a child does not satisfy an
eligibility requirement for medical assistance under this
title and for child health assistance under title XXI, the
State shall determine eligibility for assistance using its
regular procedures.
``(II) Notice requirement.--For any child who is found
eligible for medical assistance under the State plan under
this title or child health assistance under title XXI and who
is subject to premiums based on an Express Lane agency's
finding of such child's income level, the State shall provide
notice that the child may qualify for lower premium payments
if evaluated by the State using its regular policies and of
the procedures for requesting such an evaluation.
``(III) Compliance with screen and enroll requirement.--The
State shall satisfy the requirements under subparagraphs (A)
and (B) of section 2102(b)(3) (relating to screen and enroll)
before enrolling a child in child health assistance under
title XXI. At its option, the State may fulfill such
requirements in accordance with either option provided under
subparagraph (C) of this paragraph.
``(IV) Verification of citizenship or nationality status.--
The State shall satisfy the requirements of section
1902(a)(46)(B) or 2105(c)(9), as applicable for verifications
of citizenship or nationality status.
``(V) Coding.--The State meets the requirements of
subparagraph (E).
``(ii) Option to apply to renewals and redeterminations.--
The State may apply the provisions of this paragraph when
conducting initial determinations of eligibility,
redeterminations of eligibility, or both, as described in the
State plan.
``(B) Rules of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph
shall be construed--
``(i) to limit or prohibit a State from taking any actions
otherwise permitted under this title or title XXI in
determining eligibility for or enrolling children into
medical assistance under this title or child health
assistance under title XXI; or
``(ii) to modify the limitations in section 1902(a)(5)
concerning the agencies that may make a determination of
eligibility for medical assistance under this title.
``(C) Options for satisfying the screen and enroll
requirement.--
``(i) In general.--With respect to a child whose
eligibility for medical assistance under this title or for
child health assistance under title XXI has been evaluated by
a State agency using an income finding from an Express Lane
agency, a State may carry out its duties under subparagraphs
(A) and (B) of section 2102(b)(3) (relating to screen and
enroll) in accordance with either clause (ii) or clause
(iii).
``(ii) Establishing a screening threshold.--
``(I) In general.--Under this clause, the State establishes
a screening threshold set as a percentage of the Federal
poverty level that exceeds the highest income threshold
applicable under this title to the child by a minimum of 30
percentage points or, at State option, a higher number of
percentage points that reflects the value (as determined by
the State and described in the State plan) of any differences
between income methodologies used by the program administered
by the Express Lane agency and the methodologies used by the
State in determining eligibility for medical assistance under
this title.
``(II) Children with income not above threshold.--If the
income of a child does not exceed the screening threshold,
the child is deemed to satisfy the income eligibility
criteria for medical assistance under this title regardless
of whether such child would otherwise satisfy such criteria.
``(III) Children with income above threshold.--If the
income of a child exceeds the screening threshold, the child
shall be considered to have an income above the Medicaid
applicable income level described in section 2110(b)(4) and
to satisfy the requirement under section 2110(b)(1)(C)
(relating to the requirement that CHIP matching funds be used
only for children not eligible for Medicaid). If such a child
is enrolled in child health assistance under title XXI, the
State shall provide the parent, guardian, or custodial
relative with the following:

``(aa) Notice that the child may be eligible to receive
medical assistance under the State plan under this title if
evaluated for such assistance under the State's regular
procedures and notice of the process through which a parent,
guardian, or custodial relative can request that the State
evaluate the child's eligibility for medical assistance under
this title using such regular procedures.
``(bb) A description of differences between the medical
assistance provided under this title and child health
assistance under title XXI, including differences in cost-
sharing requirements and covered benefits.

``(iii) Temporary enrollment in chip pending screen and
enroll.--
``(I) In general.--Under this clause, a State enrolls a
child in child health assistance under title XXI for a
temporary period if the child appears eligible for such
assistance based on an income finding by an Express Lane
agency.
``(II) Determination of eligibility.--During such temporary
enrollment period, the State shall determine the child's
eligibility for child health assistance under title XXI or
for medical assistance under this title in accordance with
this clause.
``(III) Prompt follow up.--In making such a determination,
the State shall take prompt action to determine whether the
child should be enrolled in medical assistance under this
title or child health assistance under title XXI pursuant to
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 2102(b)(3) (relating to
screen and enroll).
``(IV) Requirement for simplified determination.--In making
such a determination, the State shall use procedures that, to
the maximum feasible extent, reduce the burden imposed on the
individual of such determination. Such procedures may not
require the child's parent, guardian, or custodial relative
to provide or verify information that already has been
provided to the State agency by an Express Lane agency or
another source of information unless the State agency has
reason to believe the information is erroneous.
``(V) Availability of chip matching funds during temporary
enrollment period.--Medical assistance for items and services
that are provided to a child enrolled in title XXI during a
temporary enrollment period under this clause shall be
treated as child health assistance under such title.
``(D) Option for automatic enrollment.--
``(i) In general.--The State may initiate and determine
eligibility for medical assistance under the State Medicaid
plan or for child health assistance under the State CHIP plan
without a program application from, or on behalf of, the
child based on data obtained from sources other than the
child (or the child's family), but a child can only be
automatically enrolled in the State Medicaid plan or the
State CHIP plan if the child or the family affirmatively
consents to being enrolled through affirmation and signature
on an Express Lane agency application, if the requirement of
clause (ii) is met.
``(ii) Information requirement.--The requirement of this
clause is that the State informs the parent, guardian, or
custodial relative of the child of the services that will be
covered, appropriate methods for using such services, premium
or other cost sharing charges (if any) that apply, medical
support obligations (under section 1912(a)) created by
enrollment (if applicable), and the actions the parent,
guardian, or relative must take to maintain enrollment and
renew coverage.
``(E) Coding; application to enrollment error rates.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(iv),
the requirement of this subparagraph for a State is that the
State agrees to--
``(I) assign such codes as the Secretary shall require to
the children who are enrolled in the State Medicaid plan or
the State CHIP plan through reliance on a finding made by an
Express Lane agency for the duration of the State's election
under this paragraph;
``(II) annually provide the Secretary with a statistically
valid sample (that is approved by Secretary) of the children
enrolled in such plans through reliance on such a finding by
conducting a full Medicaid eligibility review of the children
identified for such sample for purposes of determining an
eligibility error rate (as described in clause (iv)) with
respect to the enrollment of such children (and shall not
include such children in any data or samples used for
purposes of complying with a Medicaid Eligibility Quality
Control (MEQC) review or a payment error rate measurement
(PERM) requirement);
``(III) submit the error rate determined under subclause
(II) to the Secretary;
``(IV) if such error rate exceeds 3 percent for either of
the first 2 fiscal years in which the State elects to apply
this paragraph, demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Secretary the specific corrective actions implemented by the
State to improve upon such error rate; and
``(V) if such error rate exceeds 3 percent for any fiscal
year in which the State elects to apply this paragraph, a
reduction in the amount otherwise payable to the State under
section 1903(a) for quarters for that fiscal year, equal to
the total amount of erroneous excess payments determined for
the fiscal year only with respect to the children included in
the sample for the fiscal year

[[Page 1603]]

that are in excess of a 3 percent error rate with respect to
such children.
``(ii) No punitive action based on error rate.--The
Secretary shall not apply the error rate derived from the
sample under clause (i) to the entire population of children
enrolled in the State Medicaid plan or the State CHIP plan
through reliance on a finding made by an Express Lane agency,
or to the population of children enrolled in such plans on
the basis of the State's regular procedures for determining
eligibility, or penalize the State on the basis of such error
rate in any manner other than the reduction of payments
provided for under clause (i)(V).
``(iii) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph
shall be construed as relieving a State that elects to apply
this paragraph from being subject to a penalty under section
1903(u), for payments made under the State Medicaid plan with
respect to ineligible individuals and families that are
determined to exceed the error rate permitted under that
section (as determined without regard to the error rate
determined under clause (i)(II)).
``(iv) Error rate defined.--In this subparagraph, the term
`error rate' means the rate of erroneous excess payments for
medical assistance (as defined in section 1903(u)(1)(D)) for
the period involved, except that such payments shall be
limited to individuals for which eligibility determinations
are made under this paragraph and except that in applying
this paragraph under title XXI, there shall be substituted
for references to provisions of this title corresponding
provisions within title XXI.
``(F) Express lane agency.--
``(i) In general.--In this paragraph, the term `Express
Lane agency' means a public agency that--
``(I) is determined by the State Medicaid agency or the
State CHIP agency (as applicable) to be capable of making the
determinations of one or more eligibility requirements
described in subparagraph (A)(i);
``(II) is identified in the State Medicaid plan or the
State CHIP plan; and
``(III) notifies the child's family--

``(aa) of the information which shall be disclosed in
accordance with this paragraph;
``(bb) that the information disclosed will be used solely
for purposes of determining eligibility for medical
assistance under the State Medicaid plan or for child health
assistance under the State CHIP plan; and
``(cc) that the family may elect to not have the
information disclosed for such purposes; and

``(IV) enters into, or is subject to, an interagency
agreement to limit the disclosure and use of the information
disclosed.
``(ii) Inclusion of specific public agencies.--Such term
includes the following:
``(I) A public agency that determines eligibility for
assistance under any of the following:

``(aa) The temporary assistance for needy families program
funded under part A of title IV.
``(bb) A State program funded under part D of title IV.
``(cc) The State Medicaid plan.
``(dd) The State CHIP plan.

``(ee) The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et
seq.).
``(ff) The Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.).
``(gg) The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42
U.S.C. 1751 et seq.).
``(hh) The Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et
seq.).
``(ii) The Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.).
``(jj) The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 11301 et seq.).
``(kk) The United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C.
1437 et seq.).
``(ll) The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.).

``(II) A State-specified governmental agency that has
fiscal liability or legal responsibility for the accuracy of
the eligibility determination findings relied on by the
State.
``(III) A public agency that is subject to an interagency
agreement limiting the disclosure and use of the information
disclosed for purposes of determining eligibility under the
State Medicaid plan or the State CHIP plan.
``(iii) Exclusions.--Such term does not include an agency
that determines eligibility for a program established under
the Social Services Block Grant established under title XX or
a private, for-profit organization.
``(iv) Rules of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph
shall be construed as--
``(I) exempting a State Medicaid agency from complying with
the requirements of section 1902(a)(4) relating to merit-
based personnel standards for employees of the State Medicaid
agency and safeguards against conflicts of interest); or
``(II) authorizing a State Medicaid agency that elects to
use Express Lane agencies under this subparagraph to use the
Express Lane option to avoid complying with such requirements
for purposes of making eligibility determinations under the
State Medicaid plan.
``(v) Additional definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(I) State.--The term `State' means 1 of the 50 States or
the District of Columbia.
``(II) State chip agency.--The term `State CHIP agency'
means the State agency responsible for administering the
State CHIP plan.
``(III) State chip plan.--The term `State CHIP plan' means
the State child health plan established under title XXI and
includes any waiver of such plan.
``(IV) State medicaid agency.--The term `State Medicaid
agency' means the State agency responsible for administering
the State Medicaid plan.
``(V) State medicaid plan.--The term `State Medicaid plan'
means the State plan established under title XIX and includes
any waiver of such plan.
``(G) Child defined.--For purposes of this paragraph, the
term `child' means an individual under 19 years of age, or,
at the option of a State, such higher age, not to exceed 21
years of age, as the State may elect.
``(H) Application.--This paragraph shall not apply with
respect to eligibility determinations made after September
30, 2013.''.
(2) CHIP.--Section 2107(e)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1397gg(e)(1)) is
amended by redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) as
subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E), respectively, and by
inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraph:
``(B) Section 1902(e)(13) (relating to the State option to
rely on findings from an Express Lane agency to help evaluate
a child's eligibility for medical assistance).''.
(b) Evaluation and Report.--
(1) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall conduct, by grant,
contract, or interagency agreement, a comprehensive,
independent evaluation of the option provided under the
amendments made by subsection (a). Such evaluation shall
include an analysis of the effectiveness of the option, and
shall include--
(A) obtaining a statistically valid sample of the children
who were enrolled in the State Medicaid plan or the State
CHIP plan through reliance on a finding made by an Express
Lane agency and determining the percentage of children who
were erroneously enrolled in such plans;
(B) determining whether enrolling children in such plans
through reliance on a finding made by an Express Lane agency
improves the ability of a State to identify and enroll low-
income, uninsured children who are eligible but not enrolled
in such plans;
(C) evaluating the administrative costs or savings related
to identifying and enrolling children in such plans through
reliance on such findings, and the extent to which such costs
differ from the costs that the State otherwise would have
incurred to identify and enroll low-income, uninsured
children who are eligible but not enrolled in such plans; and
(D) any recommendations for legislative or administrative
changes that would improve the effectiveness of enrolling
children in such plans through reliance on such findings.
(2) Report to congress.--Not later than September 30, 2012,
the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress on the
results of the evaluation under paragraph (1).
(3) Funding.--
(A) In general.--Out of any funds in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, there is appropriated to the
Secretary to carry out the evaluation under this subsection
$5,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2012.
(B) Budget authority.--Subparagraph (A) constitutes budget
authority in advance of appropriations Act and represents the
obligation of the Federal Government to provide for the
payment of such amount to conduct the evaluation under this
subsection.
(c) Electronic Transmission of Information.--Section 1902
(42 U.S.C. 1396a) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(dd) Electronic Transmission of Information.--If the
State agency determining eligibility for medical assistance
under this title or child health assistance under title XXI
verifies an element of eligibility based on information from
an Express Lane Agency (as defined in subsection (e)(13)(F)),
or from another public agency, then the applicant's signature
under penalty of perjury shall not be required as to such
element. Any signature requirement for an application for
medical assistance may be satisfied through an electronic
signature, as defined in section 1710(1) of the Government
Paperwork Elimination Act (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). The
requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section
1137(d)(2) may be met through evidence in digital or
electronic form.''.
(d) Authorization of Information Disclosure.--
(1) In general.--Title XIX is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:

``SEC. 1942. AUTHORIZATION TO RECEIVE RELEVANT INFORMATION.

``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a Federal or State agency or private entity in
possession of the sources of data directly relevant to
eligibility determinations under this title (including
eligibility files maintained by Express Lane agencies
described in section 1902(e)(13)(F), information described in
paragraph (2) or (3) of section 1137(a), vital records
information about births in any State, and information
described in sections

[[Page 1604]]

453(i) and 1902(a)(25)(I)) is authorized to convey such data
or information to the State agency administering the State
plan under this title, to the extent such conveyance meets
the requirements of subsection (b).
``(b) Requirements for Conveyance.--Data or information may
be conveyed pursuant to subsection (a) only if the following
requirements are met:
``(1) The individual whose circumstances are described in
the data or information (or such individual's parent,
guardian, caretaker relative, or authorized representative)
has either provided advance consent to disclosure or has not
objected to disclosure after receiving advance notice of
disclosure and a reasonable opportunity to object.
``(2) Such data or information are used solely for the
purposes of--
``(A) identifying individuals who are eligible or
potentially eligible for medical assistance under this title
and enrolling or attempting to enroll such individuals in the
State plan; and
``(B) verifying the eligibility of individuals for medical
assistance under the State plan.
``(3) An interagency or other agreement, consistent with
standards developed by the Secretary--
``(A) prevents the unauthorized use, disclosure, or
modification of such data and otherwise meets applicable
Federal requirements safeguarding privacy and data security;
and
``(B) requires the State agency administering the State
plan to use the data and information obtained under this
section to seek to enroll individuals in the plan.
``(c) Penalties for Improper Disclosure.--
``(1) Civil money penalty.--A private entity described in
the subsection (a) that publishes, discloses, or makes known
in any manner, or to any extent not authorized by Federal
law, any information obtained under this section is subject
to a civil money penalty in an amount equal to $10,000 for
each such unauthorized publication or disclosure. The
provisions of section 1128A (other than subsections (a) and
(b) and the second sentence of subsection (f)) shall apply to
a civil money penalty under this paragraph in the same manner
as such provisions apply to a penalty or proceeding under
section 1128A(a).
``(2) Criminal penalty.--A private entity described in the
subsection (a) that willfully publishes, discloses, or makes
known in any manner, or to any extent not authorized by
Federal law, any information obtained under this section
shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more
than 1 year, or both, for each such unauthorized publication
or disclosure.
``(d) Rule of Construction.--The limitations and
requirements that apply to disclosure pursuant to this
section shall not be construed to prohibit the conveyance or
disclosure of data or information otherwise permitted under
Federal law (without regard to this section).''.
(2) Conforming amendment to title xxi.--Section 2107(e)(1)
(42 U.S.C. 1397gg(e)(1)), as amended by subsection (a)(2), is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(F) Section 1942 (relating to authorization to receive
data directly relevant to eligibility determinations).''.
(3) Conforming amendment to provide access to data about
enrollment in insurance for purposes of evaluating
applications and for chip.--Section 1902(a)(25)(I)(i) (42
U.S.C. 1396a(a)(25)(I)(i)) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(and, at State option, individuals who
apply or whose eligibility for medical assistance is being
evaluated in accordance with section 1902(e)(13)(D))'' after
``with respect to individuals who are eligible''; and
(B) by inserting ``under this title (and, at State option,
child health assistance under title XXI)'' after ``the State
plan''.
(e) Authorization for States Electing Express Lane Option
To Receive Certain Data Directly Relevant To Determining
Eligibility and Correct Amount of Assistance.--The Secretary
shall enter into such agreements as are necessary to permit a
State that elects the Express Lane option under section
1902(e)(13) of the Social Security Act to receive data
directly relevant to eligibility determinations and
determining the correct amount of benefits under a State
child health plan under CHIP or a State plan under Medicaid
from the following:
(1) The National Directory of New Hires established under
section 453(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 653(i)).
(2) Data regarding enrollment in insurance that may help to
facilitate outreach and enrollment under the State Medicaid
plan, the State CHIP plan, and such other programs as the
Secretary may specify.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
are effective on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Subtitle B--Reducing Barriers to Enrollment

SEC. 211. VERIFICATION OF DECLARATION OF CITIZENSHIP OR
NATIONALITY FOR PURPOSES OF ELIGIBILITY FOR
MEDICAID AND CHIP.

(a) Alternative State Process for Verification of
Declaration of Citizenship or Nationality for Purposes of
Eligibility for Medicaid.--
(1) Alternative to documentation requirement.--
(A) In general.--Section 1902 (42 U.S.C. 1396a), as amended
by section 203(c), is amended--
(i) in subsection (a)(46)--

(I) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(46)'';
(II) by adding ``and'' after the semicolon; and
(III) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

``(B) provide, with respect to an individual declaring to
be a citizen or national of the United States for purposes of
establishing eligibility under this title, that the State
shall satisfy the requirements of--
``(i) section 1903(x); or
``(ii) subsection (ee);''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(ee)(1) For purposes of subsection (a)(46)(B)(ii), the
requirements of this subsection with respect to an individual
declaring to be a citizen or national of the United States
for purposes of establishing eligibility under this title,
are, in lieu of requiring the individual to present
satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or
nationality under section 1903(x) (if the individual is not
described in paragraph (2) of that section), as follows:
``(A) The State submits the name and social security number
of the individual to the Commissioner of Social Security as
part of the program established under paragraph (2).
``(B) If the State receives notice from the Commissioner of
Social Security that the name or social security number, or
the declaration of citizenship or nationality, of the
individual is inconsistent with information in the records
maintained by the Commissioner--
``(i) the State makes a reasonable effort to identify and
address the causes of such inconsistency, including through
typographical or other clerical errors, by contacting the
individual to confirm the accuracy of the name or social
security number submitted or declaration of citizenship or
nationality and by taking such additional actions as the
Secretary, through regulation or other guidance, or the State
may identify, and continues to provide the individual with
medical assistance while making such effort; and
``(ii) in the case such inconsistency is not resolved under
clause (i), the State--
``(I) notifies the individual of such fact;
``(II) provides the individual with a period of 90 days
from the date on which the notice required under subclause
(I) is received by the individual to either present
satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or
nationality (as defined in section 1903(x)(3)) or resolve the
inconsistency with the Commissioner of Social Security (and
continues to provide the individual with medical assistance
during such 90-day period); and
``(III) disenrolls the individual from the State plan under
this title within 30 days after the end of such 90-day period
if no such documentary evidence is presented or if such
inconsistency is not resolved.
``(2)(A) Each State electing to satisfy the requirements of
this subsection for purposes of section 1902(a)(46)(B) shall
establish a program under which the State submits at least
monthly to the Commissioner of Social Security for comparison
of the name and social security number, of each individual
newly enrolled in the State plan under this title that month
who is not described in section 1903(x)(2) and who declares
to be a United States citizen or national, with information
in records maintained by the Commissioner.
``(B) In establishing the State program under this
paragraph, the State may enter into an agreement with the
Commissioner of Social Security--
``(i) to provide, through an on-line system or otherwise,
for the electronic submission of, and response to, the
information submitted under subparagraph (A) for an
individual enrolled in the State plan under this title who
declares to be citizen or national on at least a monthly
basis; or
``(ii) to provide for a determination of the consistency of
the information submitted with the information maintained in
the records of the Commissioner through such other method as
agreed to by the State and the Commissioner and approved by
the Secretary, provided that such method is no more
burdensome for individuals to comply with than any burdens
that may apply under a method described in clause (i).
``(C) The program established under this paragraph shall
provide that, in the case of any individual who is required
to submit a social security number to the State under
subparagraph (A) and who is unable to provide the State with
such number, shall be provided with at least the reasonable
opportunity to present satisfactory documentary evidence of
citizenship or nationality (as defined in section 1903(x)(3))
as is provided under clauses (i) and (ii) of section
1137(d)(4)(A) to an individual for the submittal to the State
of evidence indicating a satisfactory immigration status.
``(3)(A) The State agency implementing the plan approved
under this title shall, at such times and in such form as the
Secretary may specify, provide information on the percentage
each month that the inconsistent submissions bears to the
total submissions made for comparison for such month. For
purposes of this subparagraph, a name, social security

[[Page 1605]]

number, or declaration of citizenship or nationality of an
individual shall be treated as inconsistent and included in
the determination of such percentage only if--
``(i) the information submitted by the individual is not
consistent with information in records maintained by the
Commissioner of Social Security;
``(ii) the inconsistency is not resolved by the State;
``(iii) the individual was provided with a reasonable
period of time to resolve the inconsistency with the
Commissioner of Social Security or provide satisfactory
documentation of citizenship status and did not successfully
resolve such inconsistency; and
``(iv) payment has been made for an item or service
furnished to the individual under this title.
``(B) If, for any fiscal year, the average monthly
percentage determined under subparagraph (A) is greater than
3 percent--
``(i) the State shall develop and adopt a corrective plan
to review its procedures for verifying the identities of
individuals seeking to enroll in the State plan under this
title and to identify and implement changes in such
procedures to improve their accuracy; and
``(ii) pay to the Secretary an amount equal to the amount
which bears the same ratio to the total payments under the
State plan for the fiscal year for providing medical
assistance to individuals who provided inconsistent
information as the number of individuals with inconsistent
information in excess of 3 percent of such total submitted
bears to the total number of individuals with inconsistent
information.
``(C) The Secretary may waive, in certain limited cases,
all or part of the payment under subparagraph (B)(ii) if the
State is unable to reach the allowable error rate despite a
good faith effort by such State.
``(D) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not apply to a State
for a fiscal year if there is an agreement described in
paragraph (2)(B) in effect as of the close of the fiscal year
that provides for the submission on a real-time basis of the
information described in such paragraph.
``(4) Nothing in this subsection shall affect the rights of
any individual under this title to appeal any disenrollment
from a State plan.''.
(B) Costs of implementing and maintaining system.--Section
1903(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 1396b(a)(3)) is amended--
(i) by striking ``plus'' at the end of subparagraph (E) and
inserting ``and'', and
(ii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(F)(i) 90 percent of the sums expended during the quarter
as are attributable to the design, development, or
installation of such mechanized verification and information
retrieval systems as the Secretary determines are necessary
to implement section 1902(ee) (including a system described
in paragraph (2)(B) thereof), and
``(ii) 75 percent of the sums expended during the quarter
as are attributable to the operation of systems to which
clause (i) applies, plus''.
(2) Limitation on waiver authority.--Notwithstanding any
provision of section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1315), or any other provision of law, the Secretary
may not waive the requirements of section 1902(a)(46)(B) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(46)(B)) with respect to a State.
(3) Conforming amendments.--Section 1903 (42 U.S.C. 1396b)
is amended--
(A) in subsection (i)(22), by striking ``subsection (x)''
and inserting ``section 1902(a)(46)(B)''; and
(B) in subsection (x)(1), by striking ``subsection
(i)(22)'' and inserting ``section 1902(a)(46)(B)(i)''.
(4) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of the
United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated to the Commissioner of Social Security
$5,000,000 to remain available until expended to carry out
the Commissioner's responsibilities under section 1902(ee) of
the Social Security Act, as added by subsection (a).
(b) Clarification of Requirements Relating to Presentation
of Satisfactory Documentary Evidence of Citizenship or
Nationality.--
(1) Acceptance of documentary evidence issued by a
federally recognized indian tribe.--Section 1903(x)(3)(B) (42
U.S.C. 1396b(x)(3)(B)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (vi); and
(B) by inserting after clause (iv), the following new
clause:
``(v)(I) Except as provided in subclause (II), a document
issued by a federally recognized Indian tribe evidencing
membership or enrollment in, or affiliation with, such tribe
(such as a tribal enrollment card or certificate of degree of
Indian blood).
``(II) With respect to those federally recognized Indian
tribes located within States having an international border
whose membership includes individuals who are not citizens of
the United States, the Secretary shall, after consulting with
such tribes, issue regulations authorizing the presentation
of such other forms of documentation (including tribal
documentation, if appropriate) that the Secretary determines
to be satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or
nationality for purposes of satisfying the requirement of
this subsection.''.
(2) Requirement to provide reasonable opportunity to
present satisfactory documentary evidence.--Section 1903(x)
(42 U.S.C. 1396b(x)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(4) In the case of an individual declaring to be a
citizen or national of the United States with respect to whom
a State requires the presentation of satisfactory documentary
evidence of citizenship or nationality under section
1902(a)(46)(B)(i), the individual shall be provided at least
the reasonable opportunity to present satisfactory
documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality under this
subsection as is provided under clauses (i) and (ii) of
section 1137(d)(4)(A) to an individual for the submittal to
the State of evidence indicating a satisfactory immigration
status.''.
(3) Children born in the united states to mothers eligible
for medicaid.--
(A) Clarification of rules.--Section 1903(x) (42 U.S.C.
1396b(x)), as amended by paragraph (2), is amended--
(i) in paragraph (2)--

(I) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(II) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E);
and
(III) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new
subparagraph:

``(D) pursuant to the application of section 1902(e)(4)
(and, in the case of an individual who is eligible for
medical assistance on such basis, the individual shall be
deemed to have provided satisfactory documentary evidence of
citizenship or nationality and shall not be required to
provide further documentary evidence on any date that occurs
during or after the period in which the individual is
eligible for medical assistance on such basis); or''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Nothing in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section
1902(a)(46), the preceding paragraphs of this subsection, or
the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, including section 6036 of
such Act, shall be construed as changing the requirement of
section 1902(e)(4) that a child born in the United States to
an alien mother for whom medical assistance for the delivery
of such child is available as treatment of an emergency
medical condition pursuant to subsection (v) shall be deemed
eligible for medical assistance during the first year of such
child's life.''.
(B) State requirement to issue separate identification
number.--Section 1902(e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 1396a(e)(4)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, in the case of a
child who is born in the United States to an alien mother for
whom medical assistance for the delivery of the child is made
available pursuant to section 1903(v), the State immediately
shall issue a separate identification number for the child
upon notification by the facility at which such delivery
occurred of the child's birth.''.
(4) Technical amendments.--Section 1903(x)(2) (42 U.S.C.
1396b(x)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by realigning the left margin of the matter preceding
clause (i) 2 ems to the left; and
(ii) by realigning the left margins of clauses (i) and
(ii), respectively, 2 ems to the left; and
(B) in subparagraph (C)--
(i) by realigning the left margin of the matter preceding
clause (i) 2 ems to the left; and
(ii) by realigning the left margins of clauses (i) and
(ii), respectively, 2 ems to the left.
(c) Application of Documentation System to CHIP.--
(1) In general.--Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)), as
amended by section 114(a), is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(9) Citizenship documentation requirements.--
``(A) In general.--No payment may be made under this
section with respect to an individual who has, or is,
declared to be a citizen or national of the United States for
purposes of establishing eligibility under this title unless
the State meets the requirements of section 1902(a)(46)(B)
with respect to the individual.
``(B) Enhanced payments.--Notwithstanding subsection (b),
the enhanced FMAP with respect to payments under subsection
(a) for expenditures described in clause (i) or (ii) of
section 1903(a)(3)(F) necessary to comply with subparagraph
(A) shall in no event be less than 90 percent and 75 percent,
respectively.''.
(2) Nonapplication of administrative expenditures cap.--
Section 2105(c)(2)(C) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)(2)(C)), as amended
by section 202(b), is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(ii) Expenditures to comply with citizenship or
nationality verification requirements.--Expenditures
necessary for the State to comply with paragraph (9)(A).''.
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the amendments made by

[[Page 1606]]

this section shall take effect on January 1, 2010.
(B) Technical amendments.--The amendments made by--
(i) paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (b) shall
take effect as if included in the enactment of section 6036
of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171; 120
Stat. 80); and
(ii) paragraph (4) of subsection (b) shall take effect as
if included in the enactment of section 405 of division B of
the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-
432; 120 Stat. 2996).
(2) Restoration of eligibility.--In the case of an
individual who, during the period that began on July 1, 2006,
and ends on October 1, 2009, was determined to be ineligible
for medical assistance under a State Medicaid plan, including
any waiver of such plan, solely as a result of the
application of subsections (i)(22) and (x) of section 1903 of
the Social Security Act (as in effect during such period),
but who would have been determined eligible for such
assistance if such subsections, as amended by subsection (b),
had applied to the individual, a State may deem the
individual to be eligible for such assistance as of the date
that the individual was determined to be ineligible for such
medical assistance on such basis.
(3) Special transition rule for indians.--During the period
that begins on July 1, 2006, and ends on the effective date
of final regulations issued under subclause (II) of section
1903(x)(3)(B)(v) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396b(x)(3)(B)(v)) (as added by subsection (b)(1)(B)), an
individual who is a member of a federally-recognized Indian
tribe described in subclause (II) of that section who
presents a document described in subclause (I) of such
section that is issued by such Indian tribe, shall be deemed
to have presented satisfactory evidence of citizenship or
nationality for purposes of satisfying the requirement of
subsection (x) of section 1903 of such Act.

SEC. 212. REDUCING ADMINISTRATIVE BARRIERS TO ENROLLMENT.

Section 2102(b) (42 U.S.C. 1397bb(b)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Reduction of administrative barriers to enrollment.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the plan
shall include a description of the procedures used to reduce
administrative barriers to the enrollment of children and
pregnant women who are eligible for medical assistance under
title XIX or for child health assistance or health benefits
coverage under this title. Such procedures shall be
established and revised as often as the State determines
appropriate to take into account the most recent information
available to the State identifying such barriers.
``(B) Deemed compliance if joint application and renewal
process that permits application other than in person.--A
State shall be deemed to comply with subparagraph (A) if the
State's application and renewal forms and supplemental forms
(if any) and information verification process is the same for
purposes of establishing and renewing eligibility for
children and pregnant women for medical assistance under
title XIX and child health assistance under this title, and
such process does not require an application to be made in
person or a face-to-face interview.''.

SEC. 213. MODEL OF INTERSTATE COORDINATED ENROLLMENT AND
COVERAGE PROCESS.

(a) In General.--In order to assure continuity of coverage
of low-income children under the Medicaid program and the
State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), not later
than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation
with State Medicaid and CHIP directors and organizations
representing program beneficiaries, shall develop a model
process for the coordination of the enrollment, retention,
and coverage under such programs of children who, because of
migration of families, emergency evacuations, natural or
other disasters, public health emergencies, educational
needs, or otherwise, frequently change their State of
residency or otherwise are temporarily located outside of the
State of their residency.
(b) Report to Congress.--After development of such model
process, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
submit to Congress a report describing additional steps or
authority needed to make further improvements to coordinate
the enrollment, retention, and coverage under CHIP and
Medicaid of children described in subsection (a).

SEC. 214. PERMITTING STATES TO ENSURE COVERAGE WITHOUT A 5-
YEAR DELAY OF CERTAIN CHILDREN AND PREGNANT
WOMEN UNDER THE MEDICAID PROGRAM AND CHIP.

(a) Medicaid Program.--Section 1903(v) (42 U.S.C. 1396b(v))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and
inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (4)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4)(A) A State may elect (in a plan amendment under this
title) to provide medical assistance under this title,
notwithstanding sections 401(a), 402(b), 403, and 421 of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996, to children and pregnant women who are lawfully
residing in the United States (including battered individuals
described in section 431(c) of such Act) and who are
otherwise eligible for such assistance, within either or both
of the following eligibility categories:
``(i) Pregnant women.--Women during pregnancy (and during
the 60-day period beginning on the last day of the
pregnancy).
``(ii) Children.--Individuals under 21 years of age,
including optional targeted low-income children described in
section 1905(u)(2)(B).
``(B) In the case of a State that has elected to provide
medical assistance to a category of aliens under subparagraph
(A), no debt shall accrue under an affidavit of support
against any sponsor of such an alien on the basis of
provision of assistance to such category and the cost of such
assistance shall not be considered as an unreimbursed cost.
``(C) A State shall demonstrate that the State requires an
individual provided medical assistance as a result of an
election by the State under subparagraph (A), to provide the
State, as part of the State's ongoing eligibility
redetermination requirements and procedures, with
documentation or other evidence that the individual is
lawfully residing in the United States.''.
(b) CHIP.--Section 2107(e)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1397gg(e)(1)), as
amended by sections 203(a)(2) and 203(d)(2), is amended by
redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as subparagraphs (F)
and (G), respectively and by inserting after subparagraph (D)
the following new subparagraph:
``(E) Paragraph (4) of section 1903(v) (relating to
optional coverage of categories of lawfully residing
immigrant children or pregnant women), but only if the State
has elected to apply such paragraph with respect to such
category of children or pregnant women under title XIX.''.

TITLE III--REDUCING BARRIERS TO PROVIDING PREMIUM ASSISTANCE

Subtitle A--Additional State Option for Providing Premium Assistance

SEC. 301. ADDITIONAL STATE OPTION FOR PROVIDING PREMIUM
ASSISTANCE.

(a) CHIP.--
(1) In general.--Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)), as
amended by sections 114(a) and 211(c), is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(10) State option to offer premium assistance.--
``(A) In general.--A State may elect to offer a premium
assistance subsidy (as defined in subparagraph (C)) for
qualified employer-sponsored coverage (as defined in
subparagraph (B)) to all targeted low-income children who are
eligible for child health assistance under the plan and have
access to such coverage in accordance with the requirements
of this paragraph. No subsidy shall be provided to a targeted
low-income child under this paragraph unless the child (or
the child's parent) voluntarily elects to receive such a
subsidy. A State may not require such an election as a
condition of receipt of child health assistance.
``(B) Qualified employer-sponsored coverage.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), in this
paragraph, the term `qualified employer-sponsored coverage'
means a group health plan or health insurance coverage
offered through an employer--

``(I) that qualifies as creditable coverage as a group
health plan under section 2701(c)(1) of the Public Health
Service Act;
``(II) for which the employer contribution toward any
premium for such coverage is at least 40 percent; and
``(III) that is offered to all individuals in a manner that
would be considered a nondiscriminatory eligibility
classification for purposes of paragraph (3)(A)(ii) of
section 105(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (but
determined without regard to clause (i) of subparagraph (B)
of such paragraph).

``(ii) Exception.--Such term does not include coverage
consisting of--

``(I) benefits provided under a health flexible spending
arrangement (as defined in section 106(c)(2) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986); or
``(II) a high deductible health plan (as defined in section
223(c)(2) of such Code), without regard to whether the plan
is purchased in conjunction with a health savings account (as
defined under section 223(d) of such Code).

``(C) Premium assistance subsidy.--
``(i) In general.--In this paragraph, the term `premium
assistance subsidy' means, with respect to a targeted low-
income child, the amount equal to the difference between the
employee contribution required for enrollment only of the
employee under qualified employer-sponsored coverage and the
employee contribution required for enrollment of the employee
and the child in such coverage, less any applicable premium
cost-sharing applied under the State child health plan
(subject to the limitations imposed under section 2103(e),
including the requirement to count the total amount of the
employee contribution required for enrollment

[[Page 1607]]

of the employee and the child in such coverage toward the
annual aggregate cost-sharing limit applied under paragraph
(3)(B) of such section).
``(ii) State payment option.--A State may provide a premium
assistance subsidy either as reimbursement to an employee for
out-of-pocket expenditures or, subject to clause (iii),
directly to the employee's employer.
``(iii) Employer opt-out.--An employer may notify a State
that it elects to opt-out of being directly paid a premium
assistance subsidy on behalf of an employee. In the event of
such a notification, an employer shall withhold the total
amount of the employee contribution required for enrollment
of the employee and the child in the qualified employer-
sponsored coverage and the State shall pay the premium
assistance subsidy directly to the employee.
``(iv) Treatment as child health assistance.--Expenditures
for the provision of premium assistance subsidies shall be
considered child health assistance described in paragraph
(1)(C) of subsection (a) for purposes of making payments
under that subsection.
``(D) Application of secondary payor rules.--The State
shall be a secondary payor for any items or services provided
under the qualified employer-sponsored coverage for which the
State provides child health assistance under the State child
health plan.
``(E) Requirement to provide supplemental coverage for
benefits and cost-sharing protection provided under the state
child health plan.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding section 2110(b)(1)(C),
the State shall provide for each targeted low-income child
enrolled in qualified employer-sponsored coverage,
supplemental coverage consisting of--

``(I) items or services that are not covered, or are only
partially covered, under the qualified employer-sponsored
coverage; and
``(II) cost-sharing protection consistent with section
2103(e).

``(ii) Record keeping requirements.--For purposes of
carrying out clause (i), a State may elect to directly pay
out-of-pocket expenditures for cost-sharing imposed under the
qualified employer-sponsored coverage and collect or not
collect all or any portion of such expenditures from the
parent of the child.
``(F) Application of waiting period imposed under the
state.--Any waiting period imposed under the State child
health plan prior to the provision of child health assistance
to a targeted low-income child under the State plan shall
apply to the same extent to the provision of a premium
assistance subsidy for the child under this paragraph.
``(G) Opt-out permitted for any month.--A State shall
establish a process for permitting the parent of a targeted
low-income child receiving a premium assistance subsidy to
disenroll the child from the qualified employer-sponsored
coverage and enroll the child in, and receive child health
assistance under, the State child health plan, effective on
the first day of any month for which the child is eligible
for such assistance and in a manner that ensures continuity
of coverage for the child.
``(H) Application to parents.--If a State provides child
health assistance or health benefits coverage to parents of a
targeted low-income child in accordance with section 2111(b),
the State may elect to offer a premium assistance subsidy to
a parent of a targeted low-income child who is eligible for
such a subsidy under this paragraph in the same manner as the
State offers such a subsidy for the enrollment of the child
in qualified employer-sponsored coverage, except that--
``(i) the amount of the premium assistance subsidy shall be
increased to take into account the cost of the enrollment of
the parent in the qualified employer-sponsored coverage or,
at the option of the State if the State determines it cost-
effective, the cost of the enrollment of the child's family
in such coverage; and
``(ii) any reference in this paragraph to a child is deemed
to include a reference to the parent or, if applicable under
clause (i), the family of the child.
``(I) Additional state option for providing premium
assistance.--
``(i) In general.--A State may establish an employer-family
premium assistance purchasing pool for employers with less
than 250 employees who have at least 1 employee who is a
pregnant woman eligible for assistance under the State child
health plan (including through the application of an option
described in section 2112(f)) or a member of a family with at
least 1 targeted low-income child and to provide a premium
assistance subsidy under this paragraph for enrollment in
coverage made available through such pool.
``(ii) Access to choice of coverage.--A State that elects
the option under clause (i) shall identify and offer access
to not less than 2 private health plans that are health
benefits coverage that is equivalent to the benefits coverage
in a benchmark benefit package described in section 2103(b)
or benchmark-equivalent coverage that meets the requirements
of section 2103(a)(2) for employees described in clause (i).
``(iii) Clarification of payment for administrative
expenditures.--Nothing in this subparagraph shall be
construed as permitting payment under this section for
administrative expenditures attributable to the establishment
or operation of such pool, except to the extent that such
payment would otherwise be permitted under this title.
``(J) No effect on premium assistance waiver programs.--
Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as limiting the
authority of a State to offer premium assistance under
section 1906 or 1906A, a waiver described in paragraph (2)(B)
or (3), a waiver approved under section 1115, or other
authority in effect prior to the date of enactment of the
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of
2009.
``(K) Notice of availability.--If a State elects to provide
premium assistance subsidies in accordance with this
paragraph, the State shall--
``(i) include on any application or enrollment form for
child health assistance a notice of the availability of
premium assistance subsidies for the enrollment of targeted
low-income children in qualified employer-sponsored coverage;
``(ii) provide, as part of the application and enrollment
process under the State child health plan, information
describing the availability of such subsidies and how to
elect to obtain such a subsidy; and
``(iii) establish such other procedures as the State
determines necessary to ensure that parents are fully
informed of the choices for receiving child health assistance
under the State child health plan or through the receipt of
premium assistance subsidies.
``(L) Application to qualified employer-sponsored benchmark
coverage.--If a group health plan or health insurance
coverage offered through an employer is certified by an
actuary as health benefits coverage that is equivalent to the
benefits coverage in a benchmark benefit package described in
section 2103(b) or benchmark-equivalent coverage that meets
the requirements of section 2103(a)(2), the State may provide
premium assistance subsidies for enrollment of targeted low-
income children in such group health plan or health insurance
coverage in the same manner as such subsidies are provided
under this paragraph for enrollment in qualified employer-
sponsored coverage, but without regard to the requirement to
provide supplemental coverage for benefits and cost-sharing
protection provided under the State child health plan under
subparagraph (E).
``(M) Satisfaction of cost-effectiveness test.--Premium
assistance subsidies for qualified employer-sponsored
coverage offered under this paragraph shall be deemed to meet
the requirement of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3).
``(N) Coordination with medicaid.--In the case of a
targeted low-income child who receives child health
assistance through a State plan under title XIX and who
voluntarily elects to receive a premium assistance subsidy
under this section, the provisions of section 1906A shall
apply and shall supersede any other provisions of this
paragraph that are inconsistent with such section.''.
(2) Determination of cost-effectiveness for premium
assistance or purchase of family coverage.--
(A) In general.--Section 2105(c)(3)(A) (42 U.S.C.
1397ee(c)(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``relative to'' and
all that follows through the comma and inserting ``relative
to
``(i) the amount of expenditures under the State child
health plan, including administrative expenditures, that the
State would have made to provide comparable coverage of the
targeted low-income child involved or the family involved (as
applicable); or
``(ii) the aggregate amount of expenditures that the State
would have made under the State child health plan, including
administrative expenditures, for providing coverage under
such plan for all such children or families.''.
(B) Nonapplication to previously approved coverage.--The
amendment made by subparagraph (A) shall not apply to
coverage the purchase of which has been approved by the
Secretary under section 2105(c)(3) of the Social Security Act
prior to the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Medicaid.--Title XIX is amended by inserting after
section 1906 the following new section:

``premium assistance option for children

``Sec. 1906A. (a) In General.--A State may elect to offer
a premium assistance subsidy (as defined in subsection (c))
for qualified employer-sponsored coverage (as defined in
subsection (b)) to all individuals under age 19 who are
entitled to medical assistance under this title (and to the
parent of such an individual) who have access to such
coverage if the State meets the requirements of this section.
``(b) Qualified Employer-Sponsored Coverage.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2)), in this
paragraph, the term `qualified employer-sponsored coverage'
means a group health plan or health insurance coverage
offered through an employer--
``(A) that qualifies as creditable coverage as a group
health plan under section 2701(c)(1) of the Public Health
Service Act;
``(B) for which the employer contribution toward any
premium for such coverage is at least 40 percent; and

[[Page 1608]]

``(C) that is offered to all individuals in a manner that
would be considered a nondiscriminatory eligibility
classification for purposes of paragraph (3)(A)(ii) of
section 105(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (but
determined without regard to clause (i) of subparagraph (B)
of such paragraph).
``(2) Exception.--Such term does not include coverage
consisting of--
``(A) benefits provided under a health flexible spending
arrangement (as defined in section 106(c)(2) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986); or
``(B) a high deductible health plan (as defined in section
223(c)(2) of such Code), without regard to whether the plan
is purchased in conjunction with a health savings account (as
defined under section 223(d) of such Code).
``(3) Treatment as third party liability.--The State shall
treat the coverage provided under qualified employer-
sponsored coverage as a third party liability under section
1902(a)(25).
``(c) Premium Assistance Subsidy.--In this section, the
term `premium assistance subsidy' means the amount of the
employee contribution for enrollment in the qualified
employer-sponsored coverage by the individual under age 19 or
by the individual's family. Premium assistance subsidies
under this section shall be considered, for purposes of
section 1903(a), to be a payment for medical assistance.
``(d) Voluntary Participation.--
``(1) Employers.--Participation by an employer in a premium
assistance subsidy offered by a State under this section
shall be voluntary. An employer may notify a State that it
elects to opt-out of being directly paid a premium assistance
subsidy on behalf of an employee.
``(2) Beneficiaries.--No subsidy shall be provided to an
individual under age 19 under this section unless the
individual (or the individual's parent) voluntarily elects to
receive such a subsidy. A State may not require such an
election as a condition of receipt of medical assistance.
State may not require, as a condition of an individual under
age 19 (or the individual's parent) being or remaining
eligible for medical assistance under this title, apply for
enrollment in qualified employer-sponsored coverage under
this section.
``(3) Opt-out permitted for any month.--A State shall
establish a process for permitting the parent of an
individual under age 19 receiving a premium assistance
subsidy to disenroll the individual from the qualified
employer-sponsored coverage.
``(e) Requirement To Pay Premiums and Cost-Sharing and
Provide Supplemental Coverage.--In the case of the
participation of an individual under age 19 (or the
individual's parent) in a premium assistance subsidy under
this section for qualified employer-sponsored coverage, the
State shall provide for payment of all enrollee premiums for
enrollment in such coverage and all deductibles, coinsurance,
and other cost-sharing obligations for items and services
otherwise covered under the State plan under this title
(exceeding the amount otherwise permitted under section 1916
or, if applicable, section 1916A). The fact that an
individual under age 19 (or a parent) elects to enroll in
qualified employer-sponsored coverage under this section
shall not change the individual's (or parent's) eligibility
for medical assistance under the State plan, except insofar
as section 1902(a)(25) provides that payments for such
assistance shall first be made under such coverage.''.
(c) GAO Study and Report.--Not later than January 1, 2010,
the Comptroller General of the United States shall study cost
and coverage issues relating to any State premium assistance
programs for which Federal matching payments are made under
title XIX or XXI of the Social Security Act, including under
waiver authority, and shall submit a report to the Committee
on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and
Commerce of the House of Representatives on the results of
such study.

SEC. 302. OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND ENROLLMENT ASSISTANCE.

(a) Requirement To Include Description of Outreach,
Education, and Enrollment Efforts Related to Premium
Assistance Subsidies in State Child Health Plan.--Section
2102(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397bb(c)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(3) Premium assistance subsidies.--In the case of a State
that provides for premium assistance subsidies under the
State child health plan in accordance with paragraph (2)(B),
(3), or (10) of section 2105(c), or a waiver approved under
section 1115, outreach, education, and enrollment assistance
for families of children likely to be eligible for such
subsidies, to inform such families of the availability of,
and to assist them in enrolling their children in, such
subsidies, and for employers likely to provide coverage that
is eligible for such subsidies, including the specific,
significant resources the State intends to apply to educate
employers about the availability of premium assistance
subsidies under the State child health plan.''.
(b) Nonapplication of 10 Percent Limit on Outreach and
Certain Other Expenditures.--Section 2105(c)(2)(C) (42 U.S.C.
1397ee(c)(2)(C)), as amended by section 211(c)(2), is amended
by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) Expenditures for outreach to increase the
enrollment of children under this title and title xix through
premium assistance subsidies.--Expenditures for outreach
activities to families of children likely to be eligible for
premium assistance subsidies in accordance with paragraph
(2)(B), (3), or (10), or a waiver approved under section
1115, to inform such families of the availability of, and to
assist them in enrolling their children in, such subsidies,
and to employers likely to provide qualified employer-
sponsored coverage (as defined in subparagraph (B) of such
paragraph), but not to exceed an amount equal to 1.25 percent
of the maximum amount permitted to be expended under
subparagraph (A) for items described in subsection
(a)(1)(D).''.

Subtitle B--Coordinating Premium Assistance With Private Coverage

SEC. 311. SPECIAL ENROLLMENT PERIOD UNDER GROUP HEALTH PLANS
IN CASE OF TERMINATION OF MEDICAID OR CHIP
COVERAGE OR ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSISTANCE IN
PURCHASE OF EMPLOYMENT-BASED COVERAGE;
COORDINATION OF COVERAGE.

(a) Amendments to Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--Section
9801(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
special enrollment periods) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(3) Special rules relating to medicaid and chip.--
``(A) In general.--A group health plan shall permit an
employee who is eligible, but not enrolled, for coverage
under the terms of the plan (or a dependent of such an
employee if the dependent is eligible, but not enrolled, for
coverage under such terms) to enroll for coverage under the
terms of the plan if either of the following conditions is
met:
``(i) Termination of medicaid or chip coverage.--The
employee or dependent is covered under a Medicaid plan under
title XIX of the Social Security Act or under a State child
health plan under title XXI of such Act and coverage of the
employee or dependent under such a plan is terminated as a
result of loss of eligibility for such coverage and the
employee requests coverage under the group health plan not
later than 60 days after the date of termination of such
coverage.
``(ii) Eligibility for employment assistance under medicaid
or chip.--The employee or dependent becomes eligible for
assistance, with respect to coverage under the group health
plan under such Medicaid plan or State child health plan
(including under any waiver or demonstration project
conducted under or in relation to such a plan), if the
employee requests coverage under the group health plan not
later than 60 days after the date the employee or dependent
is determined to be eligible for such assistance.
``(B) Employee outreach and disclosure.--
``(i) Outreach to employees regarding availability of
medicaid and chip coverage.--

``(I) In general.--Each employer that maintains a group
health plan in a State that provides medical assistance under
a State Medicaid plan under title XIX of the Social Security
Act, or child health assistance under a State child health
plan under title XXI of such Act, in the form of premium
assistance for the purchase of coverage under a group health
plan, shall provide to each employee a written notice
informing the employee of potential opportunities then
currently available in the State in which the employee
resides for premium assistance under such plans for health
coverage of the employee or the employee's dependents. For
purposes of compliance with this clause, the employer may use
any State-specific model notice developed in accordance with
section 701(f)(3)(B)(i)(II) of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1181(f)(3)(B)(i)(II)).
``(II) Option to provide concurrent with provision of plan
materials to employee.--An employer may provide the model
notice applicable to the State in which an employee resides
concurrent with the furnishing of materials notifying the
employee of health plan eligibility, concurrent with
materials provided to the employee in connection with an open
season or election process conducted under the plan, or
concurrent with the furnishing of the summary plan
description as provided in section 104(b) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1024).

[[Page 1609]]

the cost-effectiveness of the State providing medical or
child health assistance through premium assistance for the
purchase of coverage under such group health plan and in
order for the State to provide supplemental benefits required
under paragraph (10)(E) of such section or other
authority.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Amendments to employee retirement income security
act.--
(A) In general.--Section 701(f) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1181(f)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Special rules for application in case of medicaid and
chip.--
``(A) In general.--A group health plan, and a health
insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage in
connection with a group health plan, shall permit an employee
who is eligible, but not enrolled, for coverage under the
terms of the plan (or a dependent of such an employee if the
dependent is eligible, but not enrolled, for coverage under
such terms) to enroll for coverage under the terms of the
plan if either of the following conditions is met:
``(i) Termination of medicaid or chip coverage.--The
employee or dependent is covered under a Medicaid plan under
title XIX of the Social Security Act or under a State child
health plan under title XXI of such Act and coverage of the
employee or dependent under such a plan is terminated as a
result of loss of eligibility for such coverage and the
employee requests coverage under the group health plan (or
health insurance coverage) not later than 60 days after the
date of termination of such coverage.
``(ii) Eligibility for employment assistance under medicaid
or chip.--The employee or dependent becomes eligible for
assistance, with respect to coverage under the group health
plan or health insurance coverage, under such Medicaid plan
or State child health plan (including under any waiver or
demonstration project conducted under or in relation to such
a plan), if the employee requests coverage under the group
health plan or health insurance coverage not later than 60
days after the date the employee or dependent is determined
to be eligible for such assistance.
``(B) Coordination with medicaid and chip.--
``(i) Outreach to employees regarding availability of
medicaid and chip coverage.--

``(I) In general.--Each employer that maintains a group
health plan in a State that provides medical assistance under
a State Medicaid plan under title XIX of the Social Security
Act, or child health assistance under a State child health
plan under title XXI of such Act, in the form of premium
assistance for the purchase of coverage under a group health
plan, shall provide to each employee a written notice
informing the employee of potential opportunities then
currently available in the State in which the employee
resides for premium assistance under such plans for health
coverage of the employee or the employee's dependents.
``(II) Model notice.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2009, the Secretary and the Secretary
of Health and Human Services, in consultation with Directors
of State Medicaid agencies under title XIX of the Social
Security Act and Directors of State CHIP agencies under title
XXI of such Act, shall jointly develop national and State-
specific model notices for purposes of subparagraph (A). The
Secretary shall provide employers with such model notices so
as to enable employers to timely comply with the requirements
of subparagraph (A). Such model notices shall include
information regarding how an employee may contact the State
in which the employee resides for additional information
regarding potential opportunities for such premium
assistance, including how to apply for such assistance.
``(III) Option to provide concurrent with provision of plan
materials to employee.--An employer may provide the model
notice applicable to the State in which an employee resides
concurrent with the furnishing of materials notifying the
employee of health plan eligibility, concurrent with
materials provided to the employee in connection with an open
season or election process conducted under the plan, or
concurrent with the furnishing of the summary plan
description as provided in section 104(b).

``(ii) Disclosure about group health plan benefits to
states for medicaid and chip eligible individuals.--In the
case of a participant or beneficiary of a group health plan
who is covered under a Medicaid plan of a State under title
XIX of the Social Security Act or under a State child health
plan under title XXI of such Act, the plan administrator of
the group health plan shall disclose to the State, upon
request, information about the benefits available under the
group health plan in sufficient specificity, as determined
under regulations of the Secretary of Health and Human
Services in consultation with the Secretary that require use
of the model coverage coordination disclosure form developed
under section 311(b)(1)(C) of the Children's Health Insurance
Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, so as to permit the
State to make a determination (under paragraph (2)(B), (3),
or (10) of section 2105(c) of the Social Security Act or
otherwise) concerning the cost-effectiveness of the State
providing medical or child health assistance through premium
assistance for the purchase of coverage under such group
health plan and in order for the State to provide
supplemental benefits required under paragraph (10)(E) of
such section or other authority.''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 102(b) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1022(b)) is
amended--
(i) by striking ``and the remedies'' and inserting ``, the
remedies''; and
(ii) by inserting before the period the following: ``, and
if the employer so elects for purposes of complying with
section 701(f)(3)(B)(i), the model notice applicable to the
State in which the participants and beneficiaries reside''.
(C) Working group to develop model coverage coordination
disclosure form.--
(i) Medicaid, chip, and employer-sponsored coverage
coordination working group.--

(I) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services and the Secretary of Labor shall jointly establish a
Medicaid, CHIP, and Employer-Sponsored Coverage Coordination
Working Group (in this subparagraph referred to as the
``Working Group''). The purpose of the Working Group shall be
to develop the model coverage coordination disclosure form
described in subclause (II) and to identify the impediments
to the effective coordination of coverage available to
families that include employees of employers that maintain
group health plans and members who are eligible for medical
assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act or
child health assistance or other health benefits coverage
under title XXI of such Act.
(II) Model coverage coordination disclosure form
described.--The model form described in this subclause is a
form for plan administrators of group health plans to
complete for purposes of permitting a State to determine the
availability and cost-effectiveness of the coverage available
under such plans to employees who have family members who are
eligible for premium assistance offered under a State plan
under title XIX or XXI of such Act and to allow for
coordination of coverage for enrollees of such plans. Such
form shall provide the following information in addition to
such other information as the Working Group determines
appropriate:

(aa) A determination of whether the employee is eligible
for coverage under the group health plan.
(bb) The name and contract information of the plan
administrator of the group health plan.
(cc) The benefits offered under the plan.
(dd) The premiums and cost-sharing required under the plan.
(ee) Any other information relevant to coverage under the
plan.
(ii) Membership.--The Working Group shall consist of not
more than 30 members and shall be composed of representatives
of--

(I) the Department of Labor;
(II) the Department of Health and Human Services;
(III) State directors of the Medicaid program under title
XIX of the Social Security Act;
(IV) State directors of the State Children's Health
Insurance Program under title XXI of the Social Security Act;
(V) employers, including owners of small businesses and
their trade or industry representatives and certified human
resource and payroll professionals;
(VI) plan administrators and plan sponsors of group health
plans (as defined in section 607(1) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974);
(VII) health insurance issuers; and
(VIII) children and other beneficiaries of medical
assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act or
child health assistance or other health benefits coverage
under title XXI of such Act.

(iii) Compensation.--The members of the Working Group shall
serve without compensation.
(iv) Administrative support.--The Department of Health and
Human Services and the Department of Labor shall jointly
provide appropriate administrative support to the Working
Group, including technical assistance. The Working Group may
use the services and facilities of either such Department,
with or without reimbursement, as jointly determined by such
Departments.
(v) Report.--

(I) Report by working group to the secretaries.--Not later
than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Working Group shall submit to the Secretary of Labor and
the Secretary of Health and Human Services the model form
described in clause (i)(II) along with a report containing
recommendations for appropriate measures to address the
impediments to the effective coordination of coverage between
group health plans and the State plans under titles XIX and
XXI of the Social Security Act.

[[Page 1610]]

(II) Report by secretaries to the congress.--Not later than
2 months after receipt of the report pursuant to subclause
(I), the Secretaries shall jointly submit a report to each
House of the Congress regarding the recommendations contained
in the report under such subclause.

(vi) Termination.--The Working Group shall terminate 30
days after the date of the issuance of its report under
clause (v).
(D) Effective dates.--The Secretary of Labor and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall develop the
initial model notices under section 701(f)(3)(B)(i)(II) of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the
Secretary of Labor shall provide such notices to employers,
not later than the date that is 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and each employer shall provide the
initial annual notices to such employer's employees beginning
with the first plan year that begins after the date on which
such initial model notices are first issued. The model
coverage coordination disclosure form developed under
subparagraph (C) shall apply with respect to requests made by
States beginning with the first plan year that begins after
the date on which such model coverage coordination disclosure
form is first issued.
(E) Enforcement.--Section 502 of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1132) is amended--
(i) in subsection (a)(6), by striking ``or (8)'' and
inserting ``(8), or (9)''; and
(ii) in subsection (c), by redesignating paragraph (9) as
paragraph (10), and by inserting after paragraph (8) the
following:
``(9)(A) The Secretary may assess a civil penalty against
any employer of up to $100 a day from the date of the
employer's failure to meet the notice requirement of section
701(f)(3)(B)(i)(I). For purposes of this subparagraph, each
violation with respect to any single employee shall be
treated as a separate violation.
``(B) The Secretary may assess a civil penalty against any
plan administrator of up to $100 a day from the date of the
plan administrator's failure to timely provide to any State
the information required to be disclosed under section
701(f)(3)(B)(ii). For purposes of this subparagraph, each
violation with respect to any single participant or
beneficiary shall be treated as a separate violation.''.
(2) Amendments to public health service act.--Section
2701(f) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg(f))
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Special rules for application in case of medicaid and
chip.--
``(A) In general.--A group health plan, and a health
insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage in
connection with a group health plan, shall permit an employee
who is eligible, but not enrolled, for coverage under the
terms of the plan (or a dependent of such an employee if the
dependent is eligible, but not enrolled, for coverage under
such terms) to enroll for coverage under the terms of the
plan if either of the following conditions is met:
``(i) Termination of medicaid or chip coverage.--The
employee or dependent is covered under a Medicaid plan under
title XIX of the Social Security Act or under a State child
health plan under title XXI of such Act and coverage of the
employee or dependent under such a plan is terminated as a
result of loss of eligibility for such coverage and the
employee requests coverage under the group health plan (or
health insurance coverage) not later than 60 days after the
date of termination of such coverage.
``(ii) Eligibility for employment assistance under medicaid
or chip.--The employee or dependent becomes eligible for
assistance, with respect to coverage under the group health
plan or health insurance coverage, under such Medicaid plan
or State child health plan (including under any waiver or
demonstration project conducted under or in relation to such
a plan), if the employee requests coverage under the group
health plan or health insurance coverage not later than 60
days after the date the employee or dependent is determined
to be eligible for such assistance.
``(B) Coordination with medicaid and chip.--
``(i) Outreach to employees regarding availability of
medicaid and chip coverage.--

``(I) In general.--Each employer that maintains a group
health plan in a State that provides medical assistance under
a State Medicaid plan under title XIX of the Social Security
Act, or child health assistance under a State child health
plan under title XXI of such Act, in the form of premium
assistance for the purchase of coverage under a group health
plan, shall provide to each employee a written notice
informing the employee of potential opportunities then
currently available in the State in which the employee
resides for premium assistance under such plans for health
coverage of the employee or the employee's dependents. For
purposes of compliance with this subclause, the employer may
use any State-specific model notice developed in accordance
with section 701(f)(3)(B)(i)(II) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1181(f)(3)(B)(i)(II)).
``(II) Option to provide concurrent with provision of plan
materials to employee.--An employer may provide the model
notice applicable to the State in which an employee resides
concurrent with the furnishing of materials notifying the
employee of health plan eligibility, concurrent with
materials provided to the employee in connection with an open
season or election process conducted under the plan, or
concurrent with the furnishing of the summary plan
description as provided in section 104(b) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

``(ii) Disclosure about group health plan benefits to
states for medicaid and chip eligible individuals.--In the
case of an enrollee in a group health plan who is covered
under a Medicaid plan of a State under title XIX of the
Social Security Act or under a State child health plan under
title XXI of such Act, the plan administrator of the group
health plan shall disclose to the State, upon request,
information about the benefits available under the group
health plan in sufficient specificity, as determined under
regulations of the Secretary of Health and Human Services in
consultation with the Secretary that require use of the model
coverage coordination disclosure form developed under section
311(b)(1)(C) of the Children's Health Insurance
Reauthorization Act of 2009, so as to permit the State to
make a determination (under paragraph (2)(B), (3), or (10) of
section 2105(c) of the Social Security Act or otherwise)
concerning the cost-effectiveness of the State providing
medical or child health assistance through premium assistance
for the purchase of coverage under such group health plan and
in order for the State to provide supplemental benefits
required under paragraph (10)(E) of such section or other
authority.''.

TITLE IV--STRENGTHENING QUALITY OF CARE AND HEALTH OUTCOMES

SEC. 401. CHILD HEALTH QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES FOR
CHILDREN ENROLLED IN MEDICAID OR CHIP.

(a) Development of Child Health Quality Measures for
Children Enrolled in Medicaid or Chip.--Title XI (42 U.S.C.
1301 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 1139 the
following new section:

``SEC. 1139A. CHILD HEALTH QUALITY MEASURES.

``(a) Development of an Initial Core Set of Health Care
Quality Measures for Children Enrolled in Medicaid or Chip.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than January 1, 2010, the
Secretary shall identify and publish for general comment an
initial, recommended core set of child health quality
measures for use by State programs administered under titles
XIX and XXI, health insurance issuers and managed care
entities that enter into contracts with such programs, and
providers of items and services under such programs.
``(2) Identification of initial core measures.--In
consultation with the individuals and entities described in
subsection (b)(3), the Secretary shall identify existing
quality of care measures for children that are in use under
public and privately sponsored health care coverage
arrangements, or that are part of reporting systems that
measure both the presence and duration of health insurance
coverage over time.
``(3) Recommendations and dissemination.--Based on such
existing and identified measures, the Secretary shall publish
an initial core set of child health quality measures that
includes (but is not limited to) the following:
``(A) The duration of children's health insurance coverage
over a 12-month time period.
``(B) The availability and effectiveness of a full range
of--
``(i) preventive services, treatments, and services for
acute conditions, including services to promote healthy
birth, prevent and treat premature birth, and detect the
presence or risk of physical or mental conditions that could
adversely affect growth and development; and
``(ii) treatments to correct or ameliorate the effects of
physical and mental conditions, including chronic conditions,
in infants, young children, school-age children, and
adolescents.
``(C) The availability of care in a range of ambulatory and
inpatient health care settings in which such care is
furnished.
``(D) The types of measures that, taken together, can be
used to estimate the overall national quality of health care
for children, including children with special needs, and to
perform comparative analyses of pediatric health care quality
and racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in child
health and health care for children.
``(4) Encourage voluntary and standardized reporting.--Not
later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of
2009, the Secretary, in consultation with States, shall
develop a standardized format for reporting information and
procedures and approaches that encourage States to use the
initial core measurement set to voluntarily report
information regarding the quality of pediatric health care
under titles XIX and XXI.
``(5) Adoption of best practices in implementing quality
programs.--The Secretary shall disseminate information to
States regarding best practices among States with respect to
measuring and reporting on the

[[Page 1611]]

quality of health care for children, and shall facilitate the
adoption of such best practices. In developing best practices
approaches, the Secretary shall give particular attention to
State measurement techniques that ensure the timeliness and
accuracy of provider reporting, encourage provider reporting
compliance, encourage successful quality improvement
strategies, and improve efficiency in data collection using
health information technology.
``(6) Reports to congress.--Not later than January 1, 2011,
and every 3 years thereafter, the Secretary shall report to
Congress on--
``(A) the status of the Secretary's efforts to improve--
``(i) quality related to the duration and stability of
health insurance coverage for children under titles XIX and
XXI;
``(ii) the quality of children's health care under such
titles, including preventive health services, health care for
acute conditions, chronic health care, and health services to
ameliorate the effects of physical and mental conditions and
to aid in growth and development of infants, young children,
school-age children, and adolescents with special health care
needs; and
``(iii) the quality of children's health care under such
titles across the domains of quality, including clinical
quality, health care safety, family experience with health
care, health care in the most integrated setting, and
elimination of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities
in health and health care;
``(B) the status of voluntary reporting by States under
titles XIX and XXI, utilizing the initial core quality
measurement set; and
``(C) any recommendations for legislative changes needed to
improve the quality of care provided to children under titles
XIX and XXI, including recommendations for quality reporting
by States.
``(7) Technical assistance.--The Secretary shall provide
technical assistance to States to assist them in adopting and
utilizing core child health quality measures in administering
the State plans under titles XIX and XXI.
``(8) Definition of core set.--In this section, the term
`core set' means a group of valid, reliable, and evidence-
based quality measures that, taken together--
``(A) provide information regarding the quality of health
coverage and health care for children;
``(B) address the needs of children throughout the
developmental age span; and
``(C) allow purchasers, families, and health care providers
to understand the quality of care in relation to the
preventive needs of children, treatments aimed at managing
and resolving acute conditions, and diagnostic and treatment
services whose purpose is to correct or ameliorate physical,
mental, or developmental conditions that could, if untreated
or poorly treated, become chronic.
``(b) Advancing and Improving Pediatric Quality Measures.--
``(1) Establishment of pediatric quality measures
program.--Not later than January 1, 2011, the Secretary shall
establish a pediatric quality measures program to--
``(A) improve and strengthen the initial core child health
care quality measures established by the Secretary under
subsection (a);
``(B) expand on existing pediatric quality measures used by
public and private health care purchasers and advance the
development of such new and emerging quality measures; and
``(C) increase the portfolio of evidence-based, consensus
pediatric quality measures available to public and private
purchasers of children's health care services, providers, and
consumers.
``(2) Evidence-based measures.--The measures developed
under the pediatric quality measures program shall, at a
minimum, be--
``(A) evidence-based and, where appropriate, risk adjusted;
``(B) designed to identify and eliminate racial and ethnic
disparities in child health and the provision of health care;
``(C) designed to ensure that the data required for such
measures is collected and reported in a standard format that
permits comparison of quality and data at a State, plan, and
provider level;
``(D) periodically updated; and
``(E) responsive to the child health needs, services, and
domains of health care quality described in clauses (i),
(ii), and (iii) of subsection (a)(6)(A).
``(3) Process for pediatric quality measures program.--In
identifying gaps in existing pediatric quality measures and
establishing priorities for development and advancement of
such measures, the Secretary shall consult with--
``(A) States;
``(B) pediatricians, children's hospitals, and other
primary and specialized pediatric health care professionals
(including members of the allied health professions) who
specialize in the care and treatment of children,
particularly children with special physical, mental, and
developmental health care needs;
``(C) dental professionals, including pediatric dental
professionals;
``(D) health care providers that furnish primary health
care to children and families who live in urban and rural
medically underserved communities or who are members of
distinct population sub-groups at heightened risk for poor
health outcomes;
``(E) national organizations representing children,
including children with disabilities and children with
chronic conditions;
``(F) national organizations representing consumers and
purchasers of children's health care;
``(G) national organizations and individuals with expertise
in pediatric health quality measurement; and
``(H) voluntary consensus standards setting organizations
and other organizations involved in the advancement of
evidence-based measures of health care.
``(4) Developing, validating, and testing a portfolio of
pediatric quality measures.--As part of the program to
advance pediatric quality measures, the Secretary shall--
``(A) award grants and contracts for the development,
testing, and validation of new, emerging, and innovative
evidence-based measures for children's health care services
across the domains of quality described in clauses (i), (ii),
and (iii) of subsection (a)(6)(A); and
``(B) award grants and contracts for--
``(i) the development of consensus on evidence-based
measures for children's health care services;
``(ii) the dissemination of such measures to public and
private purchasers of health care for children; and
``(iii) the updating of such measures as necessary.
``(5) Revising, strengthening, and improving initial core
measures.--Beginning no later than January 1, 2013, and
annually thereafter, the Secretary shall publish recommended
changes to the core measures described in subsection (a) that
shall reflect the testing, validation, and consensus process
for the development of pediatric quality measures described
in subsection paragraphs (1) through (4).
``(6) Definition of pediatric quality measure.--In this
subsection, the term `pediatric quality measure' means a
measurement of clinical care that is capable of being
examined through the collection and analysis of relevant
information, that is developed in order to assess 1 or more
aspects of pediatric health care quality in various
institutional and ambulatory health care settings, including
the structure of the clinical care system, the process of
care, the outcome of care, or patient experiences in care.
``(7) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as supporting the restriction of coverage, under
title XIX or XXI or otherwise, to only those services that
are evidence-based.
``(c) Annual State Reports Regarding State-Specific Quality
of Care Measures Applied Under Medicaid or Chip.--
``(1) Annual state reports.--Each State with a State plan
approved under title XIX or a State child health plan
approved under title XXI shall annually report to the
Secretary on the--
``(A) State-specific child health quality measures applied
by the States under such plans, including measures described
in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (a)(6); and
``(B) State-specific information on the quality of health
care furnished to children under such plans, including
information collected through external quality reviews of
managed care organizations under section 1932 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-4) and benchmark plans under
sections 1937 and 2103 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-7,
1397cc).
``(2) Publication.--Not later than September 30, 2010, and
annually thereafter, the Secretary shall collect, analyze,
and make publicly available the information reported by
States under paragraph (1).
``(d) Demonstration Projects for Improving the Quality of
Children's Health Care and the Use of Health Information
Technology.--
``(1) In general.--During the period of fiscal years 2009
through 2013, the Secretary shall award not more than 10
grants to States and child health providers to conduct
demonstration projects to evaluate promising ideas for
improving the quality of children's health care provided
under title XIX or XXI, including projects to--
``(A) experiment with, and evaluate the use of, new
measures of the quality of children's health care under such
titles (including testing the validity and suitability for
reporting of such measures);
``(B) promote the use of health information technology in
care delivery for children under such titles;
``(C) evaluate provider-based models which improve the
delivery of children's health care services under such
titles, including care management for children with chronic
conditions and the use of evidence-based approaches to
improve the effectiveness, safety, and efficiency of health
care services for children; or
``(D) demonstrate the impact of the model electronic health
record format for children developed and disseminated under
subsection (f) on improving pediatric health, including

[[Page 1612]]

the effects of chronic childhood health conditions, and
pediatric health care quality as well as reducing health care
costs.
``(2) Requirements.--In awarding grants under this
subsection, the Secretary shall ensure that--
``(A) only 1 demonstration project funded under a grant
awarded under this subsection shall be conducted in a State;
and
``(B) demonstration projects funded under grants awarded
under this subsection shall be conducted evenly between
States with large urban areas and States with large rural
areas.
``(3) Authority for multistate projects.--A demonstration
project conducted with a grant awarded under this subsection
may be conducted on a multistate basis, as needed.
``(4) Funding.--$20,000,000 of the amount appropriated
under subsection (i) for a fiscal year shall be used to carry
out this subsection.
``(e) Childhood Obesity Demonstration Project.--
``(1) Authority to conduct demonstration.--The Secretary,
in consultation with the Administrator of the Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services, shall conduct a demonstration
project to develop a comprehensive and systematic model for
reducing childhood obesity by awarding grants to eligible
entities to carry out such project. Such model shall--
``(A) identify, through self-assessment, behavioral risk
factors for obesity among children;
``(B) identify, through self-assessment, needed clinical
preventive and screening benefits among those children
identified as target individuals on the basis of such risk
factors;
``(C) provide ongoing support to such target individuals
and their families to reduce risk factors and promote the
appropriate use of preventive and screening benefits; and
``(D) be designed to improve health outcomes, satisfaction,
quality of life, and appropriate use of items and services
for which medical assistance is available under title XIX or
child health assistance is available under title XXI among
such target individuals.
``(2) Eligibility entities.--For purposes of this
subsection, an eligible entity is any of the following:
``(A) A city, county, or Indian tribe.
``(B) A local or tribal educational agency.
``(C) An accredited university, college, or community
college.
``(D) A federally-qualified health center.
``(E) A local health department.
``(F) A health care provider.
``(G) A community-based organization.
``(H) Any other entity determined appropriate by the
Secretary, including a consortia or partnership of entities
described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (G).
``(3) Use of funds.--An eligible entity awarded a grant
under this subsection shall use the funds made available
under the grant to--
``(A) carry out community-based activities related to
reducing childhood obesity, including by--
``(i) forming partnerships with entities, including schools
and other facilities providing recreational services, to
establish programs for after school and weekend community
activities that are designed to reduce childhood obesity;
``(ii) forming partnerships with daycare facilities to
establish programs that promote healthy eating behaviors and
physical activity; and
``(iii) developing and evaluating community educational
activities targeting good nutrition and promoting healthy
eating behaviors;
``(B) carry out age-appropriate school-based activities
that are designed to reduce childhood obesity, including by--
``(i) developing and testing educational curricula and
intervention programs designed to promote healthy eating
behaviors and habits in youth, which may include--

``(I) after hours physical activity programs; and
``(II) science-based interventions with multiple components
to prevent eating disorders including nutritional content,
understanding and responding to hunger and satiety, positive
body image development, positive self-esteem development, and
learning life skills (such as stress management,
communication skills, problemsolving and decisionmaking
skills), as well as consideration of cultural and
developmental issues, and the role of family, school, and
community;

``(ii) providing education and training to educational
professionals regarding how to promote a healthy lifestyle
and a healthy school environment for children;
``(iii) planning and implementing a healthy lifestyle
curriculum or program with an emphasis on healthy eating
behaviors and physical activity; and
``(iv) planning and implementing healthy lifestyle classes
or programs for parents or guardians, with an emphasis on
healthy eating behaviors and physical activity for children;
``(C) carry out educational, counseling, promotional, and
training activities through the local health care delivery
systems including by--
``(i) promoting healthy eating behaviors and physical
activity services to treat or prevent eating disorders, being
overweight, and obesity;
``(ii) providing patient education and counseling to
increase physical activity and promote healthy eating
behaviors;
``(iii) training health professionals on how to identify
and treat obese and overweight individuals which may include
nutrition and physical activity counseling; and
``(iv) providing community education by a health
professional on good nutrition and physical activity to
develop a better understanding of the relationship between
diet, physical activity, and eating disorders, obesity, or
being overweight; and
``(D) provide, through qualified health professionals,
training and supervision for community health workers to--
``(i) educate families regarding the relationship between
nutrition, eating habits, physical activity, and obesity;
``(ii) educate families about effective strategies to
improve nutrition, establish healthy eating patterns, and
establish appropriate levels of physical activity; and
``(iii) educate and guide parents regarding the ability to
model and communicate positive health behaviors.
``(4) Priority.--In awarding grants under paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall give priority to awarding grants to
eligible entities--
``(A) that demonstrate that they have previously applied
successfully for funds to carry out activities that seek to
promote individual and community health and to prevent the
incidence of chronic disease and that can cite published and
peer-reviewed research demonstrating that the activities that
the entities propose to carry out with funds made available
under the grant are effective;
``(B) that will carry out programs or activities that seek
to accomplish a goal or goals set by the State in the Healthy
People 2010 plan of the State;
``(C) that provide non-Federal contributions, either in
cash or in-kind, to the costs of funding activities under the
grants;
``(D) that develop comprehensive plans that include a
strategy for extending program activities developed under
grants in the years following the fiscal years for which they
receive grants under this subsection;
``(E) located in communities that are medically
underserved, as determined by the Secretary;
``(F) located in areas in which the average poverty rate is
at least 150 percent or higher of the average poverty rate in
the State involved, as determined by the Secretary; and
``(G) that submit plans that exhibit multisectoral,
cooperative conduct that includes the involvement of a broad
range of stakeholders, including--
``(i) community-based organizations;
``(ii) local governments;
``(iii) local educational agencies;
``(iv) the private sector;
``(v) State or local departments of health;
``(vi) accredited colleges, universities, and community
colleges;
``(vii) health care providers;
``(viii) State and local departments of transportation and
city planning; and
``(ix) other entities determined appropriate by the
Secretary.
``(5) Program design.--
``(A) Initial design.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2009, the Secretary shall design the
demonstration project. The demonstration should draw upon
promising, innovative models and incentives to reduce
behavioral risk factors. The Administrator of the Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services shall consult with the Director
of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the
Director of the Office of Minority Health, the heads of other
agencies in the Department of Health and Human Services, and
such professional organizations, as the Secretary determines
to be appropriate, on the design, conduct, and evaluation of
the demonstration.
``(B) Number and project areas.--Not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of the Children's Health
Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, the Secretary
shall award 1 grant that is specifically designed to
determine whether programs similar to programs to be
conducted by other grantees under this subsection should be
implemented with respect to the general population of
children who are eligible for child health assistance under
State child health plans under title XXI in order to reduce
the incidence of childhood obesity among such population.
``(6) Report to congress.--Not later than 3 years after the
date the Secretary implements the demonstration project under
this subsection, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a
report that describes the project, evaluates the
effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the project,
evaluates the beneficiary satisfaction under the project, and
includes any such other information as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate.
``(7) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Federally-qualified health center.--The term
`Federally-qualified health center' has the meaning given
that term in section 1905(l)(2)(B).
``(B) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' has the
meaning given that term in section

[[Page 1613]]

4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1603).
``(C) Self-assessment.--The term `self-assessment' means a
form that--
``(i) includes questions regarding--

``(I) behavioral risk factors;
``(II) needed preventive and screening services; and
``(III) target individuals' preferences for receiving
follow-up information;

``(ii) is assessed using such computer generated assessment
programs; and
``(iii) allows for the provision of such ongoing support to
the individual as the Secretary determines appropriate.
``(D) Ongoing support.--The term `ongoing support' means--
``(i) to provide any target individual with information,
feedback, health coaching, and recommendations regarding--

``(I) the results of a self-assessment given to the
individual;
``(II) behavior modification based on the self-assessment;
and
``(III) any need for clinical preventive and screening
services or treatment including medical nutrition therapy;

``(ii) to provide any target individual with referrals to
community resources and programs available to assist the
target individual in reducing health risks; and
``(iii) to provide the information described in clause (i)
to a health care provider, if designated by the target
individual to receive such information.
``(8) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection, $25,000,000
for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013.
``(f) Development of Model Electronic Health Record Format
for Children Enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than January 1, 2010, the
Secretary shall establish a program to encourage the
development and dissemination of a model electronic health
record format for children enrolled in the State plan under
title XIX or the State child health plan under title XXI that
is--
``(A) subject to State laws, accessible to parents,
caregivers, and other consumers for the sole purpose of
demonstrating compliance with school or leisure activity
requirements, such as appropriate immunizations or physicals;
``(B) designed to allow interoperable exchanges that
conform with Federal and State privacy and security
requirements;
``(C) structured in a manner that permits parents and
caregivers to view and understand the extent to which the
care their children receive is clinically appropriate and of
high quality; and
``(D) capable of being incorporated into, and otherwise
compatible with, other standards developed for electronic
health records.
``(2) Funding.--$5,000,000 of the amount appropriated under
subsection (i) for a fiscal year shall be used to carry out
this subsection.
``(g) Study of Pediatric Health and Health Care Quality
Measures.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than July 1, 2010, the
Institute of Medicine shall study and report to Congress on
the extent and quality of efforts to measure child health
status and the quality of health care for children across the
age span and in relation to preventive care, treatments for
acute conditions, and treatments aimed at ameliorating or
correcting physical, mental, and developmental conditions in
children. In conducting such study and preparing such report,
the Institute of Medicine shall--
``(A) consider all of the major national population-based
reporting systems sponsored by the Federal Government that
are currently in place, including reporting requirements
under Federal grant programs and national population surveys
and estimates conducted directly by the Federal Government;
``(B) identify the information regarding child health and
health care quality that each system is designed to capture
and generate, the study and reporting periods covered by each
system, and the extent to which the information so generated
is made widely available through publication;
``(C) identify gaps in knowledge related to children's
health status, health disparities among subgroups of
children, the effects of social conditions on children's
health status and use and effectiveness of health care, and
the relationship between child health status and family
income, family stability and preservation, and children's
school readiness and educational achievement and attainment;
and
``(D) make recommendations regarding improving and
strengthening the timeliness, quality, and public
transparency and accessibility of information about child
health and health care quality.
``(2) Funding.--Up to $1,000,000 of the amount appropriated
under subsection (i) for a fiscal year shall be used to carry
out this subsection.
``(h) Rule of Construction.--Notwithstanding any other
provision in this section, no evidence based quality measure
developed, published, or used as a basis of measurement or
reporting under this section may be used to establish an
irrebuttable presumption regarding either the medical
necessity of care or the maximum permissible coverage for any
individual child who is eligible for and receiving medical
assistance under title XIX or child health assistance under
title XXI.
``(i) Appropriation.--Out of any funds in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, there is appropriated for each of
fiscal years 2009 through 2013, $45,000,000 for the purpose
of carrying out this section (other than subsection (e)).
Funds appropriated under this subsection shall remain
available until expended.''.
(b) Increased Matching Rate for Collecting and Reporting on
Child Health Measures.--Section 1903(a)(3)(A) (42 U.S.C.
1396b(a)(3)(A)), is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (i); and
(2) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) an amount equal to the Federal medical assistance
percentage (as defined in section 1905(b)) of so much of the
sums expended during such quarter (as found necessary by the
Secretary for the proper and efficient administration of the
State plan) as are attributable to such developments or
modifications of systems of the type described in clause (i)
as are necessary for the efficient collection and reporting
on child health measures; and''.

SEC. 402. IMPROVED AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC INFORMATION
REGARDING ENROLLMENT OF CHILDREN IN CHIP AND
MEDICAID.

(a) Inclusion of Process and Access Measures in Annual
State Reports.--Section 2108 (42 U.S.C. 1397hh) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``The State'' and inserting ``Subject to
subsection (e), the State''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Information Required for Inclusion in State Annual
Report.--The State shall include the following information in
the annual report required under subsection (a):
``(1) Eligibility criteria, enrollment, and retention data
(including data with respect to continuity of coverage or
duration of benefits).
``(2) Data regarding the extent to which the State uses
process measures with respect to determining the eligibility
of children under the State child health plan, including
measures such as 12-month continuous eligibility, self-
declaration of income for applications or renewals, or
presumptive eligibility.
``(3) Data regarding denials of eligibility and
redeterminations of eligibility.
``(4) Data regarding access to primary and specialty
services, access to networks of care, and care coordination
provided under the State child health plan, using quality
care and consumer satisfaction measures included in the
Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems
(CAHPS) survey.
``(5) If the State provides child health assistance in the
form of premium assistance for the purchase of coverage under
a group health plan, data regarding the provision of such
assistance, including the extent to which employer-sponsored
health insurance coverage is available for children eligible
for child health assistance under the State child health
plan, the range of the monthly amount of such assistance
provided on behalf of a child or family, the number of
children or families provided such assistance on a monthly
basis, the income of the children or families provided such
assistance, the benefits and cost-sharing protection provided
under the State child health plan to supplement the coverage
purchased with such premium assistance, the effective
strategies the State engages in to reduce any administrative
barriers to the provision of such assistance, and, the
effects, if any, of the provision of such assistance on
preventing the coverage provided under the State child health
plan from substituting for coverage provided under employer-
sponsored health insurance offered in the State.
``(6) To the extent applicable, a description of any State
activities that are designed to reduce the number of
uncovered children in the State, including through a State
health insurance connector program or support for innovative
private health coverage initiatives.''.
(b) Standardized Reporting Format.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall specify a
standardized format for States to use for reporting the
information required under section 2108(e) of the Social
Security Act, as added by subsection (a)(2).
(2) Transition period for states.--Each State that is
required to submit a report under subsection (a) of section
2108 of the Social Security Act that includes the information
required under subsection (e) of such section may use up to 3
reporting periods to transition to the reporting of such
information in accordance with the standardized format
specified by the Secretary under paragraph (1).
(c) Additional Funding for the Secretary To Improve
Timeliness of Data Reporting and Analysis for Purposes of
Determining Enrollment Increases Under Medicaid and CHIP.--
(1) Appropriation.--There is appropriated, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $5,000,000 to the
Secretary

[[Page 1614]]

for fiscal year 2009 for the purpose of improving the
timeliness of the data reported and analyzed from the
Medicaid Statistical Information System (MSIS) for purposes
of providing more timely data on enrollment and eligibility
of children under Medicaid and CHIP and to provide guidance
to States with respect to any new reporting requirements
related to such improvements. Amounts appropriated under this
paragraph shall remain available until expended.
(2) Requirements.--The improvements made by the Secretary
under paragraph (1) shall be designed and implemented
(including with respect to any necessary guidance for States
to report such information in a complete and expeditious
manner) so that, beginning no later than October 1, 2009,
data regarding the enrollment of low-income children (as
defined in section 2110(c)(4) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1397jj(c)(4)) of a State enrolled in the State plan
under Medicaid or the State child health plan under CHIP with
respect to a fiscal year shall be collected and analyzed by
the Secretary within 6 months of submission.
(d) GAO Study and Report on Access to Primary and
Speciality Services.--
(1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study of children's access to primary
and specialty services under Medicaid and CHIP, including--
(A) the extent to which providers are willing to treat
children eligible for such programs;
(B) information on such children's access to networks of
care;
(C) geographic availability of primary and specialty
services under such programs;
(D) the extent to which care coordination is provided for
children's care under Medicaid and CHIP; and
(E) as appropriate, information on the degree of
availability of services for children under such programs.
(2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a
report to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the
Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives on the study conducted under paragraph (1)
that includes recommendations for such Federal and State
legislative and administrative changes as the Comptroller
General determines are necessary to address any barriers to
access to children's care under Medicaid and CHIP that may
exist.

SEC. 403. APPLICATION OF CERTAIN MANAGED CARE QUALITY
SAFEGUARDS TO CHIP.

(a) In General.--Section 2103(f) of Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1397bb(f)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(3) Compliance with managed care requirements.--The State
child health plan shall provide for the application of
subsections (a)(4), (a)(5), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of section
1932 (relating to requirements for managed care) to coverage,
State agencies, enrollment brokers, managed care entities,
and managed care organizations under this title in the same
manner as such subsections apply to coverage and such
entities and organizations under title XIX.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to contract years for health plans beginning on
or after July 1, 2009.

TITLE V--IMPROVING ACCESS TO BENEFITS

SEC. 501. DENTAL BENEFITS.

(a) Coverage.--
(1) In general.--Section 2103 (42 U.S.C. 1397cc) is
amended--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking
``subsection (c)(5)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (5) and (7)
of subsection (c)''; and
(ii) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``at least'' after
``that is''; and
(B) in subsection (c)--
(i) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (7); and
(ii) by inserting after paragraph (4), the following:
``(5) Dental benefits.--
``(A) In general.--The child health assistance provided to
a targeted low-income child shall include coverage of dental
services necessary to prevent disease and promote oral
health, restore oral structures to health and function, and
treat emergency conditions.
``(B) Permitting use of dental benchmark plans by certain
states.--A State may elect to meet the requirement of
subparagraph (A) through dental coverage that is equivalent
to a benchmark dental benefit package described in
subparagraph (C).
``(C) Benchmark dental benefit packages.--The benchmark
dental benefit packages are as follows:
``(i) FEHBP children's dental coverage.--A dental benefits
plan under chapter 89A of title 5, United States Code, that
has been selected most frequently by employees seeking
dependent coverage, among such plans that provide such
dependent coverage, in either of the previous 2 plan years.
``(ii) State employee dependent dental coverage.--A dental
benefits plan that is offered and generally available to
State employees in the State involved and that has been
selected most frequently by employees seeking dependent
coverage, among such plans that provide such dependent
coverage, in either of the previous 2 plan years.
``(iii) Coverage offered through commercial dental plan.--A
dental benefits plan that has the largest insured commercial,
non-medicaid enrollment of dependent covered lives of such
plans that is offered in the State involved.''.
(2) Assuring access to care.--Section 2102(a)(7)(B) (42
U.S.C. 1397bb(c)(2)) is amended by inserting ``and services
described in section 2103(c)(5)'' after ``emergency
services''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraphs (1)
and (2) shall apply to coverage of items and services
furnished on or after October 1, 2009.
(b) State Option to Provide Dental-Only Supplemental
Coverage.--
(1) In general.----Section 2110(b) (42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(C), by inserting ``, subject to
paragraph (5),'' after ``under title XIX or''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) State option to provide dental-only supplemental
coverage.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), in
the case of any child who is enrolled in a group health plan
or health insurance coverage offered through an employer who
would, but for the application of paragraph (1)(C), satisfy
the requirements for being a targeted low-income child under
the State child health plan, a State may waive the
application of such paragraph to the child in order to
provide--
``(i) dental coverage consistent with the requirements of
subsection (c)(5) of section 2103; or
``(ii) cost-sharing protection for dental coverage
consistent with such requirements and the requirements of
subsection (e)(3)(B) of such section.
``(B) Limitation.--A State may limit the application of a
waiver of paragraph (1)(C) to children whose family income
does not exceed a level specified by the State, so long as
the level so specified does not exceed the maximum income
level otherwise established for other children under the
State child health plan.
``(C) Conditions.--A State may not offer dental-only
supplemental coverage under this paragraph unless the State
satisfies the following conditions:
``(i) Income eligibility.--The State child health plan
(whether implemented under title XIX or this title)--

``(I) has the highest income eligibility standard permitted
under this title (or a waiver) as of January 1, 2009;
``(II) does not limit the acceptance of applications for
children or impose any numerical limitation, waiting list, or
similar limitation on the eligibility of such children for
child health assistance under such State plan; and
``(III) provides benefits to all children in the State who
apply for and meet eligibility standards.

``(ii) No more favorable treatment.--The State child health
plan may not provide more favorable dental coverage or cost-
sharing protection for dental coverage to children provided
dental-only supplemental coverage under this paragraph than
the dental coverage and cost-sharing protection for dental
coverage provided to targeted low-income children who are
eligible for the full range of child health assistance
provided under the State child health plan.''.
(2) State option to waive waiting period.--Section
2102(b)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C. 1397bb(b)(1)(B)), as amended by
section 111(b)(2), is amended--
(A) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in clause (iii), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iv) at State option, may not apply a waiting period in
the case of a child provided dental-only supplemental
coverage under section 2110(b)(5).''.
(3) Application of enhanced match under medicaid.--Section
1905 (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended--
(A) in subsection (b), in the fourth sentence, by striking
``or subsection (u)(3)'' and inserting ``, (u)(3), or
(u)(4)''; and
(B) in subsection (u)--
(i) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(ii) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph:
``(4) For purposes of subsection (b), the expenditures
described in this paragraph are expenditures for dental-only
supplemental coverage for children described in section
2110(b)(5).''.
(c) Dental Education for Parents of Newborns.--The
Secretary shall develop and implement, through entities that
fund or provide perinatal care services to targeted low-
income children under a State child health plan under title
XXI of the Social Security Act, a program to deliver oral
health educational materials that inform new parents about
risks for, and prevention of, early childhood caries and the
need for a dental visit within their newborn's first year of
life.
(d) Provision of Dental Services Through FQHCs.--

[[Page 1615]]

(1) Medicaid.--Section 1902(a) (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (70);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (71) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (71) the following new
paragraph:
``(72) provide that the State will not prevent a Federally-
qualified health center from entering into contractual
relationships with private practice dental providers in the
provision of Federally-qualified health center services.''.
(2) CHIP.--Section 2107(e)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1397g(e)(1)), as
amended by subsections (a)(2) and (d)(2) of section 203, is
amended by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph (and redesignating the succeeding subparagraphs
accordingly):
``(C) Section 1902(a)(72) (relating to limiting FQHC
contracting for provision of dental services).''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on January 1, 2009.
(e) Reporting Information on Dental Health.--
(1) Medicaid.--Section 1902(a)(43)(D)(iii) (42 U.S.C.
1396a(a)(43)(D)(iii)) is amended by inserting ``and other
information relating to the provision of dental services to
such children described in section 2108(e)'' after
``receiving dental services,''.
(2) CHIP.--Section 2108 (42 U.S.C. 1397hh) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Information on Dental Care for Children.--
``(1) In general.--Each annual report under subsection (a)
shall include the following information with respect to care
and services described in section 1905(r)(3) provided to
targeted low-income children enrolled in the State child
health plan under this title at any time during the year
involved:
``(A) The number of enrolled children by age grouping used
for reporting purposes under section 1902(a)(43).
``(B) For children within each such age grouping,
information of the type contained in questions 12(a)-(c) of
CMS Form 416 (that consists of the number of enrolled
targeted low income children who receive any, preventive, or
restorative dental care under the State plan).
``(C) For the age grouping that includes children 8 years
of age, the number of such children who have received a
protective sealant on at least one permanent molar tooth.
``(2) Inclusion of information on enrollees in managed care
plans.--The information under paragraph (1) shall include
information on children who are enrolled in managed care
plans and other private health plans and contracts with such
plans under this title shall provide for the reporting of
such information by such plans to the State.''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall be effective for annual reports submitted for years
beginning after date of enactment.
(f) Improved Accessibility of Dental Provider Information
to Enrollees Under Medicaid and CHIP.--The Secretary shall--
(1) work with States, pediatric dentists, and other dental
providers (including providers that are, or are affiliated
with, a school of dentistry) to include, not later than 6
months after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the
Insure Kids Now website (http://www.insurekidsnow.gov/) and
hotline (1-877-KIDS-NOW) (or on any successor websites or
hotlines) a current and accurate list of all such dentists
and providers within each State that provide dental services
to children enrolled in the State plan (or waiver) under
Medicaid or the State child health plan (or waiver) under
CHIP, and shall ensure that such list is updated at least
quarterly; and
(2) work with States to include, not later than 6 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act, a description of
the dental services provided under each State plan (or
waiver) under Medicaid and each State child health plan (or
waiver) under CHIP on such Insure Kids Now website, and shall
ensure that such list is updated at least annually.
(g) Inclusion of Status of Efforts To Improve Dental Care
in Reports on the Quality of Children's Health Care Under
Medicaid and CHIP.--Section 1139A(a), as added by section
401(a), is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)(B)(ii), by inserting ``and, with
respect to dental care, conditions requiring the restoration
of teeth, relief of pain and infection, and maintenance of
dental health'' after ``chronic conditions''; and
(2) in paragraph (6)(A)(ii), by inserting ``dental care,''
after ``preventive health services,''.
(h) GAO Study and Report.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall provide for a study that examines--
(A) access to dental services by children in underserved
areas;
(B) children's access to oral health care, including
preventive and restorative services, under Medicaid and CHIP,
including--
(i) the extent to which dental providers are willing to
treat children eligible for such programs;
(ii) information on such children's access to networks of
care, including such networks that serve special needs
children; and
(iii) geographic availability of oral health care,
including preventive and restorative services, under such
programs; and
(C) the feasibility and appropriateness of using qualified
mid-level dental health providers, in coordination with
dentists, to improve access for children to oral health
services and public health overall.
(2) Report.--Not later than 18 months year after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall
submit to Congress a report on the study conducted under
paragraph (1). The report shall include recommendations for
such Federal and State legislative and administrative changes
as the Comptroller General determines are necessary to
address any barriers to access to oral health care, including
preventive and restorative services, under Medicaid and CHIP
that may exist.

SEC. 502. MENTAL HEALTH PARITY IN CHIP PLANS.

(a) Assurance of Parity.--Section 2103(c) (42 U.S.C.
1397cc(c)), as amended by section 501(a)(1)(B), is amended by
inserting after paragraph (5), the following:
``(6) Mental health services parity.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a State child health plan
that provides both medical and surgical benefits and mental
health or substance use disorder benefits, such plan shall
ensure that the financial requirements and treatment
limitations applicable to such mental health or substance use
disorder benefits comply with the requirements of section
2705(a) of the Public Health Service Act in the same manner
as such requirements apply to a group health plan.
``(B) Deemed compliance.--To the extent that a State child
health plan includes coverage with respect to an individual
described in section 1905(a)(4)(B) and covered under the
State plan under section 1902(a)(10)(A) of the services
described in section 1905(a)(4)(B) (relating to early and
periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services
defined in section 1905(r)) and provided in accordance with
section 1902(a)(43), such plan shall be deemed to satisfy the
requirements of subparagraph (A).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 2103 (42 U.S.C. 1397cc)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), as amended by section
501(a)(1)(A)(i), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by
inserting ``, (6),'' after ``(5)''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by striking subparagraph (B) and
redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as subparagraphs (B)
and (C), respectively.

SEC. 503. APPLICATION OF PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR
SERVICES PROVIDED BY FEDERALLY-QUALIFIED HEALTH
CENTERS AND RURAL HEALTH CLINICS.

(a) Application of Prospective Payment System.--
(1) In general.--Section 2107(e)(1) (42 U.S.C.
1397gg(e)(1)), as amended by section 501(c)(2) is amended by
inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new
subparagraph (and redesignating the succeeding subparagraphs
accordingly):
``(D) Section 1902(bb) (relating to payment for services
provided by Federally-qualified health centers and rural
health clinics).''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to services provided on or after October 1, 2009.
(b) Transition Grants.--
(1) Appropriation.--Out of any funds in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, there is appropriated to the
Secretary for fiscal year 2009, $5,000,000, to remain
available until expended, for the purpose of awarding grants
to States with State child health plans under CHIP that are
operated separately from the State Medicaid plan under title
XIX of the Social Security Act (including any waiver of such
plan), or in combination with the State Medicaid plan, for
expenditures related to transitioning to compliance with the
requirement of section 2107(e)(1)(D) of the Social Security
Act (as added by subsection (a)) to apply the prospective
payment system established under section 1902(bb) of the such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(bb)) to services provided by Federally-
qualified health centers and rural health clinics.
(2) Monitoring and report.--The Secretary shall monitor the
impact of the application of such prospective payment system
on the States described in paragraph (1) and, not later than
October 1, 2011, shall report to Congress on any effect on
access to benefits, provider payment rates, or scope of
benefits offered by such States as a result of the
application of such payment system.

SEC. 504. PREMIUM GRACE PERIOD.

(a) In General.--Section 2103(e)(3) (42 U.S.C.
1397cc(e)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(C) Premium grace period.--The State child health plan--
``(i) shall afford individuals enrolled under the plan a
grace period of at least 30 days from the beginning of a new
coverage period to make premium payments before the
individual's coverage under the plan may be terminated; and
``(ii) shall provide to such an individual, not later than
7 days after the first day of such grace period, notice--

[[Page 1616]]

``(I) that failure to make a premium payment within the
grace period will result in termination of coverage under the
State child health plan; and
``(II) of the individual's right to challenge the proposed
termination pursuant to the applicable Federal regulations.

For purposes of clause (i), the term `new coverage period'
means the month immediately following the last month for
which the premium has been paid.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to new coverage periods beginning on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 505. CLARIFICATION OF COVERAGE OF SERVICES PROVIDED
THROUGH SCHOOL-BASED HEALTH CENTERS.

(a) In General.--Section 2103(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397cc(c)), as
amended by section 501(a)(1)(B), is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Availability of coverage for items and services
furnished through school-based health centers.--Nothing in
this title shall be construed as limiting a State's ability
to provide child health assistance for covered items and
services that are furnished through school-based health
centers (as defined in section 2110(c)(9)).''.
(b) Definition.--Section 2110(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397jj) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(9) School-based health center.--
``(A) In general.--The term `school-based health center'
means a health clinic that--
``(i) is located in or near a school facility of a school
district or board or of an Indian tribe or tribal
organization;
``(ii) is organized through school, community, and health
provider relationships;
``(iii) is administered by a sponsoring facility;
``(iv) provides through health professionals primary health
services to children in accordance with State and local law,
including laws relating to licensure and certification; and
``(v) satisfies such other requirements as a State may
establish for the operation of such a clinic.
``(B) Sponsoring facility.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A)(iii), the term `sponsoring facility' includes any of the
following:
``(i) A hospital.
``(ii) A public health department.
``(iii) A community health center.
``(iv) A nonprofit health care agency.
``(v) A school or school system.
``(vi) A program administered by the Indian Health Service
or the Bureau of Indian Affairs or operated by an Indian
tribe or a tribal organization.''.

SEC. 506. MEDICAID AND CHIP PAYMENT AND ACCESS COMMISSION.

(a) In General.--Title XIX (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) is
amended by inserting before section 1901 the following new
section:

``medicaid and chip payment and access commission

``Sec. 1900. (a) Establishment.--There is hereby
established the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access
Commission (in this section referred to as `MACPAC').
``(b) Duties.--
``(1) Review of access policies and annual reports.--MACPAC
shall--
``(A) review policies of the Medicaid program established
under this title (in this section referred to as `Medicaid')
and the State Children's Health Insurance Program established
under title XXI (in this section referred to as `CHIP')
affecting children's access to covered items and services,
including topics described in paragraph (2);
``(B) make recommendations to Congress concerning such
access policies;
``(C) by not later than March 1 of each year (beginning
with 2010), submit a report to Congress containing the
results of such reviews and MACPAC's recommendations
concerning such policies; and
``(D) by not later than June 1 of each year (beginning with
2010), submit a report to Congress containing an examination
of issues affecting Medicaid and CHIP, including the
implications of changes in health care delivery in the United
States and in the market for health care services on such
programs.
``(2) Specific topics to be reviewed.--Specifically, MACPAC
shall review and assess the following:
``(A) Medicaid and chip payment policies.--Payment policies
under Medicaid and CHIP, including--
``(i) the factors affecting expenditures for items and
services in different sectors, including the process for
updating hospital, skilled nursing facility, physician,
Federally-qualified health center, rural health center, and
other fees;
``(ii) payment methodologies; and
``(iii) the relationship of such factors and methodologies
to access and quality of care for Medicaid and CHIP
beneficiaries.
``(B) Interaction of medicaid and chip payment policies
with health care delivery generally.--The effect of Medicaid
and CHIP payment policies on access to items and services for
children and other Medicaid and CHIP populations other than
under this title or title XXI and the implications of changes
in health care delivery in the United States and in the
general market for health care items and services on Medicaid
and CHIP.
``(C) Other access policies.--The effect of other Medicaid
and CHIP policies on access to covered items and services,
including policies relating to transportation and language
barriers.
``(3) Creation of early-warning system.--MACPAC shall
create an early-warning system to identify provider shortage
areas or any other problems that threaten access to care or
the health care status of Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries.
``(4) Comments on certain secretarial reports.--If the
Secretary submits to Congress (or a committee of Congress) a
report that is required by law and that relates to access
policies, including with respect to payment policies, under
Medicaid or CHIP, the Secretary shall transmit a copy of the
report to MACPAC. MACPAC shall review the report and, not
later than 6 months after the date of submittal of the
Secretary's report to Congress, shall submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress written comments on such
report. Such comments may include such recommendations as
MACPAC deems appropriate.
``(5) Agenda and additional reviews.--MACPAC shall consult
periodically with the chairmen and ranking minority members
of the appropriate committees of Congress regarding MACPAC's
agenda and progress towards achieving the agenda. MACPAC may
conduct additional reviews, and submit additional reports to
the appropriate committees of Congress, from time to time on
such topics relating to the program under this title or title
XXI as may be requested by such chairmen and members and as
MACPAC deems appropriate.
``(6) Availability of reports.--MACPAC shall transmit to
the Secretary a copy of each report submitted under this
subsection and shall make such reports available to the
public.
``(7) Appropriate committee of congress.--For purposes of
this section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress'
means the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate.
``(8) Voting and reporting requirements.--With respect to
each recommendation contained in a report submitted under
paragraph (1), each member of MACPAC shall vote on the
recommendation, and MACPAC shall include, by member, the
results of that vote in the report containing the
recommendation.
``(9) Examination of budget consequences.--Before making
any recommendations, MACPAC shall examine the budget
consequences of such recommendations, directly or through
consultation with appropriate expert entities.
``(c) Membership.--
``(1) Number and appointment.--MACPAC shall be composed of
17 members appointed by the Comptroller General of the United
States.
``(2) Qualifications.--
``(A) In general.--The membership of MACPAC shall include
individuals who have had direct experience as enrollees or
parents of enrollees in Medicaid or CHIP and individuals with
national recognition for their expertise in Federal safety
net health programs, health finance and economics, actuarial
science, health facility management, health plans and
integrated delivery systems, reimbursement of health
facilities, health information technology, pediatric
physicians, dentists, and other providers of health services,
and other related fields, who provide a mix of different
professionals, broad geographic representation, and a balance
between urban and rural representatives.
``(B) Inclusion.--The membership of MACPAC shall include
(but not be limited to) physicians and other health
professionals, employers, third-party payers, and individuals
with expertise in the delivery of health services. Such
membership shall also include consumers representing
children, pregnant women, the elderly, and individuals with
disabilities, current or former representatives of State
agencies responsible for administering Medicaid, and current
or former representatives of State agencies responsible for
administering CHIP.
``(C) Majority nonproviders.--Individuals who are directly
involved in the provision, or management of the delivery, of
items and services covered under Medicaid or CHIP shall not
constitute a majority of the membership of MACPAC.
``(D) Ethical disclosure.--The Comptroller General of the
United States shall establish a system for public disclosure
by members of MACPAC of financial and other potential
conflicts of interest relating to such members. Members of
MACPAC shall be treated as employees of Congress for purposes
of applying title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978
(Public Law 95-521).
``(3) Terms.--
``(A) In general.--The terms of members of MACPAC shall be
for 3 years except that the Comptroller General of the United
States shall designate staggered terms for the members first
appointed.
``(B) Vacancies.--Any member appointed to fill a vacancy
occurring before the expiration of the term for which the
member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only
for the remainder of that term. A member may serve after the
expiration of that

[[Page 1617]]

member's term until a successor has taken office. A vacancy
in MACPAC shall be filled in the manner in which the original
appointment was made.
``(4) Compensation.--While serving on the business of
MACPAC (including travel time), a member of MACPAC shall be
entitled to compensation at the per diem equivalent of the
rate provided for level IV of the Executive Schedule under
section 5315 of title 5, United States Code; and while so
serving away from home and the member's regular place of
business, a member may be allowed travel expenses, as
authorized by the Chairman of MACPAC. Physicians serving as
personnel of MACPAC may be provided a physician comparability
allowance by MACPAC in the same manner as Government
physicians may be provided such an allowance by an agency
under section 5948 of title 5, United States Code, and for
such purpose subsection (i) of such section shall apply to
MACPAC in the same manner as it applies to the Tennessee
Valley Authority. For purposes of pay (other than pay of
members of MACPAC) and employment benefits, rights, and
privileges, all personnel of MACPAC shall be treated as if
they were employees of the United States Senate.
``(5) Chairman; vice chairman.--The Comptroller General of
the United States shall designate a member of MACPAC, at the
time of appointment of the member as Chairman and a member as
Vice Chairman for that term of appointment, except that in
the case of vacancy of the Chairmanship or Vice Chairmanship,
the Comptroller General of the United States may designate
another member for the remainder of that member's term.
``(6) Meetings.--MACPAC shall meet at the call of the
Chairman.
``(d) Director and Staff; Experts and Consultants.--Subject
to such review as the Comptroller General of the United
States deems necessary to assure the efficient administration
of MACPAC, MACPAC may--
``(1) employ and fix the compensation of an Executive
Director (subject to the approval of the Comptroller General
of the United States) and such other personnel as may be
necessary to carry out its duties (without regard to the
provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing
appointments in the competitive service);
``(2) seek such assistance and support as may be required
in the performance of its duties from appropriate Federal
departments and agencies;
``(3) enter into contracts or make other arrangements, as
may be necessary for the conduct of the work of MACPAC
(without regard to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (41
U.S.C. 5));
``(4) make advance, progress, and other payments which
relate to the work of MACPAC;
``(5) provide transportation and subsistence for persons
serving without compensation; and
``(6) prescribe such rules and regulations as it deems
necessary with respect to the internal organization and
operation of MACPAC.
``(e) Powers.--
``(1) Obtaining official data.--MACPAC may secure directly
from any department or agency of the United States
information necessary to enable it to carry out this section.
Upon request of the Chairman, the head of that department or
agency shall furnish that information to MACPAC on an agreed
upon schedule.
``(2) Data collection.--In order to carry out its
functions, MACPAC shall--
``(A) utilize existing information, both published and
unpublished, where possible, collected and assessed either by
its own staff or under other arrangements made in accordance
with this section;
``(B) carry out, or award grants or contracts for, original
research and experimentation, where existing information is
inadequate; and
``(C) adopt procedures allowing any interested party to
submit information for MACPAC's use in making reports and
recommendations.
``(3) Access of gao to information.--The Comptroller
General of the United States shall have unrestricted access
to all deliberations, records, and nonproprietary data of
MACPAC, immediately upon request.
``(4) Periodic audit.--MACPAC shall be subject to periodic
audit by the Comptroller General of the United States.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) Request for appropriations.--MACPAC shall submit
requests for appropriations in the same manner as the
Comptroller General of the United States submits requests for
appropriations, but amounts appropriated for MACPAC shall be
separate from amounts appropriated for the Comptroller
General of the United States.
``(2) Authorization.--There are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the
provisions of this section.''.
(b) Deadline for Initial Appointments.--Not later than
January 1, 2010, the Comptroller General of the United States
shall appoint the initial members of the Medicaid and CHIP
Payment and Access Commission established under section 1900
of the Social Security Act (as added by subsection (a)).
(c) Annual Report on Medicaid.--Not later than January 1,
2010, and annually thereafter, the Secretary, in consultation
with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor,
and the States (as defined for purposes of Medicaid), shall
submit an annual report to Congress on the financial status
of, enrollment in, and spending trends for, Medicaid for the
fiscal year ending on September 30 of the preceding year.

TITLE VI--PROGRAM INTEGRITY AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Program Integrity and Data Collection

SEC. 601. PAYMENT ERROR RATE MEASUREMENT (``PERM'').

(a) Expenditures Related to Compliance With Requirements.--
(1) Enhanced payments.--Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C.
1397ee(c)), as amended by section 301(a), is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(11) Enhanced payments.--Notwithstanding subsection (b),
the enhanced FMAP with respect to payments under subsection
(a) for expenditures related to the administration of the
payment error rate measurement (PERM) requirements applicable
to the State child health plan in accordance with the
Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 and parts 431 and
457 of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations (or any related
or successor guidance or regulations) shall in no event be
less than 90 percent.''.
(2) Exclusion of from cap on administrative expenditures.--
Section 2105(c)(2)(C) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)(2)C)), as amended
by section 302(b)), is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(iv) Payment error rate measurement (perm)
expenditures.--Expenditures related to the administration of
the payment error rate measurement (PERM) requirements
applicable to the State child health plan in accordance with
the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 and parts 431
and 457 of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations (or any
related or successor guidance or regulations).''.
(b) Final Rule Required To Be in Effect for All States.--
Notwithstanding parts 431 and 457 of title 42, Code of
Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of
this Act), the Secretary shall not calculate or publish any
national or State-specific error rate based on the
application of the payment error rate measurement (in this
section referred to as ``PERM'') requirements to CHIP until
after the date that is 6 months after the date on which a new
final rule (in this section referred to as the ``new final
rule'') promulgated after the date of the enactment of this
Act and implementing such requirements in accordance with the
requirements of subsection (c) is in effect for all States.
Any calculation of a national error rate or a State specific
error rate after such new final rule in effect for all States
may only be inclusive of errors, as defined in such new final
rule or in guidance issued within a reasonable time frame
after the effective date for such new final rule that
includes detailed guidance for the specific methodology for
error determinations.
(c) Requirements for New Final Rule.--For purposes of
subsection (b), the requirements of this subsection are that
the new final rule implementing the PERM requirements shall--
(1) include--
(A) clearly defined criteria for errors for both States and
providers;
(B) a clearly defined process for appealing error
determinations by--
(i) review contractors; or
(ii) the agency and personnel described in section
431.974(a)(2) of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations, as in
effect on September 1, 2007, responsible for the development,
direction, implementation, and evaluation of eligibility
reviews and associated activities; and
(C) clearly defined responsibilities and deadlines for
States in implementing any corrective action plans; and
(2) provide that the payment error rate determined for a
State shall not take into account payment errors resulting
from the State's verification of an applicant's self-
declaration or self-certification of eligibility for, and the
correct amount of, medical assistance or child health
assistance, if the State process for verifying an applicant's
self-declaration or self-certification satisfies the
requirements for such process applicable under regulations
promulgated by the Secretary or otherwise approved by the
Secretary.
(d) Option for Application of Data for States in First
Application Cycle Under the Interim Final Rule.--After the
new final rule implementing the PERM requirements in
accordance with the requirements of subsection (c) is in
effect for all States, a State for which the PERM
requirements were first in effect under an interim final rule
for fiscal year 2007 or under a final rule for fiscal year
2008 may elect to accept any payment error rate determined in
whole or in part for the State on the basis of data for that
fiscal year or may elect to not have any payment error rate
determined on the basis of such data and, instead, shall be
treated as if fiscal year 2010 or fiscal year 2011 were the
first fiscal year for which the PERM requirements apply to
the State.
(e) Harmonization of MEQC and PERM.--

[[Page 1618]]

(1) Reduction of redundancies.--The Secretary shall review
the Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (in this subsection
referred to as the ``MEQC'') requirements with the PERM
requirements and coordinate consistent implementation of both
sets of requirements, while reducing redundancies.
(2) State option to apply perm data.--A State may elect,
for purposes of determining the erroneous excess payments for
medical assistance ratio applicable to the State for a fiscal
year under section 1903(u) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396b(u)) to substitute data resulting from the
application of the PERM requirements to the State after the
new final rule implementing such requirements is in effect
for all States for data obtained from the application of the
MEQC requirements to the State with respect to a fiscal year.
(3) State option to apply meqc data.--For purposes of
satisfying the requirements of subpart Q of part 431 of title
42, Code of Federal Regulations, relating to Medicaid
eligibility reviews, a State may elect to substitute data
obtained through MEQC reviews conducted in accordance with
section 1903(u) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396b(u)) for data required for purposes of PERM
requirements, but only if the State MEQC reviews are based on
a broad, representative sample of Medicaid applicants or
enrollees in the States.
(f) Identification of Improved State-Specific Sample
Sizes.--The Secretary shall establish State-specific sample
sizes for application of the PERM requirements with respect
to State child health plans for fiscal years beginning with
the first fiscal year that begins on or after the date on
which the new final rule is in effect for all States, on the
basis of such information as the Secretary determines
appropriate. In establishing such sample sizes, the Secretary
shall, to the greatest extent practicable--
(1) minimize the administrative cost burden on States under
Medicaid and CHIP; and
(2) maintain State flexibility to manage such programs.

SEC. 602. IMPROVING DATA COLLECTION.

(a) Increased Appropriation.--Section 2109(b)(2) (42 U.S.C.
1397ii(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``$10,000,000 for fiscal
year 2000'' and inserting ``$20,000,000 for fiscal year
2009''.
(b) Use of Additional Funds.--Section 2109(b) (42 U.S.C.
1397ii(b)), as amended by subsection (a), is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1), the following new
paragraphs:
``(2) Additional requirements.--In addition to making the
adjustments required to produce the data described in
paragraph (1), with respect to data collection occurring for
fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2009, in appropriate
consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
the Secretary of Commerce shall do the following:
``(A) Make appropriate adjustments to the Current
Population Survey to develop more accurate State-specific
estimates of the number of children enrolled in health
coverage under title XIX or this title.
``(B) Make appropriate adjustments to the Current
Population Survey to improve the survey estimates used to
determine the child population growth factor under section
2104(m)(5)(B) and any other data necessary for carrying out
this title.
``(C) Include health insurance survey information in the
American Community Survey related to children.
``(D) Assess whether American Community Survey estimates,
once such survey data are first available, produce more
reliable estimates than the Current Population Survey with
respect to the purposes described in subparagraph (B).
``(E) On the basis of the assessment required under
subparagraph (D), recommend to the Secretary of Health and
Human Services whether American Community Survey estimates
should be used in lieu of, or in some combination with,
Current Population Survey estimates for the purposes
described in subparagraph (B).
``(F) Continue making the adjustments described in the last
sentence of paragraph (1) with respect to expansion of the
sample size used in State sampling units, the number of
sampling units in a State, and using an appropriate
verification element.
``(3) Authority for the secretary of health and human
services to transition to the use of all, or some combination
of, acs estimates upon recommendation of the secretary of
commerce.--If, on the basis of the assessment required under
paragraph (2)(D), the Secretary of Commerce recommends to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services that American
Community Survey estimates should be used in lieu of, or in
some combination with, Current Population Survey estimates
for the purposes described in paragraph (2)(B), the Secretary
of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the
States, may provide for a period during which the Secretary
may transition from carrying out such purposes through the
use of Current Population Survey estimates to the use of
American Community Survey estimates (in lieu of, or in
combination with the Current Population Survey estimates, as
recommended), provided that any such transition is
implemented in a manner that is designed to avoid adverse
impacts upon States with approved State child health plans
under this title.''.

SEC. 603. UPDATED FEDERAL EVALUATION OF CHIP.

Section 2108(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397hh(c)) is amended by
striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
``(5) Subsequent evaluation using updated information.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary, directly or through
contracts or interagency agreements, shall conduct an
independent subsequent evaluation of 10 States with approved
child health plans.
``(B) Selection of states and matters included.--Paragraphs
(2) and (3) shall apply to such subsequent evaluation in the
same manner as such provisions apply to the evaluation
conducted under paragraph (1).
``(C) Submission to congress.--Not later than December 31,
2011, the Secretary shall submit to Congress the results of
the evaluation conducted under this paragraph.
``(D) Funding.--Out of any money in the Treasury of the
United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 for the purpose
of conducting the evaluation authorized under this paragraph.
Amounts appropriated under this subparagraph shall remain
available for expenditure through fiscal year 2012.''.

SEC. 604. ACCESS TO RECORDS FOR IG AND GAO AUDITS AND
EVALUATIONS.

Section 2108(d) (42 U.S.C. 1397hh(d)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(d) Access to Records for IG and GAO Audits and
Evaluations.--For the purpose of evaluating and auditing the
program established under this title, or title XIX, the
Secretary, the Office of Inspector General, and the
Comptroller General shall have access to any books, accounts,
records, correspondence, and other documents that are related
to the expenditure of Federal funds under this title and that
are in the possession, custody, or control of States
receiving Federal funds under this title or political
subdivisions thereof, or any grantee or contractor of such
States or political subdivisions.''.

SEC. 605. NO FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS; DISALLOWANCE
FOR UNAUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES.

Nothing in this Act allows Federal payment for individuals
who are not legal residents. Titles XI, XIX, and XXI of the
Social Security Act provide for the disallowance of Federal
financial participation for erroneous expenditures under
Medicaid and under CHIP, respectively.

Subtitle B--Miscellaneous Health Provisions

SEC. 611. DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

(a) Clarification of Requirement To Provide EPSDT Services
for All Children in Benchmark Benefit Packages Under
Medicaid.--Section 1937(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1396u-7(a)(1)), as
inserted by section 6044(a) of the Deficit Reduction Act of
2005 (Public Law 109-171, 120 Stat. 88), is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in the matter before clause (i)--
(i) by striking ``Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title'' and inserting ``Notwithstanding section
1902(a)(1) (relating to statewideness), section
1902(a)(10)(B) (relating to comparability) and any other
provision of this title which would be directly contrary to
the authority under this section and subject to subsection
(E)''; and
(ii) by striking ``enrollment in coverage that provides''
and inserting ``coverage that'';
(B) in clause (i), by inserting ``provides'' after ``(i)'';
and
(C) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
``(ii) for any individual described in section
1905(a)(4)(B) who is eligible under the State plan in
accordance with paragraphs (10) and (17) of section 1902(a),
consists of the items and services described in section
1905(a)(4)(B) (relating to early and periodic screening,
diagnostic, and treatment services defined in section
1905(r)) and provided in accordance with the requirements of
section 1902(a)(43).'';
(2) in subparagraph (C)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``WRAP-AROUND'' and
inserting ``ADDITIONAL''; and
(B) by striking ``wrap-around or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph
shall be construed as--
``(i) requiring a State to offer all or any of the items
and services required by subparagraph (A)(ii) through an
issuer of benchmark coverage described in subsection (b)(1)
or benchmark equivalent coverage described in subsection
(b)(2);
``(ii) preventing a State from offering all or any of the
items and services required by subparagraph (A)(ii) through
an issuer of benchmark coverage described in subsection
(b)(1) or benchmark equivalent coverage described in
subsection (b)(2); or
``(iii) affecting a child's entitlement to care and
services described in subsections (a)(4)(B) and (r) of
section 1905 and provided in accordance with section
1902(a)(43) whether provided through benchmark coverage,

[[Page 1619]]

benchmark equivalent coverage, or otherwise.''.
(b) Correction of Reference to Children in Foster Care
Receiving Child Welfare Services.--Section
1937(a)(2)(B)(viii) (42 U.S.C. 1396u-7(a)(2)(B)(viii)), as
inserted by section 6044(a) of the Deficit Reduction Act of
2005, is amended by striking ``aid or assistance is made
available under part B of title IV to children in foster care
and individuals'' and inserting ``child welfare services are
made available under part B of title IV on the basis of being
a child in foster care or''.
(c) Transparency.--Section 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1396u-7), as
inserted by section 6044(a) of the Deficit Reduction Act of
2005, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Publication of Provisions Affected.--With respect to
a State plan amendment to provide benchmark benefits in
accordance with subsections (a) and (b) that is approved by
the Secretary, the Secretary shall publish on the Internet
website of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, a
list of the provisions of this title that the Secretary has
determined do not apply in order to enable the State to carry
out the plan amendment and the reason for each such
determination on the date such approval is made, and shall
publish such list in the Federal Register and not later than
30 days after such date of approval.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections
(a), (b), and (c) of this section shall take effect as if
included in the amendment made by section 6044(a) of the
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

SEC. 612. REFERENCES TO TITLE XXI.

Section 704 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced
Budget Refinement Act of 1999, as enacted into law by
division B of Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-402) is
repealed.

SEC. 613. PROHIBITING INITIATION OF NEW HEALTH OPPORTUNITY
ACCOUNT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS.

After the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services may not approve any new
demonstration programs under section 1938 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-8).

SEC. 614. ADJUSTMENT IN COMPUTATION OF MEDICAID FMAP TO
DISREGARD AN EXTRAORDINARY EMPLOYER PENSION
CONTRIBUTION.

(a) In General.--Only for purposes of computing the FMAP
(as defined in subsection (e)) for a State for a fiscal year
(beginning with fiscal year 2006) and applying the FMAP under
title XIX of the Social Security Act, any significantly
disproportionate employer pension or insurance fund
contribution described in subsection (b) shall be disregarded
in computing the per capita income of such State, but shall
not be disregarded in computing the per capita income for the
continental United States (and Alaska) and Hawaii.
(b) Significantly Disproportionate Employer Pension and
Insurance Fund Contribution.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, a
significantly disproportionate employer pension and insurance
fund contribution described in this subsection with respect
to a State is any identifiable employer contribution towards
pension or other employee insurance funds that is estimated
to accrue to residents of such State for a calendar year
(beginning with calendar year 2003) if the increase in the
amount so estimated exceeds 25 percent of the total increase
in personal income in that State for the year involved.
(2) Data to be used.--For estimating and adjustment a FMAP
already calculated as of the date of the enactment of this
Act for a State with a significantly disproportionate
employer pension and insurance fund contribution, the
Secretary shall use the personal income data set originally
used in calculating such FMAP.
(3) Special adjustment for negative growth.--If in any
calendar year the total personal income growth in a State is
negative, an employer pension and insurance fund contribution
for the purposes of calculating the State's FMAP for a
calendar year shall not exceed 125 percent of the amount of
such contribution for the previous calendar year for the
State.
(c) Hold Harmless.--No State shall have its FMAP for a
fiscal year reduced as a result of the application of this
section.
(d) Report.--Not later than May 15, 2009, the Secretary
shall submit to the Congress a report on the problems
presented by the current treatment of pension and insurance
fund contributions in the use of Bureau of Economic Affairs
calculations for the FMAP and for Medicaid and on possible
alternative methodologies to mitigate such problems.
(e) FMAP Defined.--For purposes of this section, the term
``FMAP'' means the Federal medical assistance percentage, as
defined in section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396(d)).

SEC. 615. CLARIFICATION TREATMENT OF REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER.

(a) In General.--Nothing in section 1903(w) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(w)) shall be construed by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services as prohibiting a
State's use of funds as the non-Federal share of expenditures
under title XIX of such Act where such funds are transferred
from or certified by a publicly-owned regional medical center
located in another State and described in subsection (b), so
long as the Secretary determines that such use of funds is
proper and in the interest of the program under title XIX.
(b) Center Described.--A center described in this
subsection is a publicly-owned regional medical center that--
(1) provides level 1 trauma and burn care services;
(2) provides level 3 neonatal care services;
(3) is obligated to serve all patients, regardless of
ability to pay;
(4) is located within a Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area (SMSA) that includes at least 3 States;
(5) provides services as a tertiary care provider for
patients residing within a 125-mile radius; and
(6) meets the criteria for a disproportionate share
hospital under section 1923 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4)
in at least one State other than the State in which the
center is located.

SEC. 616. EXTENSION OF MEDICAID DSH ALLOTMENTS FOR TENNESSEE
AND HAWAII.

Section 1923(f)(6) (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4(f)(6)), as amended by
section 202 of the Medicare Improvements for Patients and
Providers Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-275) is amended--
(1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``2009 and the
first calendar quarter of fiscal year 2010'' and inserting
``2011 and the first calendar quarter of fiscal year 2012'';
(2) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in clause (i)--
(i) in the second sentence--

(I) by striking ``and 2009'' and inserting ``, 2009, 2010,
and 2011''; and
(II) by striking ``such portion of''; and

(ii) in the third sentence, by striking ``2010 for the
period ending on December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``2012 for
the period ending on December 31, 2011'';
(B) in clause (ii), by striking ``or for a period in fiscal
year 2010'' and inserting ``2010, 2011, or for period in
fiscal year 2012''; and
(C) in clause (iv)--
(i) in the clause heading, by striking ``2009 and the first
calendar quarter of fiscal year 2010'' and inserting ``2011
and the first calendar quarter of fiscal year 2012''; and
(ii) in each of subclauses (I) and (II), by striking `` or
for a period in fiscal year 2010'' and inserting ``2010,
2011, or for a period in fiscal year 2012''; and
(3) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) in clause (i)--
(i) in the first sentence, by striking ``2009'' and
inserting ``2011''; and
(ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``2010 for the
period ending on December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``2012 for
the period ending on December 31, 2011''.

SEC. 617. GAO REPORT ON MEDICAID MANAGED CARE PAYMENT RATES.

Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit a report to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and
the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives analyzing the extent to which State payment
rates for medicaid managed care organizations under Medicaid
are actuarially sound.

Subtitle C--Other Provisions

SEC. 621. OUTREACH REGARDING HEALTH INSURANCE OPTIONS
AVAILABLE TO CHILDREN.

(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the terms ``Administration'' and ``Administrator''
means the Small Business Administration and the Administrator
thereof, respectively;
(2) the term ``certified development company'' means a
development company participating in the program under title
V of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 695
et seq.);
(3) the term ``Medicaid program'' means the program
established under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396 et seq.);
(4) the term ``Service Corps of Retired Executives'' means
the Service Corps of Retired Executives authorized by section
8(b)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(b)(1));
(5) the term ``small business concern'' has the meaning
given that term in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 632);
(6) the term ``small business development center'' means a
small business development center described in section 21 of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648);
(7) the term ``State'' has the meaning given that term for
purposes of title XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1397aa et seq.);
(8) the term ``State Children's Health Insurance Program''
means the State Children's Health Insurance Program
established under title XXI of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.);
(9) the term ``task force'' means the task force
established under subsection (b)(1); and
(10) the term ``women's business center'' means a women's
business center described in section 29 of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 656).
(b) Establishment of Task Force.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established a task force to
conduct a nationwide campaign of education and outreach for
small business concerns regarding the availability of
coverage for children through private insurance

[[Page 1620]]

options, the Medicaid program, and the State Children's
Health Insurance Program.
(2) Membership.--The task force shall consist of the
Administrator, the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of the Treasury.
(3) Responsibilities.--The campaign conducted under this
subsection shall include--
(A) efforts to educate the owners of small business
concerns about the value of health coverage for children;
(B) information regarding options available to the owners
and employees of small business concerns to make insurance
more affordable, including Federal and State tax deductions
and credits for health care-related expenses and health
insurance expenses and Federal tax exclusion for health
insurance options available under employer-sponsored
cafeteria plans under section 125 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986;
(C) efforts to educate the owners of small business
concerns about assistance available through public programs;
and
(D) efforts to educate the owners and employees of small
business concerns regarding the availability of the hotline
operated as part of the Insure Kids Now program of the
Department of Health and Human Services.
(4) Implementation.--In carrying out this subsection, the
task force may--
(A) use any business partner of the Administration,
including--
(i) a small business development center;
(ii) a certified development company;
(iii) a women's business center; and
(iv) the Service Corps of Retired Executives;
(B) enter into--
(i) a memorandum of understanding with a chamber of
commerce; and
(ii) a partnership with any appropriate small business
concern or health advocacy group; and
(C) designate outreach programs at regional offices of the
Department of Health and Human Services to work with district
offices of the Administration.
(5) Website.--The Administrator shall ensure that links to
information on the eligibility and enrollment requirements
for the Medicaid program and State Children's Health
Insurance Program of each State are prominently displayed on
the website of the Administration.
(6) Report.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the
Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Small Business
and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small
Business of the House of Representatives a report on the
status of the nationwide campaign conducted under paragraph
(1).
(B) Contents.--Each report submitted under subparagraph (A)
shall include a status update on all efforts made to educate
owners and employees of small business concerns on options
for providing health insurance for children through public
and private alternatives.

SEC. 622. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE
AND MEANINGFUL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
(1) There are approximately 45 million Americans currently
without health insurance.
(2) More than half of uninsured workers are employed by
businesses with less than 25 employees or are self-employed.
(3) Health insurance premiums continue to rise at more than
twice the rate of inflation for all consumer goods.
(4) Individuals in the small group and individual health
insurance markets usually pay more for similar coverage than
those in the large group market.
(5) The rapid growth in health insurance costs over the
last few years has forced many employers, particularly small
employers, to increase deductibles and co-pays or to drop
coverage completely.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--The Senate--
(1) recognizes the necessity to improve affordability and
access to health insurance for all Americans;
(2) acknowledges the value of building upon the existing
private health insurance market; and
(3) affirms its intent to enact legislation this year that,
with appropriate protection for consumers, improves access to
affordable and meaningful health insurance coverage for
employees of small businesses and individuals by--
(A) facilitating pooling mechanisms, including pooling
across State lines, and
(B) providing assistance to small businesses and
individuals, including financial assistance and tax
incentives, for the purchase of private insurance coverage.

TITLE VII--REVENUE PROVISIONS

SEC. 701. INCREASE IN EXCISE TAX RATE ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

(a) Cigars.--Section 5701(a) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``$1.828 cents per thousand ($1.594 cents
per thousand on cigars removed during 2000 or 2001)'' in
paragraph (1) and inserting ``$50.33 per thousand'',
(2) by striking ``20.719 percent (18.063 percent on cigars
removed during 2000 or 2001)'' in paragraph (2) and inserting
``52.75 percent'', and
(3) by striking ``$48.75 per thousand ($42.50 per thousand
on cigars removed during 2000 or 2001)'' in paragraph (2) and
inserting ``40.26 cents per cigar''.
(b) Cigarettes.--Section 5701(b) of such Code is amended--
(1) by striking ``$19.50 per thousand ($17 per thousand on
cigarettes removed during 2000 or 2001)'' in paragraph (1)
and inserting ``$50.33 per thousand'', and
(2) by striking ``$40.95 per thousand ($35.70 per thousand
on cigarettes removed during 2000 or 2001)'' in paragraph (2)
and inserting ``$105.69 per thousand''.
(c) Cigarette Papers.--Section 5701(c) of such Code is
amended by striking ``1.22 cents (1.06 cents on cigarette
papers removed during 2000 or 2001)'' and inserting ``3.15
cents''.
(d) Cigarette Tubes.--Section 5701(d) of such Code is
amended by striking ``2.44 cents (2.13 cents on cigarette
tubes removed during 2000 or 2001)'' and inserting ``6.30
cents''.
(e) Smokeless Tobacco.--Section 5701(e) of such Code is
amended--
(1) by striking ``58.5 cents (51 cents on snuff removed
during 2000 or 2001)'' in paragraph (1) and inserting
``$1.51'', and
(2) by striking ``19.5 cents (17 cents on chewing tobacco
removed during 2000 or 2001)'' in paragraph (2) and inserting
``50.33 cents''.
(f) Pipe Tobacco.--Section 5701(f) of such Code is amended
by striking ``$1.0969 cents (95.67 cents on pipe tobacco
removed during 2000 or 2001)'' and inserting ``$2.8311
cents''.
(g) Roll-Your-Own Tobacco.--Section 5701(g) of such Code is
amended by striking ``$1.0969 cents (95.67 cents on roll-
your-own tobacco removed during 2000 or 2001)'' and inserting
``$24.78''.
(h) Floor Stocks Taxes.--
(1) Imposition of tax.--On tobacco products (other than
cigars described in section 5701(a)(2) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986) and cigarette papers and tubes
manufactured in or imported into the United States which are
removed before April 1, 2009, and held on such date for sale
by any person, there is hereby imposed a tax in an amount
equal to the excess of--
(A) the tax which would be imposed under section 5701 of
such Code on the article if the article had been removed on
such date, over
(B) the prior tax (if any) imposed under section 5701 of
such Code on such article.
(2) Credit against tax.--Each person shall be allowed as a
credit against the taxes imposed by paragraph (1) an amount
equal to $500. Such credit shall not exceed the amount of
taxes imposed by paragraph (1) on April 1, 2009, for which
such person is liable.
(3) Liability for tax and method of payment.--
(A) Liability for tax.--A person holding tobacco products,
cigarette papers, or cigarette tubes on April 1, 2009, to
which any tax imposed by paragraph (1) applies shall be
liable for such tax.
(B) Method of payment.--The tax imposed by paragraph (1)
shall be paid in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe
by regulations.
(C) Time for payment.--The tax imposed by paragraph (1)
shall be paid on or before August 1, 2009.
(4) Articles in foreign trade zones.--Notwithstanding the
Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known as the Foreign Trade
Zone Act, 48 Stat. 998, 19 U.S.C. 81a et seq.) or any other
provision of law, any article which is located in a foreign
trade zone on April 1, 2009, shall be subject to the tax
imposed by paragraph (1) if--
(A) internal revenue taxes have been determined, or customs
duties liquidated, with respect to such article before such
date pursuant to a request made under the 1st proviso of
section 3(a) of such Act, or
(B) such article is held on such date under the supervision
of an officer of the United States Customs and Border
Protection of the Department of Homeland Security pursuant to
the 2d proviso of such section 3(a).
(5) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
(A) In general.--Any term used in this subsection which is
also used in section 5702 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 shall have the same meaning as such term has in such
section.
(B) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate.
(6) Controlled groups.--Rules similar to the rules of
section 5061(e)(3) of such Code shall apply for purposes of
this subsection.
(7) Other laws applicable.--All provisions of law,
including penalties, applicable with respect to the taxes
imposed by section 5701 of such Code shall, insofar as
applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this
subsection, apply to the floor stocks taxes imposed by
paragraph (1), to the same extent as if such taxes were
imposed by such section 5701. The Secretary may treat any
person who bore the ultimate burden of the tax imposed by
paragraph (1) as the person to whom a credit or refund under
such provisions may be allowed or made.
(i) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to articles removed (as defined in section
5702(j) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) after March 31,
2009.

[[Page 1621]]

SEC. 702. ADMINISTRATIVE IMPROVEMENTS.

(a) Permit, Inventories, Reports, and Records Requirements
for Manufacturers and Importers of Processed Tobacco.--
(1) Permit.--
(A) Application.--Section 5712 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by inserting ``or processed tobacco''
after ``tobacco products''.
(B) Issuance.--Section 5713(a) of such Code is amended by
inserting ``or processed tobacco'' after ``tobacco
products''.
(2) Inventories, reports, and packages.--
(A) Inventories.--Section 5721 of such Code is amended by
inserting ``, processed tobacco,'' after ``tobacco
products''.
(B) Reports.--Section 5722 of such Code is amended by
inserting ``, processed tobacco,'' after ``tobacco
products''.
(C) Packages, marks, labels, and notices.--Section 5723 of
such Code is amended by inserting ``, processed tobacco,''
after ``tobacco products'' each place it appears.
(3) Records.--Section 5741 of such Code is amended by
inserting ``, processed tobacco,'' after ``tobacco
products''.
(4) Manufacturer of processed tobacco.--Section 5702 of
such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(p) Manufacturer of Processed Tobacco.--
``(1) In general.--The term `manufacturer of processed
tobacco' means any person who processes any tobacco other
than tobacco products.
``(2) Processed tobacco.--The processing of tobacco shall
not include the farming or growing of tobacco or the handling
of tobacco solely for sale, shipment, or delivery to a
manufacturer of tobacco products or processed tobacco.''.
(5) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 5702(h) of such Code is amended by striking
``tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes'' and
inserting ``tobacco products or cigarette papers or tubes or
any processed tobacco''.
(B) Sections 5702(j) and 5702(k) of such Code are each
amended by inserting ``, or any processed tobacco,'' after
``tobacco products or cigarette papers or tubes''.
(6) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on April 1, 2009.
(b) Basis for Denial, Suspension, or Revocation of
Permits.--
(1) Denial.--Paragraph (3) of section 5712 of such Code is
amended to read as follows:
``(3) such person (including, in the case of a corporation,
any officer, director, or principal stockholder and, in the
case of a partnership, a partner)--
``(A) is, by reason of his business experience, financial
standing, or trade connections or by reason of previous or
current legal proceedings involving a felony violation of any
other provision of Federal criminal law relating to tobacco
products, processed tobacco, cigarette paper, or cigarette
tubes, not likely to maintain operations in compliance with
this chapter,
``(B) has been convicted of a felony violation of any
provision of Federal or State criminal law relating to
tobacco products, processed tobacco, cigarette paper, or
cigarette tubes, or
``(C) has failed to disclose any material information
required or made any material false statement in the
application therefor.''.
(2) Suspension or revocation.--Subsection (b) of section
5713 of such Code is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Suspension or Revocation.--
``(1) Show cause hearing.--If the Secretary has reason to
believe that any person holding a permit--
``(A) has not in good faith complied with this chapter, or
with any other provision of this title involving intent to
defraud,
``(B) has violated the conditions of such permit,
``(C) has failed to disclose any material information
required or made any material false statement in the
application for such permit,
``(D) has failed to maintain his premises in such manner as
to protect the revenue,
``(E) is, by reason of previous or current legal
proceedings involving a felony violation of any other
provision of Federal criminal law relating to tobacco
products, processed tobacco, cigarette paper, or cigarette
tubes, not likely to maintain operations in compliance with
this chapter, or
``(F) has been convicted of a felony violation of any
provision of Federal or State criminal law relating to
tobacco products, processed tobacco, cigarette paper, or
cigarette tubes,
the Secretary shall issue an order, stating the facts
charged, citing such person to show cause why his permit
should not be suspended or revoked.
``(2) Action following hearing.--If, after hearing, the
Secretary finds that such person has not shown cause why his
permit should not be suspended or revoked, such permit shall
be suspended for such period as the Secretary deems proper or
shall be revoked.''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Application of Internal Revenue Code Statute of
Limitations for Alcohol and Tobacco Excise Taxes.--
(1) In general.--Section 514(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930
(19 U.S.C. 1514(a)) is amended by striking ``and section 520
(relating to refunds)'' and inserting ``section 520 (relating
to refunds), and section 6501 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (but only with respect to taxes imposed under chapters
51 and 52 of such Code)''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to articles imported after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(d) Expansion of Definition of Roll-Your-Own Tobacco.--
(1) In general.--Section 5702(o) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``or cigars, or for use
as wrappers thereof'' before the period at the end.

(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to articles removed (as defined in section
5702(j) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) after March 31,
2009.

(e) Time of Tax for Unlawfully Manufactured Tobacco
Products.--

(1) In general.--Section 5703(b)(2) of such Code is amended
by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

``(F) Special rule for unlawfully manufactured tobacco
products.--In the case of any tobacco products, cigarette
paper, or cigarette tubes manufactured in the United States
at any place other than the premises of a manufacturer of
tobacco products, cigarette paper, or cigarette tubes that
has filed the bond and obtained the permit required under
this chapter, tax shall be due and payable immediately upon
manufacture.''.

(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

(f) Disclosure.--

(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 6103(o) of such
Code is amended by designating the text as subparagraph (A),
moving such text 2 ems to the right, striking ``Returns'' and
inserting ``(a) in general.--Returns'', and by inserting
after subparagraph (A) (as so redesignated) the following new
subparagraph:

``(B) Use in certain proceedings.--Returns and return
information disclosed to a Federal agency under subparagraph
(A) may be used in an action or proceeding (or in preparation
for such action or proceeding) brought under section 625 of
the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 for the collection of
any unpaid assessment or penalty arising under such Act.''.

(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 6103(p)(4) of such Code
is amended by striking ``(o)(1)'' both places it appears and
inserting ``(o)(1)(A)''.

(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply on or after the date of the enactment of this
Act.

(g) Transitional Rule.--Any person who--

(1) on April 1 is engaged in business as a manufacturer of
processed tobacco or as an importer of processed tobacco, and

(2) before the end of the 90-day period beginning on such
date, submits an application under subchapter B of chapter 52
of such Code to engage in such business, may, notwithstanding
such subchapter B, continue to engage in such business
pending final action on such application. Pending such final
action, all provisions of such chapter 52 shall apply to such
applicant in the same manner and to the same extent as if
such applicant were a holder of a permit under such chapter
52 to engage in such business.

SEC. 703. TREASURY STUDY CONCERNING MAGNITUDE OF TOBACCO
SMUGGLING IN THE UNITED STATES.

Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall conduct a study
concerning the magnitude of tobacco smuggling in the United
States and submit to Congress recommendations for the most
effective steps to reduce tobacco smuggling. Such study shall
also include a review of the loss of Federal tax receipts due
to illicit tobacco trade in the United States and the role of
imported tobacco products in the illicit tobacco trade in the
United States.

SEC. 704. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES.

The percentage under subparagraph (C) of section 401(1) of
the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 in
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act is increased
by 0.5 percentage point.

______

SA 40. Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Vitter, Mr.
Chambliss, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Burr, Mr. Isakson,
Mr. Graham, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Cochran, Mr.
Ensign, Mr. Thune, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Enzi, and
Mr. Wicker) proposed an amendment to amendment SA 39 proposed by Mr.
Reid (for Mr. Baucus) to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the
Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health
Insurance Program, and for other purposes; as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted insert

[[Page 1622]]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Kids First
Act''.

(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Reauthorization through fiscal year 2013.

Sec. 3. Allotments for the 50 States and the District of Columbia based
on expenditures and numbers of low-income children.

Sec. 4. Limitations on matching rates for populations other than low-
income children or pregnant women covered through a
section 1115 waiver.

Sec. 5. Prohibition on new section 1115 waivers for coverage of adults
other than pregnant women.

Sec. 6. Standardization of determination of family income for targeted
low-income children under title XXI and optional targeted
low-income children under title XIX.

Sec. 7. Grants for outreach and enrollment.

Sec. 8. Improved State option for offering premium assistance for
coverage of children through private plans under SCHIP
and Medicaid.

Sec. 9. Treatment of unborn children.

Sec. 10. 50 percent matching rate for all Medicaid administrative
costs.

Sec. 11. Reduction in payments for Medicaid administrative costs to
prevent duplication of such payments under TANF.

Sec. 12. Elimination of waiver of certain Medicaid provider tax
provisions.

Sec. 13. Elimination of special payments for certain public hospitals.

Sec. 14. Effective date; coordination of funding for fiscal year 2009.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2013.

(a) Increase in National Allotment.--Section 2104 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397dd(a)) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (10);

(B) in paragraph (11)--

(i) by striking ``each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009'' and
inserting ``fiscal year 2008''; and

(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting a
semicolon; and

``(12) for fiscal year 2009, $7,780,000,000;

``(13) for fiscal year 2010, $8,044,000,000;

``(14) for fiscal year 2011, $8,568,000,000;

``(15) for fiscal year 2012, $9,032,000,000; and

``(16) for fiscal year 2013, $9,505,000,000.''; and

(2) in subsection (c)(4)(B), by striking ``2009'' and
inserting ``2008, $62,000,000 for fiscal year 2009,
$64,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, $68,000,000 for fiscal year
2011, $72,000,000 for fiscal year 2012, and $75,000,000 for
fiscal year 2013''.

(b) Repeal of Limitation on Availability of Funding for
Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009.--Section 201 of the Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-
173) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (2) and
redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4), as paragraphs (2) and
(3) respectively; and

(2) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (2).

SEC. 3. ALLOTMENTS FOR THE 50 STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA BASED ON EXPENDITURES AND NUMBERS OF
LOW-INCOME CHILDREN.

(a) In General.--Section 2104 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1397dd) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:

``(m) Determination of Allotments for the 50 States and the
District of Columbia for Fiscal Years 2009 Through 2013.--

``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding the preceding provisions
of this subsection and subject to paragraph (3), the
Secretary shall allot to each subsection (b) State for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2013, the amount determined for
the fiscal year that is equal to the product of--

``(A) the amount available for allotment under subsection
(a) for the fiscal year, reduced by the amount of allotments
made under subsection (c) (determined without regard to
paragraph (4) thereof) for the fiscal year; and

``(B) the sum of the State allotment factors determined
under paragraph (2) with respect to the State and weighted in
accordance with subparagraph (B) of that paragraph for the
fiscal year.

``(2) State allotment factors.--

``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), the
State allotment factors are the following:

``(i) The ratio of the projected expenditures for targeted
low-income children under the State child health plan and
pregnant women under a waiver of such plan for the fiscal
year to the sum of such projected expenditures for all States
for the fiscal year, multiplied by the applicable percentage
weight assigned under subparagraph (B).

``(ii) The ratio of the number of low-income children who
have not attained age 19 with no health insurance coverage in
the State, as determined by the Secretary on the basis of the
arithmetic average of the number of such children for the 3
most recent Annual Social and Economic Supplements to the
Current Population Survey of the Bureau of the Census
available before the beginning of the calendar year before
such fiscal year begins, to the sum of the number of such
children determined for all States for such fiscal year,
multiplied by the applicable percentage weight assigned under
subparagraph (B).

``(iii) The ratio of the projected expenditures for
targeted low-income children under the State child health
plan and pregnant women under a waiver of such plan for the
preceding fiscal year to the sum of such projected
expenditures for all States for such preceding fiscal year,
multiplied by the applicable percentage weight assigned under
subparagraph (B).

``(iv) The ratio of the actual expenditures for targeted
low-income children under the State child health plan and
pregnant women under a waiver of such plan for the second
preceding fiscal year to the sum of such actual expenditures
for all States for such second preceding fiscal year,
multiplied by the applicable percentage weight assigned under
subparagraph (B).

``(B) Assignment of weights.--For each of fiscal years 2009
through 2013, the following percentage weights shall be
applied to the ratios determined under subparagraph (A) for
each such fiscal year:

``(i) 40 percent for the ratio determined under
subparagraph (A)(i).

``(ii) 5 percent for the ratio determined under
subparagraph (A)(ii).

``(iii) 50 percent for the ratio determined under
subparagraph (A)(iii).

``(iv) 5 percent for the ratio determined under
subparagraph (A)(iv).

``(C) Determination of projected and actual expenditures.--
For purposes of subparagraph (A):
``(i) Projected expenditures.--The projected expenditures
described in clauses (i) and (iii) of such subparagraph with
respect to a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis of
amounts reported by States to the Secretary on the May 15th
submission of Form CMS-37 and Form CMS-21B submitted not
later than June 30th of the fiscal year preceding such year.

``(ii) Actual expenditures.--The actual expenditures
described in clause (iv) of such subparagraph with respect to
a second preceding fiscal year shall be determined on the
basis of amounts reported by States to the Secretary on Form
CMS-64 and Form CMS-21 submitted not later than November 30
of the preceding fiscal year.''.

(b) 2-Year Availability of Allotments; Expenditures Counted
Against Oldest Allotments.--Section 2104(e) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397dd(e)) is amended to read as
follows:

``(e) Availability of Amounts Allotted.--

``(1) In general.--Except as provided in the succeeding
paragraphs of this subsection, amounts allotted to a State
pursuant to this section--

``(A) for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2008, shall
remain available for expenditure by the State through the end
of the second succeeding fiscal year; and

``(B) for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2013, shall
remain available for expenditure by the State only through
the end of the fiscal year succeeding the fiscal year for
which such amounts are allotted.

``(2) Elimination of redistribution of allotments not
expended within 3 years.--Notwithstanding subsection (f),
amounts allotted to a State under this section for fiscal
years beginning with fiscal year 2009 that remain unexpended
as of the end of the fiscal year succeeding the fiscal year
for which the amounts are allotted shall not be redistributed
to other States and shall revert to the Treasury on October 1
of the third succeeding fiscal year.

``(3) Rule for counting expenditures against fiscal year
allotments.--Expenditures under the State child health plan
made on or after April 1, 2009, shall be counted against
allotments for the earliest fiscal year for which funds are
available for expenditure under this subsection.''.

(1) Section 2104(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1397dd(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``subsection
(d)'' and inserting ``the succeeding subsections of this
section''.

(2) Section 2104(f) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1397dd(f)) is
amended by striking ``The'' and inserting ``Subject to
subsection (e)(2), the''.

SEC. 4. LIMITATIONS ON MATCHING RATES FOR POPULATIONS OTHER
THAN LOW-INCOME CHILDREN OR PREGNANT WOMEN
COVERED THROUGH A SECTION 1115 WAIVER.

(a) Limitation on Payments.--Section 2105(c) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:

[[Page 1623]]

``(8) Limitations on matching rate for populations other
than targeted low-income children or pregnant women covered
through a section 1115 waiver.--For child health assistance
or health benefits coverage furnished in any fiscal year
beginning with fiscal year 2010:

``(A) FMAP applied to payments for coverage of children or
pregnant women covered through a section 1115 waiver enrolled
in the state child health plan on the date of enactment of
the kids first act and whose gross family income is
determined to exceed the income eligibility level specified
for a targeted low-income child.--Notwithstanding subsections
(b)(1)(B) and (d) of section 2110, in the case of any
individual described in subsection (c) of section 105 of the
Kids First Act who the State elects to continue to provide
child health assistance for under the State child health plan
in accordance with the requirements of such subsection, the
Federal medical assistance percentage (as determined under
section 1905(b) without regard to clause (4) of such section)
shall be substituted for the enhanced FMAP under subsection
(a)(1) with respect to such assistance.

``(B) FMAP applied to payments only for nonpregnant
childless adults and parents and caretaker relatives enrolled
under a section 1115 waiver on the date of enactment of the
kids first act.--The Federal medical assistance percentage
(as determined under section 1905(b) without regard to clause
(4) of such section) shall be substituted for the enhanced
FMAP under subsection (a)(1) with respect to payments for
child health assistance or health benefits coverage provided
under the State child health plan for any of the following:

``(i) Parents or caretaker relatives enrolled under a
waiver on the date of enactment of the kids first act.--A
nonpregnant parent or a nonpregnant caretaker relative of a
targeted low-income child who is enrolled in the State child
health plan under a waiver, experimental, pilot, or
demonstration project on the date of enactment of the Kids
First Act and whose family income does not exceed the income
eligibility applied under such waiver with respect to that
population on such date.

``(ii) Nonpregnant childless adults enrolled under a waiver
on such date.--A nonpregnant childless adult enrolled in the
State child health plan under a waiver, experimental, pilot,
or demonstration project described in section 6102(c)(3) of
the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 1397gg note) on
the date of enactment of the Kids First Act and whose family
income does not exceed the income eligibility applied under
such waiver with respect to that population on such date.

``(iii) No replacement enrollees.--Nothing in clauses (i)
or (ii) shall be construed as authorizing a State to provide
child health assistance or health benefits coverage under a
waiver described in either such clause to a nonpregnant
parent or a nonpregnant caretaker relative of a targeted low-
income child, or a nonpregnant childless adult, who is not
enrolled under the waiver on the date of enactment of the
Kids First Act.

``(C) No federal payment for any new nonpregnant adult
enrollees or for such enrollees who no longer satisfy income
eligibility requirements.--Payment shall not be made under
this section for child health assistance or other health
benefits coverage provided under the State child health plan
or under a waiver under section 1115 for any of the
following:

``(i) Parents or caretaker relatives under a section 1115
waiver approved after the date of enactment of the kids first
act.--A nonpregnant parent or a nonpregnant caretaker
relative of a targeted low-income child under a waiver,
experimental, pilot, or demonstration project that is
approved on or after the date of enactment of the Kids First
Act.

``(ii) Parents, caretaker relatives, and nonpregnant
childless adults whose family income exceeds the income
eligibility level specified under a section 1115 waiver
approved prior to the kids first act.--Any nonpregnant parent
or a nonpregnant caretaker relative of a targeted low-income
child whose family income exceeds the income eligibility
level referred to in subparagraph (B)(i), and any nonpregnant
childless adult whose family income exceeds the income
eligibility level referred to in subparagraph (B)(ii).

``(iii) Nonpregnant childless adults, parents, or caretaker
relatives not enrolled under a section 1115 waiver on the
date of enactment of the kids first act.--Any nonpregnant
parent or a nonpregnant caretaker relative of a targeted low-
income child who is not enrolled in the State child health
plan under a section 1115 waiver, experimental, pilot, or
demonstration project referred to in subparagraph (B)(i) on
the date of enactment of the Kids First Act, and any
nonpregnant childless adult who is not enrolled in the State
child health plan under a section 1115 waiver, experimental,
pilot, or demonstration project referred to in subparagraph
(B)(ii)(I) on such date.

``(D) Definition of caretaker relative.--In this
subparagraph, the term `caretaker relative' has the meaning
given that term for purposes of carrying out section 1931.

``(E) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph
shall be construed as implying that payments for coverage of
populations for which the Federal medical assistance
percentage (as so determined) is to be substituted for the
enhanced FMAP under subsection (a)(1) in accordance with this
paragraph are to be made from funds other than the allotments
determined for a State under section 2104.''.

(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2105(a)(1) of the Social
Security Act ( 42 U.S.C. 1397dd(a)(1)) is amended, in the
matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or
subsection (c)(8)'' after ``subparagraph (B)''.

SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON NEW SECTION 1115 WAIVERS FOR COVERAGE
OF ADULTS OTHER THAN PREGNANT WOMEN.

(a) In General.--Section 2107(f) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1397gg(f)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``, the Secretary'' and inserting ``:
``(1) The Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(2) The Secretary may not approve, extend, renew, or
amend a waiver, experimental, pilot, or demonstration project
with respect to a State after the date of enactment of the
Kids First Act that would allow funds made available under
this title to be used to provide child health assistance or
other health benefits coverage for any other adult other than
a pregnant woman whose family income does not exceed the
income eligibility level specified for a targeted low-income
child in that State under a waiver or project approved as of
such date.
``(3) The Secretary may not approve, extend, renew, or
amend a waiver, experimental, pilot, or demonstration project
with respect to a State after the date of enactment of the
Kids First Act that would waive or modify the requirements of
section 2105(c)(8).''.
(b) Clarification of Authority for Coverage of Pregnant
Women.--Section 2106 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1397ff) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(f) No Authority To Cover Pregnant Women Through State
Plan.--For purposes of this title, a State may provide
assistance to a pregnant woman under the State child health
plan only--
``(1) by virtue of a waiver under section 1115; or
``(2) through the application of sections 457.10,
457.350(b)(2), 457.622(c)(5), and 457.626(a)(3) of title 42,
Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of
enactment of the Kids First Act).''.
(c) Assurance of Notice to Affected Enrollees.--The
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish
procedures to ensure that States provide adequate public
notice for parents, caretaker relatives, and nonpregnant
childless adults whose eligibility for child health
assistance or health benefits coverage under a waiver under
section 1115 of the Social Security Act will be terminated as
a result of the amendments made by subsection (a), and that
States otherwise adhere to regulations of the Secretary
relating to procedures for terminating waivers under section
1115 of the Social Security Act.

SEC. 6. STANDARDIZATION OF DETERMINATION OF FAMILY INCOME FOR
TARGETED LOW-INCOME CHILDREN UNDER TITLE XXI
AND OPTIONAL TARGETED LOW-INCOME CHILDREN UNDER
TITLE XIX.

(a) Eligibility Based on Gross Income.--
(1) In general.--Section 2110 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1397jj) is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by inserting ``in accordance
with subsection (d)'' after ``State plan''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Standardization of Determination of Family Income.--A
State shall determine family income for purposes of
determining income eligibility for child health assistance or
other health benefits coverage under the State child health
plan (or under a waiver of such plan under section 1115)
solely on the basis of the gross income (as defined by the
Secretary) of the family.''.
(2) Prohibition on waiver of requirements.--Section 2107(f)
(42 U.S.C. 1397gg(f)), as amended by section 5(a), is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) The Secretary may not approve a waiver, experimental,
pilot, or demonstration project with respect to a State after
the date of enactment of the Kids First Act that would waive
or modify the requirements of section 2110(d) (relating to
determining income eligibility on the basis of gross income)
and regulations promulgated to carry out such
requirements.''.
(b) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall promulgate interim final regulations defining
gross income for purposes of section 2110(d) of the Social
Security Act, as added by subsection (a).
(c) Application to Current Enrollees.--The interim final
regulations promulgated under subsection (b) shall not be
used to determine the income eligibility of any individual
enrolled in a State child health plan

[[Page 1624]]

under title XXI of the Social Security Act on the date of
enactment of this Act before the date on which such
eligibility of the individual is required to be redetermined
under the plan as in effect on such date. In the case of any
individual enrolled in such plan on such date who, solely as
a result of the application of subsection (d) of section 2110
of the Social Security Act (as added by subsection (a)) and
the regulations promulgated under subsection (b), is
determined to be ineligible for child health assistance under
the State child health plan, a State may elect, subject to
substitution of the Federal medical assistance percentage for
the enhanced FMAP under section 2105(c)(8)(A) of the Social
Security Act (as added by section 4(a)), to continue to
provide the individual with such assistance for so long as
the individual otherwise would be eligible for such
assistance and the individual's family income, if determined
under the income and resource standards and methodologies
applicable under the State child health plan on September 30,
2008, would not exceed the income eligibility level
applicable to the individual under the State child health
plan.

SEC. 7. GRANTS FOR OUTREACH AND ENROLLMENT.

(a) Grants.--Title XXI of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 2111. GRANTS TO IMPROVE OUTREACH AND ENROLLMENT.

``(a) Outreach and Enrollment Grants; National Campaign.--
``(1) In general.--From the amounts appropriated for a
fiscal year under subsection (f), subject to paragraph (2),
the Secretary shall award grants to eligible entities to
conduct outreach and enrollment efforts that are designed to
increase the enrollment and participation of eligible
children under this title and title XIX.
``(2) 10 percent set aside for national enrollment
campaign.--An amount equal to 10 percent of such amounts for
the fiscal year shall be used by the Secretary for
expenditures during the fiscal year to carry out a national
enrollment campaign in accordance with subsection (g).
``(b) Award of Grants.--
``(1) Priority for awarding.--
``(A) In general.--In awarding grants under subsection (a),
the Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities that--
``(i) propose to target geographic areas with high rates
of--

``(I) eligible but unenrolled children, including such
children who reside in rural areas; or
``(II) racial and ethnic minorities and health disparity
populations, including those proposals that address cultural
and linguistic barriers to enrollment; and

``(ii) submit the most demonstrable evidence required under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (c).
``(B) 10 percent set aside for outreach to indian
children.--An amount equal to 10 percent of the funds
appropriated under subsection (f) for a fiscal year shall be
used by the Secretary to award grants to Indian Health
Service providers and urban Indian organizations receiving
funds under title V of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act
(25 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) for outreach to, and enrollment of,
children who are Indians.
``(2) 2-year availability.--A grant awarded under this
section for a fiscal year shall remain available for
expenditure through the end of the succeeding fiscal year.
``(c) Application.--An eligible entity that desires to
receive a grant under subsection (a) shall submit an
application to the Secretary in such form and manner, and
containing such information, as the Secretary may decide.
Such application shall include--
``(1) evidence demonstrating that the entity includes
members who have access to, and credibility with, ethnic or
low-income populations in the communities in which activities
funded under the grant are to be conducted;
``(2) evidence demonstrating that the entity has the
ability to address barriers to enrollment, such as lack of
awareness of eligibility, stigma concerns and punitive fears
associated with receipt of benefits, and other cultural
barriers to applying for and receiving child health
assistance or medical assistance;
``(3) specific quality or outcomes performance measures to
evaluate the effectiveness of activities funded by a grant
awarded under this section; and
``(4) an assurance that the eligible entity shall--
``(A) conduct an assessment of the effectiveness of such
activities against the performance measures;
``(B) cooperate with the collection and reporting of
enrollment data and other information in order for the
Secretary to conduct such assessments.
``(C) in the case of an eligible entity that is not the
State, provide the State with enrollment data and other
information as necessary for the State to make necessary
projections of eligible children and pregnant women.
``(d) Supplement, Not Supplant.--Federal funds awarded
under this section shall be used to supplement, not supplant,
non-Federal funds that are otherwise available for activities
funded under this section.
``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means
any of the following:
``(A) A State with an approved child health plan under this
title.
``(B) A local government.
``(C) An Indian tribe or tribal consortium, a tribal
organization, an urban Indian organization receiving funds
under title V of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25
U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), or an Indian Health Service provider.
``(D) A Federal health safety net organization.
``(E) A State, national, local, or community-based public
or nonprofit private organization.
``(F) A faith-based organization or consortia, to the
extent that a grant awarded to such an entity is consistent
with the requirements of section 1955 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-65) relating to a grant award to
non-governmental entities.
``(G) An elementary or secondary school.
``(H) A national, local, or community-based public or
nonprofit private organization, including organizations that
use community health workers or community-based doula
programs.
``(2) Federal health safety net organization.--The term
`Federal health safety net organization' means--
``(A) a federally-qualified health center (as defined in
section 1905(l)(2)(B));
``(B) a hospital defined as a disproportionate share
hospital for purposes of section 1923;
``(C) a covered entity described in section 340B(a)(4) of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 256b(a)(4)); and
``(D) any other entity or consortium that serves children
under a federally-funded program, including the special
supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and
children (WIC) established under section 17 of the Child
Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786), the head start and
early head start programs under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C.
9801 et seq.), the school lunch program established under the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, and an
elementary or secondary school.
``(3) Indians; indian tribe; tribal organization; urban
indian organization.--The terms `Indian', `Indian tribe',
`tribal organization', and `urban Indian organization' have
the meanings given such terms in section 4 of the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1603).
``(4) Community health worker.--The term `community health
worker' means an individual who promotes health or nutrition
within the community in which the individual resides--
``(A) by serving as a liaison between communities and
health care agencies;
``(B) by providing guidance and social assistance to
community residents;
``(C) by enhancing community residents' ability to
effectively communicate with health care providers;
``(D) by providing culturally and linguistically
appropriate health or nutrition education;
``(E) by advocating for individual and community health or
nutrition needs; and
``(F) by providing referral and followup services.
``(f) Appropriation.--
``(1) In general.--There is appropriated, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the purpose
of awarding grants under this section--
``(A) $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010;
``(B) $75,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 and 2012;
and
``(C) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.
``(2) Grants in addition to other amounts paid.--Amounts
appropriated and paid under the authority of this section
shall be in addition to amounts appropriated under section
2104 and paid to States in accordance with section 2105,
including with respect to expenditures for outreach
activities in accordance with subsections (a)(1)(D)(iii) and
(c)(2)(C) of that section.
``(g) National Enrollment Campaign.--From the amounts made
available under subsection (a)(2) for a fiscal year, the
Secretary shall develop and implement a national enrollment
campaign to improve the enrollment of underserved child
populations in the programs established under this title and
title XIX. Such campaign may include--
``(1) the establishment of partnerships with the Secretary
of Education and the Secretary of Agriculture to develop
national campaigns to link the eligibility and enrollment
systems for the assistance programs each Secretary
administers that often serve the same children;
``(2) the integration of information about the programs
established under this title and title XIX in public health
awareness campaigns administered by the Secretary;
``(3) increased financial and technical support for
enrollment hotlines maintained by the Secretary to ensure
that all States participate in such hotlines;
``(4) the establishment of joint public awareness outreach
initiatives with the Secretary of Education and the Secretary
of Labor regarding the importance of health insurance to
building strong communities and the economy;

[[Page 1625]]

``(5) the development of special outreach materials for
Native Americans or for individuals with limited English
proficiency; and
``(6) such other outreach initiatives as the Secretary
determines would increase public awareness of the programs
under this title and title XIX.''.
(b) Nonapplication of Administrative Expenditures Cap.--
Section 2105(c)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1397ee(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Nonapplication to expenditures for outreach and
enrollment.--The limitation under subparagraph (A) shall not
apply with respect to expenditures for outreach activities
under section 2102(c)(1), or for enrollment activities, for
children eligible for child health assistance under the State
child health plan or medical assistance under the State plan
under title XIX.''.

SEC. 8. IMPROVED STATE OPTION FOR OFFERING PREMIUM ASSISTANCE
FOR COVERAGE OF CHILDREN THROUGH PRIVATE PLANS
UNDER SCHIP AND MEDICAID.

(a) In General.--Section 2105(c) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)), as amended by section 4(a) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(9) Additional state option for offering premium
assistance.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to the succeeding provisions of
this paragraph, a State may elect to offer a premium
assistance subsidy (as defined in subparagraph (C)) for
qualified coverage (as defined in subparagraph (B)) to all
targeted low-income children who are eligible for child
health assistance under the plan and have access to such
coverage in accordance with the requirements of this
paragraph.
``(B) Qualified coverage.--In this paragraph, the term
`qualified coverage' means the following:
``(i) Qualified employer sponsored coverage.--

``(I) In general.--A group health plan or health insurance
coverage offered through an employer that is--

``(aa) substantially equivalent to the benefits coverage in
a benchmark benefit package described in section 2103(b) or
benchmark-equivalent coverage that meets the requirements of
section 2103(a)(2);
``(bb) made similarly available to all of the employer's
employees and for which the employer makes a contribution to
the premium that is not less for employees receiving a
premium assistance subsidy under any option available under
the State child health plan under this title or the State
plan under title XIX to provide such assistance than the
employer contribution provided for all other employees; and
``(cc) cost-effective, as determined under subclause (II).

``(II) Cost-effectiveness.--A group health plan or health
insurance coverage offered through an employer shall be
considered to be cost-effective if--

``(aa) the marginal premium cost to purchase family
coverage through the employer is less than the State cost of
providing child health assistance through the State child
health plan for all the children in the family who are
targeted low-income children; or
``(bb) the marginal premium cost between individual
coverage and purchasing family coverage through the employer
is not greater than 175 percent of the cost to the State to
provide child health assistance through the State child
health plan for a targeted low-income child.
``(ii) Qualified non-group coverage.--Health insurance
coverage offered to individuals in the non-group health
insurance market that is substantially equivalent to the
benefits coverage in a benchmark benefit package described in
section 2103(b) or benchmark-equivalent coverage that meets
the requirements of section 2103(a)(2).
``(iii) High deductible health plan.--A high deductible
health plan (as defined in section 223(c)(2) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986) purchased through a health savings
account (as defined under section 223(d) of such Code).
``(C) Premium assistance subsidy.--
``(i) In general.--In this paragraph, the term `premium
assistance subsidy' means, with respect to a targeted low-
income child, the amount equal to the difference between the
employee contribution required for enrollment only of the
employee under qualified employer sponsored coverage and the
employee contribution required for enrollment of the employee
and the child in such coverage, less any applicable premium
cost-sharing applied under the State child health plan,
subject to the annual aggregate cost-sharing limit applied
under section 2103(e)(3)(B).
``(ii) State payment option.--Subject to clause (iii), a
State may provide a premium assistance subsidy directly to an
employer or as reimbursement to an employee for out-of-pocket
expenditures.
``(iii) Requirement for direct payment to employee.--A
State shall not pay a premium assistance subsidy directly to
the employee, unless the State has established procedures to
ensure that the targeted low-income child on whose behalf
such payments are made are actually enrolled in the qualified
employer sponsored coverage.
``(iv) Treatment as child health assistance.--Expenditures
for the provision of premium assistance subsidies shall be
considered child health assistance described in paragraph
(1)(C) of subsection (a) for purposes of making payments
under that subsection.
``(v) State option to require acceptance of subsidy.--A
State may condition the provision of child health assistance
under the State child health plan for a targeted low-income
child on the receipt of a premium assistance subsidy for
enrollment in qualified employer sponsored coverage if the
State determines the provision of such a subsidy to be more
cost-effective in accordance with subparagraph (B)(ii).
``(vi) Not treated as income.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a premium assistance subsidy provided in
accordance with this paragraph shall not be treated as income
to the child or the parent of the child for whom such subsidy
is provided.
``(D) No requirement to provide supplemental coverage for
benefits and additional cost-sharing protection provided
under the state child health plan.--
``(i) In general.--A State that elects the option to
provide a premium assistance subsidy under this paragraph
shall not be required to provide a targeted low-income child
enrolled in qualified employer sponsored coverage with
supplemental coverage for items or services that are not
covered, or are only partially covered, under the qualified
employer sponsored coverage or cost-sharing protection other
than the protection required under section 2103(e)(3)(B).
``(ii) Notice of cost-sharing requirements.--A State shall
provide a targeted low-income child or the parent of such a
child (as appropriate) who is provided with a premium
assistance subsidy in accordance with this paragraph with
notice of the cost-sharing requirements and limitations
imposed under the qualified employer sponsored coverage in
which the child is enrolled upon the enrollment of the child
in such coverage and annually thereafter.
``(iii) Record keeping requirements.--A State may require a
parent of a targeted low-income child that is enrolled in
qualified employer-sponsored coverage to bear the
responsibility for keeping track of out-of-pocket
expenditures incurred for cost-sharing imposed under such
coverage and to notify the State when the limit on such
expenditures imposed under section 2103(e)(3)(B) has been
reached for a year from the effective date of enrollment for
such year.
``(iv) State option for reimbursement.--A State may
retroactively reimburse a parent of a targeted low-income
child for out-of-pocket expenditures incurred after reaching
the 5 percent cost-sharing limitation imposed under section
2103(e)(3)(B) for a year.
``(E) 6-month waiting period required.--A State shall
impose at least a 6-month waiting period from the time an
individual is enrolled in private health insurance prior to
the provision of a premium assistance subsidy for a targeted
low-income child in accordance with this paragraph.
``(F) Non application of waiting period for enrollment in
the state medicaid plan or the state child health plan.--A
targeted low-income child provided a premium assistance
subsidy in accordance with this paragraph who loses
eligibility for such subsidy shall not be treated as having
been enrolled in private health insurance coverage for
purposes of applying any waiting period imposed under the
State child health plan or the State plan under title XIX for
the enrollment of the child under such plan.
``(G) Assurance of special enrollment period under group
health plans in case of eligibility for premium subsidy
assistance.--No payment shall be made under subsection (a)
for amounts expended for the provision of premium assistance
subsidies under this paragraph unless a State provides
assurances to the Secretary that the State has in effect laws
requiring a group health plan, a health insurance issuer
offering group health insurance coverage in connection with a
group health plan, and a self-funded health plan, to permit
an employee who is eligible, but not enrolled, for coverage
under the terms of the plan (or a child of such an employee
if the child is eligible, but not enrolled, for coverage
under such terms) to enroll for coverage under the terms of
the plan if the employee's child becomes eligible for a
premium assistance subsidy under this paragraph.
``(H) No effect on previously approved premium assistance
programs.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as
limiting the authority of a State to offer premium assistance
under section 1906, a waiver described in paragraph (2)(B) or
(3), a waiver approved under section 1115, or other authority
in effect on February 1, 2009.
``(I) Notice of availability.--A State shall--
``(i) include on any application or enrollment form for
child health assistance a notice of the availability of
premium assistance subsidies for the enrollment of targeted
low-income children in qualified employer sponsored coverage;
``(ii) provide, as part of the application and enrollment
process under the State child health plan, information
describing the availability of such subsidies and how to
elect to obtain such a subsidy; and
``(iii) establish such other procedures as the State
determines necessary to ensure

[[Page 1626]]

that parents are informed of the availability of such
subsidies under the State child health plan.''.
(b) Application to Medicaid.--Section 1906 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396e) is amended by inserting after
subsection (c) the following:
``(d) The provisions of section 2105(c)(9) shall apply to a
child who is eligible for medical assistance under the State
plan in the same manner as such provisions apply to a
targeted low-income child under a State child health plan
under title XXI. Section 1902(a)(34) shall not apply to a
child who is provided a premium assistance subsidy under the
State plan in accordance with the preceding sentence.''.

SEC. 9. TREATMENT OF UNBORN CHILDREN.

(a) Codification of Current Regulations.--Section
2110(c)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1397jj(c)(1)) is amended by striking the period at the end
and inserting the following: ``, and includes, at the option
of a State, an unborn child. For purposes of the previous
sentence, the term `unborn child' means a member of the
species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is
carried in the womb.''.
(b) Clarifications Regarding Coverage of Mothers.--Section
2103 (42 U.S.C. 1397cc) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(g) Clarifications Regarding Authority To Provide
Postpartum Services and Maternal Health Care.--Any State that
provides child health assistance to an unborn child under the
option described in section 2110(c)(1) may--
``(1) continue to provide such assistance to the mother, as
well as postpartum services, through the end of the month in
which the 60-day period (beginning on the last day of
pregnancy) ends; and
``(2) in the interest of the child to be born, have
flexibility in defining and providing services to benefit
either the mother or unborn child consistent with the health
of both.''.

SEC. 10. 50 PERCENT MATCHING RATE FOR ALL MEDICAID
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

Section 1903(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396b(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (2);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (3)(E) as paragraph (2) and
re-locating and indenting it appropriately;
(3) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated, by redesignating
clauses (i) and (ii) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), and
indenting them appropriately;
(4) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4);
(5) in paragraph (5), by striking ``which are attributable
to the offering, arranging, and furnishing'' and inserting
``which are for the medical assistance costs of furnishing'';
(6) by striking paragraph (6);
(7) in paragraph (7), by striking ``subject to section
1919(g)(3)(B),''; and
(8) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (7) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively.

SEC. 11. REDUCTION IN PAYMENTS FOR MEDICAID ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS TO PREVENT DUPLICATION OF SUCH PAYMENTS
UNDER TANF.

Section 1903 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(7), by striking ``section
1919(g)(3)(B)'' and inserting ``subsection (h)'';
(2) in subsection (a)(2)(D) by inserting ``, subject to
subsection (g)(3)(C) of such section'' after ``as are
attributable to State activities under section 1919(g)''; and
(3) by adding after subsection (g) the following new
subsection:
``(h) Reduction in Payments for Administrative Costs To
Prevent Duplication of Payments Under Title IV.--Beginning
with the calendar quarter commencing April 1, 2009, the
Secretary shall reduce the amount paid to each State under
subsection (a)(7) for each quarter by an amount equal to \1/
4\ of the annualized amount determined for the Medicaid
program under section 16(k)(2)(B) of the Food Stamp Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 2025(k)(2)(B)).''.

SEC. 12. ELIMINATION OF WAIVER OF CERTAIN MEDICAID PROVIDER
TAX PROVISIONS.

Effective October 1, 2009, subsection (c) of section 4722
of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33; 111
Stat. 515) is repealed.

SEC. 13. ELIMINATION OF SPECIAL PAYMENTS FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC
HOSPITALS.

Effective October 1, 2009, subsection (d) of section 701 of
the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act of 2000, as enacted into law by section
1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554 (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4 note), is
repealed.

SEC. 14. EFFECTIVE DATE; COORDINATION OF FUNDING FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2009.

(a) In General.--Unless otherwise specified, subject to
subsection (b), the amendments made by this Act shall take
effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Delay if State Legislation Required.--In the case of a
State child health plan under title XXI of the Social
Security Act or a waiver of such plan under section 1115 of
such Act which the Secretary of Health and Human Services
determines requires State legislation (other than legislation
appropriating funds) in order for the plan or waiver to meet
the additional requirements imposed by the amendments made by
this Act, the State child health plan or waiver shall not be
regarded as failing to comply with the requirements of such
title XXI solely on the basis of its failure to meet such
additional requirements before the first day of the first
calendar quarter beginning after the close of the first
regular session of the State legislature that begins after
the date of the enactment of this Act. For purposes of the
previous sentence, in the case of a State that has a 2-year
legislative session, each year of such session shall be
deemed to be a separate regular session of the State
legislature.
(c) Coordination of Funding for Fiscal Year 2009.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, insofar as funds
have been appropriated under section 2104(a)(11) of the
Social Security Act, as amended by section 201(a) of Public
Law 110-173 and in effect on January 1, 2009, to provide
allotments to States under title XXI of the Social Security
Act for fiscal year 2009--
(1) any amounts that are so appropriated that are not so
allotted and obligated before the date of the enactment of
this Act are rescinded; and
(2) any amount provided for allotments under title XXI of
such Act to a State under the amendments made by this Act for
such fiscal year shall be reduced by the amount of such
appropriations so allotted and obligated before such date.
______

SA 41. Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Vitter,
and Mr. Chambliss) proposed an amendment to amendment SA 39 proposed by
Mr. Reid (for Mr. Baucus) to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the
Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health
Insurance Program, and for other purposes; as follows:

Strike section 214 and insert the following:

SEC. 214. INCREASED FUNDING FOR ENROLLMENT OF UNINSURED LOW
INCOME AMERICAN CHILDREN.

______

SA 42. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, add the following:

TITLE _--HEALTH CARE CHOICE

SEC. _01. SHORT TITLE OF TITLE.

This title may be cited as ``Health Care Choice Act of
2009''.

SEC. _02. SPECIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR
ENACTMENT OF LAW.

This title is enacted pursuant to the power granted
Congress under article I, section 8, clause 3, of the United
States Constitution.

SEC. _03. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) The application of numerous and significant variations
in State law impacts the ability of insurers to offer, and
individuals to obtain, affordable individual health insurance
coverage, thereby impeding commerce in individual health
insurance coverage.
(2) Individual health insurance coverage is increasingly
offered through the Internet, other electronic means, and by
mail, all of which are inherently part of interstate
commerce.
(3) In response to these issues, it is appropriate to
encourage increased efficiency in the offering of individual
health insurance coverage through a collaborative approach by
the States in regulating this coverage.
(4) The establishment of risk-retention groups has provided
a successful model for the sale of insurance across State
lines, as the acts establishing those groups allow insurance
to be sold in multiple States but regulated by a single
State.

SEC. _04. COOPERATIVE GOVERNING OF INDIVIDUAL HEALTH
INSURANCE COVERAGE.

(a) In General.--Title XXVII of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following new part:

``PART D--COOPERATIVE GOVERNING OF INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE

``SEC. 2795. DEFINITIONS.

``In this part:
``(1) Primary state.--The term `primary State' means, with
respect to individual health insurance coverage offered by a
health insurance issuer, the State designated by the issuer
as the State whose covered

[[Page 1627]]

laws shall govern the health insurance issuer in the sale of
such coverage under this part. An issuer, with respect to a
particular policy, may only designate one such State as its
primary State with respect to all such coverage it offers.
Such an issuer may not change the designated primary State
with respect to individual health insurance coverage once the
policy is issued, except that such a change may be made upon
renewal of the policy. With respect to such designated State,
the issuer is deemed to be doing business in that State.
``(2) Secondary state.--The term `secondary State' means,
with respect to individual health insurance coverage offered
by a health insurance issuer, any State that is not the
primary State. In the case of a health insurance issuer that
is selling a policy in, or to a resident of, a secondary
State, the issuer is deemed to be doing business in that
secondary State.
``(3) Health insurance issuer.--The term `health insurance
issuer' has the meaning given such term in section
2791(b)(2), except that such an issuer must be licensed in
the primary State and be qualified to sell individual health
insurance coverage in that State.
``(4) Individual health insurance coverage.--The term
`individual health insurance coverage' means health insurance
coverage offered in the individual market, as defined in
section 2791(e)(1).
``(5) Applicable state authority.--The term `applicable
State authority' means, with respect to a health insurance
issuer in a State, the State insurance commissioner or
official or officials designated by the State to enforce the
requirements of this title for the State with respect to the
issuer.
``(6) Hazardous financial condition.--The term `hazardous
financial condition' means that, based on its present or
reasonably anticipated financial condition, a health
insurance issuer is unlikely to be able--
``(A) to meet obligations to policyholders with respect to
known claims and reasonably anticipated claims; or
``(B) to pay other obligations in the normal course of
business.
``(7) Covered laws.--
``(A) In general.--The term `covered laws' means the laws,
rules, regulations, agreements, and orders governing the
insurance business pertaining to--
``(i) individual health insurance coverage issued by a
health insurance issuer;
``(ii) the offer, sale, rating (including medical
underwriting), renewal, and issuance of individual health
insurance coverage to an individual;
``(iii) the provision to an individual in relation to
individual health insurance coverage of health care and
insurance related services;
``(iv) the provision to an individual in relation to
individual health insurance coverage of management,
operations, and investment activities of a health insurance
issuer; and
``(v) the provision to an individual in relation to
individual health insurance coverage of loss control and
claims administration for a health insurance issuer with
respect to liability for which the issuer provides insurance.
``(B) Exception.--Such term does not include any law, rule,
regulation, agreement, or order governing the use of care or
cost management techniques, including any requirement related
to provider contracting, network access or adequacy, health
care data collection, or quality assurance.
``(8) State.--The term `State' means the 50 States and
includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana
Islands.
``(9) Unfair claims settlement practices.--The term `unfair
claims settlement practices' means only the following
practices:
``(A) Knowingly misrepresenting to claimants and insured
individuals relevant facts or policy provisions relating to
coverage at issue.
``(B) Failing to acknowledge with reasonable promptness
pertinent communications with respect to claims arising under
policies.
``(C) Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards
for the prompt investigation and settlement of claims arising
under policies.
``(D) Failing to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable
settlement of claims submitted in which liability has become
reasonably clear.
``(E) Refusing to pay claims without conducting a
reasonable investigation.
``(F) Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a
reasonable period of time after having completed an
investigation related to those claims.
``(G) A pattern or practice of compelling insured
individuals or their beneficiaries to institute suits to
recover amounts due under its policies by offering
substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in
suits brought by them.
``(H) A pattern or practice of attempting to settle or
settling claims for less than the amount that a reasonable
person would believe the insured individual or his or her
beneficiary was entitled by reference to written or printed
advertising material accompanying or made part of an
application.
``(I) Attempting to settle or settling claims on the basis
of an application that was materially altered without notice
to, or knowledge or consent of, the insured.
``(J) Failing to provide forms necessary to present claims
within 15 calendar days of a requests with reasonable
explanations regarding their use.
``(K) Attempting to cancel a policy in less time than that
prescribed in the policy or by the law of the primary State.
``(10) Fraud and abuse.--The term `fraud and abuse' means
an act or omission committed by a person who, knowingly and
with intent to defraud, commits, or conceals any material
information concerning, one or more of the following:
``(A) Presenting, causing to be presented or preparing with
knowledge or belief that it will be presented to or by an
insurer, a reinsurer, broker or its agent, false information
as part of, in support of or concerning a fact material to
one or more of the following:
``(i) An application for the issuance or renewal of an
insurance policy or reinsurance contract.
``(ii) The rating of an insurance policy or reinsurance
contract.
``(iii) A claim for payment or benefit pursuant to an
insurance policy or reinsurance contract.
``(iv) Premiums paid on an insurance policy or reinsurance
contract.
``(v) Payments made in accordance with the terms of an
insurance policy or reinsurance contract.
``(vi) A document filed with the commissioner or the chief
insurance regulatory official of another jurisdiction.
``(vii) The financial condition of an insurer or reinsurer.
``(viii) The formation, acquisition, merger,
reconsolidation, dissolution or withdrawal from one or more
lines of insurance or reinsurance in all or part of a State
by an insurer or reinsurer.
``(ix) The issuance of written evidence of insurance.
``(x) The reinstatement of an insurance policy.
``(B) Solicitation or acceptance of new or renewal
insurance risks on behalf of an insurer, reinsurer or other
person engaged in the business of insurance by a person who
knows or should know that the insurer or other person
responsible for the risk is insolvent at the time of the
transaction.
``(C) Transaction of the business of insurance in violation
of laws requiring a license, certificate of authority or
other legal authority for the transaction of the business of
insurance.
``(D) Attempt to commit, aiding or abetting in the
commission of, or conspiracy to commit the acts or omissions
specified in this paragraph.

``SEC. 2796. APPLICATION OF LAW.

``(a) In General.--The covered laws of the primary State
shall apply to individual health insurance coverage offered
by a health insurance issuer in the primary State and in any
secondary State, but only if the coverage and issuer comply
with the conditions of this section with respect to the
offering of coverage in any secondary State.
``(b) Exemptions From Covered Laws in a Secondary State.--
Except as provided in this section, a health insurance issuer
with respect to its offer, sale, rating (including medical
underwriting), renewal, and issuance of individual health
insurance coverage in any secondary State is exempt from any
covered laws of the secondary State (and any rules,
regulations, agreements, or orders sought or issued by such
State under or related to such covered laws) to the extent
that such laws would--
``(1) make unlawful, or regulate, directly or indirectly,
the operation of the health insurance issuer operating in the
secondary State, except that any secondary State may require
such an issuer--
``(A) to pay, on a nondiscriminatory basis, applicable
premium and other taxes (including high risk pool
assessments) which are levied on insurers and surplus lines
insurers, brokers, or policyholders under the laws of the
State;
``(B) to register with and designate the State insurance
commissioner as its agent solely for the purpose of receiving
service of legal documents or process;
``(C) to submit to an examination of its financial
condition by the State insurance commissioner in any State in
which the issuer is doing business to determine the issuer's
financial condition, if--
``(i) the State insurance commissioner of the primary State
has not done an examination within the period recommended by
the National Association of Insurance Commissioners; and
``(ii) any such examination is conducted in accordance with
the examiners' handbook of the National Association of
Insurance Commissioners and is coordinated to avoid
unjustified duplication and unjustified repetition;
``(D) to comply with a lawful order issued--
``(i) in a delinquency proceeding commenced by the State
insurance commissioner if there has been a finding of
financial impairment under subparagraph (C); or
``(ii) in a voluntary dissolution proceeding;
``(E) to comply with an injunction issued by a court of
competent jurisdiction, upon a petition by the State
insurance commissioner alleging that the issuer is in
hazardous financial condition;

[[Page 1628]]

``(F) to participate, on a nondiscriminatory basis, in any
insurance insolvency guaranty association or similar
association to which a health insurance issuer in the State
is required to belong;
``(G) to comply with any State law regarding fraud and
abuse (as defined in section 2795(10)), except that if the
State seeks an injunction regarding the conduct described in
this subparagraph, such injunction must be obtained from a
court of competent jurisdiction;
``(H) to comply with any State law regarding unfair claims
settlement practices (as defined in section 2795(9)); or
``(I) to comply with the applicable requirements for
independent review under section 2798 with respect to
coverage offered in the State;
``(2) require any individual health insurance coverage
issued by the issuer to be countersigned by an insurance
agent or broker residing in that Secondary State; or
``(3) otherwise discriminate against the issuer issuing
insurance in both the primary State and in any secondary
State.
``(c) Clear and Conspicuous Disclosure.--A health insurance
issuer shall provide the following notice, in 12-point bold
type, in any insurance coverage offered in a secondary State
under this part by such a health insurance issuer and at
renewal of the policy, with the 5 blank spaces therein being
appropriately filled with the name of the health insurance
issuer, the name of primary State, the name of the secondary
State, the name of the secondary State, and the name of the
secondary State, respectively, for the coverage concerned:
This policy is issued by _____ and is governed by the laws
and regulations of the State of _____, and it has met all the
laws of that State as determined by that State's Department
of Insurance. This policy may be less expensive than others
because it is not subject to all of the insurance laws and
regulations of the State of _____, including coverage of some
services or benefits mandated by the law of the State of
_____. Additionally, this policy is not subject to all of the
consumer protection laws or restrictions on rate changes of
the State of _____. As with all insurance products, before
purchasing this policy, you should carefully review the
policy and determine what health care services the policy
covers and what benefits it provides, including any
exclusions, limitations, or conditions for such services or
benefits.''.
``(d) Prohibition on Certain Reclassifications and Premium
Increases.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, a health
insurance issuer that provides individual health insurance
coverage to an individual under this part in a primary or
secondary State may not upon renewal--
``(A) move or reclassify the individual insured under the
health insurance coverage from the class such individual is
in at the time of issue of the contract based on the health-
status related factors of the individual; or
``(B) increase the premiums assessed the individual for
such coverage based on a health status-related factor or
change of a health status-related factor or the past or
prospective claim experience of the insured individual.
``(2) Construction.--Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be
construed to prohibit a health insurance issuer--
``(A) from terminating or discontinuing coverage or a class
of coverage in accordance with subsections (b) and (c) of
section 2742;
``(B) from raising premium rates for all policy holders
within a class based on claims experience;
``(C) from changing premiums or offering discounted
premiums to individuals who engage in wellness activities at
intervals prescribed by the issuer, if such premium changes
or incentives--
``(i) are disclosed to the consumer in the insurance
contract;
``(ii) are based on specific wellness activities that are
not applicable to all individuals; and
``(iii) are not obtainable by all individuals to whom
coverage is offered;
``(D) from reinstating lapsed coverage; or
``(E) from retroactively adjusting the rates charged an
insured individual if the initial rates were set based on
material misrepresentation by the individual at the time of
issue.
``(e) Prior Offering of Policy in Primary State.--A health
insurance issuer may not offer for sale individual health
insurance coverage in a secondary State unless that coverage
is currently offered for sale in the primary State.
``(f) Licensing of Agents or Brokers for Health Insurance
Issuers.--Any State may require that a person acting, or
offering to act, as an agent or broker for a health insurance
issuer with respect to the offering of individual health
insurance coverage obtain a license from that State, with
commissions or other compensation subject to the provisions
of the laws of that State, except that a State may not impose
any qualification or requirement which discriminates against
a nonresident agent or broker.
``(g) Documents for Submission to State Insurance
Commissioner.--Each health insurance issuer issuing
individual health insurance coverage in both primary and
secondary States shall submit--
``(1) to the insurance commissioner of each State in which
it intends to offer such coverage, before it may offer
individual health insurance coverage in such State--
``(A) a copy of the plan of operation or feasibility study
or any similar statement of the policy being offered and its
coverage (which shall include the name of its primary State
and its principal place of business);
``(B) written notice of any change in its designation of
its primary State; and
``(C) written notice from the issuer of the issuer's
compliance with all the laws of the primary State; and
``(2) to the insurance commissioner of each secondary State
in which it offers individual health insurance coverage, a
copy of the issuer's quarterly financial statement submitted
to the primary State, which statement shall be certified by
an independent public accountant and contain a statement of
opinion on loss and loss adjustment expense reserves made
by--
``(A) a member of the American Academy of Actuaries; or
``(B) a qualified loss reserve specialist.
``(h) Power of Courts to Enjoin Conduct.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to affect the authority of any
Federal or State court to enjoin--
``(1) the solicitation or sale of individual health
insurance coverage by a health insurance issuer to any person
or group who is not eligible for such insurance; or
``(2) the solicitation or sale of individual health
insurance coverage that violates the requirements of the law
of a secondary State which are described in subparagraphs (A)
through (H) of section 2796(b)(1).
``(i) Power of Secondary States to Take Administrative
Action.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect
the authority of any State to enjoin conduct in violation of
that State's laws described in section 2796(b)(1).
``(j) State Powers to Enforce State Laws.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to the provisions of subsection
(b)(1)(G) (relating to injunctions) and paragraph (2),
nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the
authority of any State to make use of any of its powers to
enforce the laws of such State with respect to which a health
insurance issuer is not exempt under subsection (b).
``(2) Courts of competent jurisdiction.--If a State seeks
an injunction regarding the conduct described in paragraphs
(1) and (2) of subsection (h), such injunction must be
obtained from a Federal or State court of competent
jurisdiction.
``(k) States' Authority to Sue.--Nothing in this section
shall affect the authority of any State to bring action in
any Federal or State court.
``(l) Generally Applicable Laws.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to affect the applicability of State laws
generally applicable to persons or corporations.
``(m) Guaranteed Availability of Coverage to Hipaa Eligible
Individuals.--To the extent that a health insurance issuer is
offering coverage in a primary State that does not
accommodate residents of secondary States or does not provide
a working mechanism for residents of a secondary State, and
the issuer is offering coverage under this part in such
secondary State which has not adopted a qualified high risk
pool as its acceptable alternative mechanism (as defined in
section 2744(c)(2)), the issuer shall, with respect to any
individual health insurance coverage offered in a secondary
State under this part, comply with the guaranteed
availability requirements for eligible individuals in section
2741.

``SEC. 2797. PRIMARY STATE MUST MEET FEDERAL FLOOR BEFORE
ISSUER MAY SELL INTO SECONDARY STATES.

``A health insurance issuer may not offer, sell, or issue
individual health insurance coverage in a secondary State if
the State insurance commissioner does not use a risk-based
capital formula for the determination of capital and surplus
requirements for all health insurance issuers.

``SEC. 2798. INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL APPEALS PROCEDURES.

``(a) Right to External Appeal.--A health insurance issuer
may not offer, sell, or issue individual health insurance
coverage in a secondary State under the provisions of this
title unless----
``(1) both the secondary State and the primary State have
legislation or regulations in place establishing an
independent review process for individuals who are covered by
individual health insurance coverage, or
``(2) in any case in which the requirements of subparagraph
(A) are not met with respect to the either of such States,
the issuer provides an independent review mechanism
substantially identical (as determined by the applicable
State authority of such State) to that prescribed in the
`Health Carrier External Review Model Act' of the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners for all individuals
who purchase insurance coverage under the terms of this part,
except that, under such mechanism, the review is conducted by
an independent medical reviewer, or a panel of such
reviewers, with respect to whom the requirements of
subsection (b) are met.

[[Page 1629]]

``(b) Qualifications of Independent Medical Reviewers.--In
the case of any independent review mechanism referred to in
subsection (a)(2)--
``(1) In general.--In referring a denial of a claim to an
independent medical reviewer, or to any panel of such
reviewers, to conduct independent medical review, the issuer
shall ensure that--
``(A) each independent medical reviewer meets the
qualifications described in paragraphs (2) and (3);
``(B) with respect to each review, each reviewer meets the
requirements of paragraph (4) and the reviewer, or at least 1
reviewer on the panel, meets the requirements described in
paragraph (5); and
``(C) compensation provided by the issuer to each reviewer
is consistent with paragraph (6).
``(2) Licensure and expertise.--Each independent medical
reviewer shall be a physician (allopathic or osteopathic) or
health care professional who--
``(A) is appropriately credentialed or licensed in 1 or
more States to deliver health care services; and
``(B) typically treats the condition, makes the diagnosis,
or provides the type of treatment under review.
``(3) Independence.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), each
independent medical reviewer in a case shall--
``(i) not be a related party (as defined in paragraph (7));
``(ii) not have a material familial, financial, or
professional relationship with such a party; and
``(iii) not otherwise have a conflict of interest with such
a party (as determined under regulations).
``(B) Exception.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be
construed to--
``(i) prohibit an individual, solely on the basis of
affiliation with the issuer, from serving as an independent
medical reviewer if--

``(I) a non-affiliated individual is not reasonably
available;
``(II) the affiliated individual is not involved in the
provision of items or services in the case under review;
``(III) the fact of such an affiliation is disclosed to the
issuer and the enrollee (or authorized representative) and
neither party objects; and
``(IV) the affiliated individual is not an employee of the
issuer and does not provide services exclusively or primarily
to or on behalf of the issuer;

``(ii) prohibit an individual who has staff privileges at
the institution where the treatment involved takes place from
serving as an independent medical reviewer merely on the
basis of such affiliation if the affiliation is disclosed to
the issuer and the enrollee (or authorized representative),
and neither party objects; or
``(iii) prohibit receipt of compensation by an independent
medical reviewer from an entity if the compensation is
provided consistent with paragraph (6).
``(4) Practicing health care professional in same field.--
``(A) In general.--In a case involving treatment, or the
provision of items or services--
``(i) by a physician, a reviewer shall be a practicing
physician (allopathic or osteopathic) of the same or similar
specialty, as a physician who, acting within the appropriate
scope of practice within the State in which the service is
provided or rendered, typically treats the condition, makes
the diagnosis, or provides the type of treatment under
review; or
``(ii) by a non-physician health care professional, the
reviewer, or at least 1 member of the review panel, shall be
a practicing non-physician health care professional of the
same or similar specialty as the non-physician health care
professional who, acting within the appropriate scope of
practice within the State in which the service is provided or
rendered, typically treats the condition, makes the
diagnosis, or provides the type of treatment under review.
``(B) Practicing defined.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the term `practicing' means, with respect to an individual
who is a physician or other health care professional, that
the individual provides health care services to individual
patients on average at least 2 days per week.
``(5) Pediatric expertise.--In the case of an external
review relating to a child, a reviewer shall have expertise
under paragraph (2) in pediatrics.
``(6) Limitations on reviewer compensation.--Compensation
provided by the issuer to an independent medical reviewer in
connection with a review under this section shall--
``(A) not exceed a reasonable level; and
``(B) not be contingent on the decision rendered by the
reviewer.
``(7) Related party defined.--For purposes of this section,
the term `related party' means, with respect to a denial of a
claim under a coverage relating to an enrollee, any of the
following:
``(A) The issuer involved, or any fiduciary, officer,
director, or employee of the issuer.
``(B) The enrollee (or authorized representative).
``(C) The health care professional that provides the items
or services involved in the denial.
``(D) The institution at which the items or services (or
treatment) involved in the denial are provided.
``(E) The manufacturer of any drug or other item that is
included in the items or services involved in the denial.
``(F) Any other party determined under any regulations to
have a substantial interest in the denial involved.
``(8) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
``(A) Enrollee.--The term `enrollee' means, with respect to
health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance
issuer, an individual enrolled with the issuer to receive
such coverage.
``(B) Health care professional.--The term `health care
professional' means an individual who is licensed,
accredited, or certified under State law to provide specified
health care services and who is operating within the scope of
such licensure, accreditation, or certification.

``SEC. 2799. ENFORCEMENT.

``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), with respect
to specific individual health insurance coverage the primary
State for such coverage has sole jurisdiction to enforce the
primary State's covered laws in the primary State and any
secondary State.
``(b) Secondary State's Authority.--Nothing in subsection
(a) shall be construed to affect the authority of a secondary
State to enforce its laws as set forth in the exception
specified in section 2796(b)(1).
``(c) Court Interpretation.--In reviewing action initiated
by the applicable secondary State authority, the court of
competent jurisdiction shall apply the covered laws of the
primary State.
``(d) Notice of Compliance Failure.--In the case of
individual health insurance coverage offered in a secondary
State that fails to comply with the covered laws of the
primary State, the applicable State authority of the
secondary State may notify the applicable State authority of
the primary State.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to individual health insurance coverage offered,
issued, or sold after the date that is one year after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Gao Ongoing Study and Reports.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct an ongoing study concerning the effect of the
amendment made by subsection (a) on--
(A) the number of uninsured and under-insured;
(B) the availability and cost of health insurance policies
for individuals with pre-existing medical conditions;
(C) the availability and cost of health insurance policies
generally;
(D) the elimination or reduction of different types of
benefits under health insurance policies offered in different
States; and
(E) cases of fraud or abuse relating to health insurance
coverage offered under such amendment and the resolution of
such cases.
(2) Annual reports.--The Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress an annual report, after the end of each of the 5
years following the effective date of the amendment made by
subsection (a), on the ongoing study conducted under
paragraph (1).

SEC. _05. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this title or the application of such
provision to any person or circumstance is held to be
unconstitutional, the remainder of this title and the
application of the provisions of such to any other person or
circumstance shall not be affected.
______

SA 43. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 39 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Baucus) to the bill H.R.
2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve
the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes; as
follows:

At the appropriate place, add the following:

SEC. __. REQUIRED COST-SHARING FOR HIGHER INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

SA 44. Mr. DeMINT (for himself and Mr. Vitter) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the

[[Page 1630]]

bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend
and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. --. PROHIBITION ON CONSIDERATION OF REVENUE PROVISIONS
WITHOUT CERTIFICATION OF TAX BURDEN EFFECTS.

(a) In General.--It shall not be in order to consider a
bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that
proposes any provision amending the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 or affecting the application of such Code unless the
Joint Committee on Taxation provides a written certification
that such provision does not increase the net yearly tax
burden for any family whose taxable income for any taxable
year to which such provision applies is less than $250,000.
(b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--
(1) Waiver.--A point of order raised under subsection (a)
may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by an
affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen
and sworn.
(2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of
the Chair on a point of order raised under subsection (a).
(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``family'' means a married couple filing jointly or an
individual filing as a head of household.
______

SA 45. Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Wicker) proposed
an amendment to amendment SA 39 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Baucus)
to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to
extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; as follows:

SA 46. Mr. KYL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him
to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to
extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 76, after line 23, add the following:

SEC. 116. PREVENTING SUBSTITUTION OF CHIP COVERAGE FOR
PRIVATE COVERAGE.

(a) Findings.--
(1) Congress agrees with the President that low-income
children should be the first priority of all States in
providing child health assistance under CHIP.
(2) Congress agrees with the President and the
Congressional Budget Office that the substitution of CHIP
coverage for private coverage occurs more frequently for
children in families at higher income levels.
(3) Congress agrees with the President that it is
appropriate that States that expand CHIP eligibility to
children at higher income levels should have achieved a high
level of health benefits coverage for low-income children and
should implement strategies to address such substitution.
(4) Congress concludes that the policies specified in this
section (and the amendments made by this section) are the
appropriate policies to address these issues.
(b) Analyses of Best Practices and Methodology in
Addressing Crowd-Out.--
(1) GAO report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit to the Committee on Finance of the
Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House
of Representatives and the Secretary a report describing the
best practices by States in addressing the issue of CHIP
crowd-out. Such report shall include analyses of--
(A) the impact of different geographic areas, including
urban and rural areas, on CHIP crowd-out;
(B) the impact of different State labor markets on CHIP
crowd-out;
(C) the impact of different strategies for addressing CHIP
crowd-out;
(D) the incidence of crowd-out for children with different
levels of family income; and
(E) the relationship (if any) between changes in the
availability and affordability of dependent coverage under
employer-sponsored health insurance and CHIP crowd-out.
(2) IOM report on methodology.--The Secretary shall enter
into an arrangement with the Institute of Medicine under
which the Institute submits to the Committee on Finance of
the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the
House of Representatives and the Secretary, not later than 18
months after the date of the enactment of this Act, a report
on--
(A) the most accurate, reliable, and timely way to
measure--
(i) on a State-by-State basis, the rate of public and
private health benefits coverage among low-income children
with family income that does not exceed 200 percent of the
poverty line; and
(ii) CHIP crowd-out, including in the case of children with
family income that exceeds 200 percent of the poverty line;
and
(B) the least burdensome way to gather the necessary data
to conduct the measurements described in subparagraph (A).
Out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
there are hereby appropriated $2,000,000 to carry out this
paragraph for the period ending September 30, 2010.
(3) Incorporation of definitions.--In this section, the
terms ``CHIP crowd-out'', ``children'', ``poverty line'', and
``State'' have the meanings given such terms for purposes of
CHIP.
(4) Definition of chip crowd-out.--Section 2110(c) (42
U.S.C. 1397jj(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(9) CHIP crowd-out.--The term `CHIP crowd-out' means the
substitution of--
``(A) health benefits coverage for a child under this
title, for
``(B) health benefits coverage for the child other than
under this title or title XIX.''.
(c) Development of Best Practice Recommendations.--Section
2107 (42 U.S.C. 1397gg) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(g) Development of Best Practice Recommendations.--Within
6 months after the date of receipt of the reports under
subsections (a) and (b) of section 116 of the Children's
Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, the
Secretary, in consultation with States, including Medicaid
and CHIP directors in States, shall publish in the Federal
Register, and post on the public website for the Department
of Health and Human Services--
``(1) recommendations regarding best practices for States
to use to address CHIP crowd-out; and
``(2) uniform standards for data collection by States to
measure and report--
``(A) health benefits coverage for children with family
income below 200 percent of the poverty line; and
``(B) on CHIP crowd-out, including for children with family
income that exceeds 200 percent of the poverty line.
The Secretary, in consultation with States, including
Medicaid and CHIP directors in States, may from time to time
update the best practice recommendations and uniform
standards set published under paragraphs (1) and (2) and
shall provide for publication and posting of such updated
recommendations and standards.''.
(d) Requirement To Address CHIP Crowd-Out; Secretarial
Review.--Section 2106 (42 U.S.C. 1397ff) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(f) Requirement To Address CHIP Crowd-Out; Secretarial
Review.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the best
practice application date described in paragraph (2), each
State that has a State child health plan shall submit to the
Secretary a State plan amendment describing how the State--
``(A) will address CHIP crowd-out; and
``(B) will incorporate recommended best practices referred
to in such paragraph.
``(2) Best practice application date.--The best practice
application date described in this paragraph is the date that
is 6 months after the date of publication of recommendations
regarding best practices under section 2107(g)(1).
``(3) Secretarial review.--The Secretary shall--

[[Page 1631]]

``(A) review each State plan amendment submitted under
paragraph (1);
``(B) determine whether the amendment incorporates
recommended best practices referred to in paragraph (2);
``(C) in the case of a higher income eligibility State (as
defined in section 2105(c)(9)(B)), determine whether the
State meets the enrollment targets required under reference
section 2105(c)(9)(C); and
``(D) notify the State of such determinations.''.
(e) Limitation on Payments for States Covering Higher
Income Children.--
(1) In general.--Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)), as
amended by section 114(a), is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(9) Limitation on payments for states covering higher
income children.--
``(A) Determinations.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall determine, for each
State that is a higher income eligibility State as of April 1
of 2011 and each subsequent year, whether the State meets the
target rate of coverage of low-income children required under
subparagraph (C) and shall notify the State in that month of
such determination.
``(ii) Determination of failure.--If the Secretary
determines in such month that a higher income eligibility
State does not meet such target rate of coverage, subject to
subparagraph (E), no payment shall be made as of October 1 of
such year on or after October 1, 2011, under this section for
child health assistance provided for higher-income children
(as defined in subparagraph (D)) under the State child health
plan unless and until the State establishes it is in
compliance with such requirement.
``(B) Higher income eligibility state.--A higher income
eligibility State described in this clause is a State that--
``(i) applies under its State child health plan an
eligibility income standard for targeted low-income children
that exceeds 300 percent of the poverty line; or
``(ii) because of the application of a general exclusion of
a block of income that is not determined by type of expense
or type of income, applies an effective income standard under
the State child health plan for such children that exceeds
300 percent of the poverty line.
``(C) Requirement for target rate of coverage of low-income
children.--
``(i) In general.--The requirement of this subparagraph for
a State is that the rate of health benefits coverage (both
private and public) for low-income children in the State is
not statistically significantly (at a p=0.05 level) less than
the target rate of coverage specified in clause (ii).
``(ii) Target rate.--The target rate of coverage specified
in this clause is the average rate (determined by the
Secretary) of health benefits coverage (both private and
public) as of January 1, 2011, among the 10 of the 50 States
and the District of Columbia with the highest percentage of
health benefits coverage (both private and public) for low-
income children.
``(iii) Standards for data.--In applying this subparagraph,
rates of health benefits coverage for States shall be
determined using the uniform standards identified by the
Secretary under section 2107(g)(2).
``(D) Higher-income child.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the term `higher income child' means, with respect to a State
child health plan, a targeted low-income child whose family
income--
``(i) exceeds 300 percent of the poverty line; or
``(ii) would exceed 300 percent of the poverty line if
there were not taken into account any general exclusion
described in subparagraph (B)(ii).
``(E) Notice and opportunity to comply with target rate.--
If the Secretary makes a determination described in
subparagraph (A)(ii) in April of a year, the Secretary--
``(i) shall provide the State with the opportunity to
submit and implement a corrective action plan for the State
to come into compliance with the requirement of subparagraph
(C) before October 1 of such year;
``(ii) shall not effect a denial of payment under
subparagraph (A) on the basis of such determination before
October 1 of such year; and
``(iii) shall not effect such a denial if the Secretary
determines that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
implementation of such a correction action plan will bring
the State into compliance with the requirement of
subparagraph (C).''.
(2) Construction.--Nothing in the amendment made by
paragraph (1) or this section this shall be construed as
authorizing the Secretary to limit payments under title XXI
of the Social Security Act in the case of a State that is not
a higher income eligibility State (as defined in section
2105(c)(9)(B) of such Act, as added by paragraph (1)).
(f) Treatment of Medical Support Orders.--Section 2102(b)
(42 U.S.C. 1397bb(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(5) Treatment of medical support orders.--
``(A) In general.--Nothing in this title shall be construed
to allow the Secretary to require that a State deny
eligibility for child health assistance to a child who is
otherwise eligible on the basis of the existence of a valid
medical support order being in effect.
``(B) State election.--A State may elect to limit
eligibility for child health assistance to a targeted low-
income child on the basis of the existence of a valid medical
support order on the child's behalf, but only if the State
does not deny such eligibility for a child on such basis if
the child asserts that the order is not being complied with
for any of the reasons described in subparagraph (C) unless
the State demonstrates that none of such reasons applies in
the case involved.
``(C) Reasons for noncompliance.--The reasons described in
this subparagraph for noncompliance with a medical support
order with respect to a child are that the child is not being
provided health benefits coverage pursuant to such order
because--
``(i) of failure of the noncustodial parent to comply with
the order;
``(ii) of the failure of an employer, group health plan or
health insurance issuer to comply with such order; or
``(iii) the child resides in a geographic area in which
benefits under the health benefits coverage are generally
unavailable.''.
(g) Effective Date of Amendments; Consistency of
Policies.--The amendments made by this section shall take
effect as if enacted on August 16, 2007. The Secretary may
not impose (or continue in effect) any requirement, prevent
the implementation of any provision, or condition the
approval of any provision under any State child health plan,
State plan amendment, or waiver request on the basis of any
policy or interpretation relating to CHIP crowd-out,
coordination with other sources of coverage, target rate of
coverage, or medical support order other than under the
amendments made by this section. In the case of a State plan
amendment which was denied on or after August 16, 2007, on
the basis of any such policy or interpretation in effect
before the date of the enactment of this Act, if the State
submits a modification of such State plan amendment that
complies with title XXI of the Social Security Act as amended
by this Act, such submitted State plan amendment, as so
modified, shall be considered as if it had been submitted (as
so modified) as of the date of its original submission, but
such State plan amendment shall not be effective before the
date of the enactment of this Act.
______

SA 47. Mr. COBURN (for himself and Mr. Thune) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI
of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health
Insurance Program, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on
the table; as follows:

On page 153, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
(c) Required Offering of Premium Assistance for Coverage of
Children Through Private Plans Under SCHIP and Medicaid if
the State Expands Their Program Beyond Current Eligibility
Levels.--
(1) In general.--Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)), as
amended by section 601, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(12) Required offering of premium assistance.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title, the child health assistance provided to any child
whose family income exceeds the income eligibility level in
effect under the State children's plan as of January 1, 2009,
shall consist of a State premium assistance subsidy (as
defined in subparagraph (C)) for qualified coverage (as
defined in subparagraph (B)) in accordance with the
requirements of this paragraph.
``(B) Qualified coverage.--In this paragraph, the term
`qualified coverage' means the following:
``(i) Qualified employer sponsored coverage.--

``(I) In general.--A group health plan or health insurance
coverage offered through an employer that is--

``(II) Cost-effectiveness.--A group health plan or health
insurance coverage offered through an employer shall be
considered to be cost-effective if--

[[Page 1632]]

to provide child health assistance through the State child
health plan for a targeted low-income child.
``(ii) Qualified non-group coverage.--Health insurance
coverage offered to individuals in the non-group health
insurance market that is substantially equivalent to the
benefits coverage in a benchmark benefit package described in
section 2103(b) or benchmark-equivalent coverage that meets
the requirements of section 2103(a)(2).
``(iii) High deductible health plan.--A high deductible
health plan (as defined in section 223(c)(2) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986) purchased through a health savings
account (as defined under section 223(d) of such Code).
``(C) Premium assistance subsidy.--
``(i) In general.--In this paragraph, the term `premium
assistance subsidy' means, with respect to a targeted low-
income child, the amount equal to the difference between the
employee contribution required for enrollment only of the
employee under qualified employer sponsored coverage and the
employee contribution required for enrollment of the employee
and the child in such coverage, less any applicable premium
cost-sharing applied under the State child health plan,
subject to the annual aggregate cost-sharing limit applied
under section 2103(e)(3)(B).
``(ii) State payment option.--Subject to clause (iii), a
State may provide a premium assistance subsidy directly to an
employer or as reimbursement to an employee for out-of-pocket
expenditures.
``(iii) Requirement for direct payment to employee.--A
State shall not pay a premium assistance subsidy directly to
the employee, unless the State has established procedures to
ensure that the targeted low-income child on whose behalf
such payments are made are actually enrolled in the qualified
employer sponsored coverage.
``(iv) Treatment as child health assistance.--Expenditures
for the provision of premium assistance subsidies shall be
considered child health assistance described in paragraph
(1)(C) of subsection (a) for purposes of making payments
under that subsection.
``(v) State option to require acceptance of subsidy.--A
State may condition the provision of child health assistance
under the State child health plan for a targeted low-income
child on the receipt of a premium assistance subsidy for
enrollment in qualified employer sponsored coverage if the
State determines the provision of such a subsidy to be more
cost-effective in accordance with subparagraph (B)(ii).
``(vi) Not treated as income.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a premium assistance subsidy provided in
accordance with this paragraph shall not be treated as income
to the child or the parent of the child for whom such subsidy
is provided.
``(D) No requirement to provide supplemental coverage for
benefits and additional cost-sharing protection provided
under the state child health plan.--
``(i) In general.--A State that elects the option to
provide a premium assistance subsidy under this paragraph
shall not be required to provide a targeted low-income child
enrolled in qualified employer sponsored coverage with
supplemental coverage for items or services that are not
covered, or are only partially covered, under the qualified
employer sponsored coverage or cost-sharing protection other
than the protection required under section 2103(e)(3)(B).
``(ii) Notice of cost-sharing requirements.--A State shall
provide a targeted low-income child or the parent of such a
child (as appropriate) who is provided with a premium
assistance subsidy in accordance with this paragraph with
notice of the cost-sharing requirements and limitations
imposed under the qualified employer sponsored coverage in
which the child is enrolled upon the enrollment of the child
in such coverage and annually thereafter.
``(iii) Record keeping requirements.--A State may require a
parent of a targeted low-income child that is enrolled in
qualified employer-sponsored coverage to bear the
responsibility for keeping track of out-of-pocket
expenditures incurred for cost-sharing imposed under such
coverage and to notify the State when the limit on such
expenditures imposed under section 2103(e)(3)(B) has been
reached for a year from the effective date of enrollment for
such year.
``(iv) State option for reimbursement.--A State may
retroactively reimburse a parent of a targeted low-income
child for out-of-pocket expenditures incurred after reaching
the 5 percent cost-sharing limitation imposed under section
2103(e)(3)(B) for a year.
``(E) 6-month waiting period required.--A State shall
impose at least a 6-month waiting period from the time an
individual is enrolled in private health insurance prior to
the provision of a premium assistance subsidy for a targeted
low-income child in accordance with this paragraph.
``(F) Non application of waiting period for enrollment in
the state medicaid plan or the state child health plan.--A
targeted low-income child provided a premium assistance
subsidy in accordance with this paragraph who loses
eligibility for such subsidy shall not be treated as having
been enrolled in private health insurance coverage for
purposes of applying any waiting period imposed under the
State child health plan or the State plan under title XIX for
the enrollment of the child under such plan.
``(G) Assurance of special enrollment period under group
health plans in case of eligibility for premium subsidy
assistance.--No payment shall be made under subsection (a)
for amounts expended for the provision of premium assistance
subsidies under this paragraph unless a State provides
assurances to the Secretary that the State has in effect laws
requiring a group health plan, a health insurance issuer
offering group health insurance coverage in connection with a
group health plan, and a self-funded health plan, to permit
an employee who is eligible, but not enrolled, for coverage
under the terms of the plan (or a child of such an employee
if the child is eligible, but not enrolled, for coverage
under such terms) to enroll for coverage under the terms of
the plan if the employee's child becomes eligible for a
premium assistance subsidy under this paragraph.
``(H) No effect on previously approved premium assistance
programs.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as
limiting the authority of a State to offer premium assistance
under section 1906, a waiver described in paragraph (2)(B) or
(3), a waiver approved under section 1115, or other authority
in effect on February 1, 2009.
``(I) Notice of availability.--A State shall--
``(i) include on any application or enrollment form for
child health assistance a notice of the availability of
premium assistance subsidies for the enrollment of targeted
low-income children in qualified employer sponsored coverage;
``(ii) provide, as part of the application and enrollment
process under the State child health plan, information
describing the availability of such subsidies and how to
elect to obtain such a subsidy; and
``(iii) establish such other procedures as the State
determines necessary to ensure that parents are informed of
the availability of such subsidies under the State child
health plan.''.
(2) Application to medicaid.--Section 1906 (42 U.S.C.
1396e) is amended by inserting after subsection (c) the
following:
``(d) The provisions of section 2105(c)(12) shall apply to
a child who is eligible for medical assistance under the
State plan in the same manner as such provisions apply to a
targeted low-income child under a State child health plan
under title XXI. Section 1902(a)(34) shall not apply to a
child who is provided a premium assistance subsidy under the
State plan in accordance with the preceding sentence.''.
______

SA 48. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE PARENTAL NOTIFICATION AND
CONSENT LAWS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal
funds shall be made available under this Act (or an amendment
made by this Act) to a health care provider to reimburse such
provider for services provided to a minor unless such
provider complies with all applicable parental notification
and consent laws of the State of residence of the minor.
______

SA 49. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Strike section 602 and insert the following:

SEC. 602. LIMITATION ON EXPANSION.

Section 2105(c)(8) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)(8)), as added by
section 114(a), is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(C) Requirement.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and
(B), on or after the date of enactment of this subparagraph,
the Secretary may not approve a State plan amendment or
waiver for child health assistance or health benefits to
children whose family income exceeds 300 percent of the
poverty line unless the improper payment rate for Medicaid
and CHIP (as measured by the payment error rate measurement
(PERM)) is equal to or is less than 3.5 percent.''.
______

SA 50. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of section 601, add the following:
(g) Time for Promulgation of Final Rule.--The final rule
implementing the

[[Page 1633]]

PERM requirements under subsection (b) shall be promulgated
not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this
Act.
______

SA 51. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 93, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

``(VI) Attestation.--The State requires that an application
for medical assistance under this title or for child health
assistance under title XXI shall not be complete until the
parent or guardian of the child for whose eligibility the
State is relying on a finding from an Express Lane agency
attests under penalty of perjury that the information
provided to verify the citizenship or nationality of the
child is accurate, to the best of the parent's or guardian's
knowledge.

______

SA 52. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 130, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
(d) GAO Study and Report.--The Comptroller General or the
United States shall study and report to Congress on the
extent to which States use the option to provide presumptive
eligibility for medical assistance under Medicaid or child
health assistance under CHIP to avoid complying with the
verification of citizenship or nationality documentation
requirements of section 1903(x) of the Social Security Act or
any other eligibility requirements for receipt of medical
assistance or child health assistance.
______

SA 53. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 93, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

``(VI) Notice and affirmative consent.--The State requires
an Express Lane Agency to provide affirmative notice and
obtain consent in the form of a signature from all potential
enrollees in the State plan under this title or title XXI (or
the parent or guardian of a potential enrollee, in the case
of a child under age 18) that the information gathered for
purposes of applying for a specific program administered by
the Express Lane Agency may also be used for purposes of
determining one or more components of eligibility for medical
assistance under this title or for child health assistance
under title XXI.

______

SA 54. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 93, lines 12 and 13, strike ``1902(a)(46)(B) or
2105(c)(9), as applicable'' and insert ``1903(x)''.
______

SA 55. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Beginning on page 121, strike line 20, and all that follows
through page 122, line 20, and insert the following:
``(B) Payments under the State plan for providing medical
assistance to individuals who provided inconsistent
information and were provided with a reasonable period of
time to resolve the inconsistency under this subsection or
under section 1903(x)(4) shall be included in the
determination of the State's erroneous excess payments for
medical assistance ratio under section 1903(u).
______

SA 56. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 135, strike lines 14 through 20, and insert the
following:
``(B) In the case of a State that has elected to provide
medical assistance to a category of individuals under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary may impose a debt under an
affidavit of support against any sponsor of such an
individual on the basis of the provision of medical
assistance to such individual, consisting of all or a portion
of the cost of providing such assistance, which may include a
reasonable fee, and which shall be considered as an
unreimbursed cost, subject to such limit on the total amount
of debt as the Secretary may establish.
______

SA 57. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Strike section 601.
______

SA 58. Mr. WEBB (for himself, Mrs. Hagan, and Mr. Sanders) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, to
amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the
Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes; which was
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Beginning on page 271, line 9, strike all through page 273,
line 8, and insert the following:

SEC. 700. INCOME OF PARTNERS FOR PERFORMING INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES TREATED AS ORDINARY INCOME
RECEIVED FOR PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES.

(a) In General.--Part I of subchapter K of chapter 1 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:

``SEC. 710. SPECIAL RULES FOR PARTNERS PROVIDING INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO PARTNERSHIP.

``(a) Treatment of Distributive Share of Partnership
Items.--For purposes of this title, in the case of an
investment services partnership interest--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 702(b)--
``(A) any net income with respect to such interest for any
partnership taxable year shall be treated as ordinary income
for the performance of services, and
``(B) any net loss with respect to such interest for such
year, to the extent not disallowed under paragraph (2) for
such year, shall be treated as an ordinary loss.

All items of income, gain, deduction, and loss which are
taken into account in computing net income or net loss shall
be treated as ordinary income or ordinary loss (as the case
may be).
``(2) Treatment of losses.--
``(A) Limitation.--Any net loss with respect to such
interest shall be allowed for any partnership taxable year
only to the extent that such loss does not exceed the excess
(if any) of--
``(i) the aggregate net income with respect to such
interest for all prior partnership taxable years, over
``(ii) the aggregate net loss with respect to such interest
not disallowed under this subparagraph for all prior
partnership taxable years.
``(B) Carryforward.--Any net loss for any partnership
taxable year which is not allowed by reason of subparagraph
(A) shall be treated as an item of loss with respect to such
partnership interest for the succeeding partnership taxable
year.
``(C) Basis adjustment.--No adjustment to the basis of a
partnership interest shall be made on account of any net loss
which is not allowed by reason of subparagraph (A).
``(D) Exception for basis attributable to purchase of a
partnership interest.--In the case of an investment services
partnership interest acquired by purchase, paragraph (1)(B)
shall not apply to so much of any net loss with respect to
such interest for any taxable year as does not exceed the
excess of--
``(i) the basis of such interest immediately after such
purchase, over
``(ii) the aggregate net loss with respect to such interest
to which paragraph (1)(B) did not apply by reason of this
subparagraph for all prior taxable years.

Any net loss to which paragraph (1)(B) does not apply by
reason of this subparagraph shall not be taken into account
under subparagraph (A).
``(E) Prior partnership years.--Any reference in this
paragraph to prior partnership taxable years shall only
include prior partnership taxable years to which this section
applies.
``(3) Net income and loss.--For purposes of this section--
``(A) Net income.--The term `net income' means, with
respect to any investment services partnership interest, for
any partnership taxable year, the excess (if any) of--
``(i) all items of income and gain taken into account by
the holder of such interest

[[Page 1634]]

under section 702 with respect to such interest for such
year, over
``(ii) all items of deduction and loss so taken into
account.
``(B) Net loss.--The term `net loss' means with respect to
such interest for such year, the excess (if any) of the
amount described in subparagraph (A)(ii) over the amount
described in subparagraph (A)(i).
``(b) Dispositions of Partnership Interests.--
``(1) Gain.--Any gain on the disposition of an investment
services partnership interest shall be treated as ordinary
income for the performance of services.
``(2) Loss.--Any loss on the disposition of an investment
services partnership interest shall be treated as an ordinary
loss to the extent of the excess (if any) of--
``(A) the aggregate net income with respect to such
interest for all partnership taxable years, over
``(B) the aggregate net loss with respect to such interest
allowed under subsection (a)(2) for all partnership taxable
years.
``(3) Disposition of portion of interest.--In the case of
any disposition of an investment services partnership
interest, the amount of net loss which otherwise would have
(but for subsection (a)(2)(C)) applied to reduce the basis of
such interest shall be disregarded for purposes of this
section for all succeeding partnership taxable years.
``(4) Distributions of partnership property.--In the case
of any distribution of property by a partnership with respect
to any investment services partnership interest held by a
partner--
``(A) the excess (if any) of--
``(i) the fair market value of such property at the time of
such distribution, over
``(ii) the adjusted basis of such property in the hands of
the partnership,
shall be taken into account as an increase in such partner's
distributive share of the taxable income of the partnership
(except to the extent such excess is otherwise taken into
account in determining the taxable income of the
partnership),
``(B) such property shall be treated for purposes of
subpart B of part II as money distributed to such partner in
an amount equal to such fair market value, and
``(C) the basis of such property in the hands of such
partner shall be such fair market value.

Subsection (b) of section 734 shall be applied without regard
to the preceding sentence.
``(5) Application of section 751.--In applying section
751(a), an investment services partnership interest shall be
treated as an inventory item.
``(c) Investment Services Partnership Interest.--For
purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `investment services
partnership interest' means any interest in a partnership
which is held by any person if such person provides (directly
or indirectly) a substantial quantity of any of the following
services with respect to the assets of the partnership in the
conduct of the trade or business of providing such services:
``(A) Advising as to the advisability of investing in,
purchasing, or selling any specified asset.
``(B) Managing, acquiring, or disposing of any specified
asset.
``(C) Arranging financing with respect to acquiring
specified assets.
``(D) Any activity in support of any service described in
subparagraphs (A) through (C).
For purposes of this paragraph, the term `specified asset'
means securities (as defined in section 475(c)(2) without
regard to the last sentence thereof), real estate,
commodities (as defined in section 475(e)(2))), or options or
derivative contracts with respect to securities (as so
defined), real estate, or commodities (as so defined).
``(2) Exception for certain capital interests.--
``(A) In general.--If--
``(i) a portion of an investment services partnership
interest is acquired on account of a contribution of invested
capital, and
``(ii) the partnership makes a reasonable allocation of
partnership items between the portion of the distributive
share that is with respect to invested capital and the
portion of such distributive share that is not with respect
to invested capital,

then subsection (a) shall not apply to the portion of the
distributive share that is with respect to invested capital.
An allocation will not be treated as reasonable for purposes
of this subparagraph if such allocation would result in the
partnership allocating a greater portion of income to
invested capital than any other partner not providing
services would have been allocated with respect to the same
amount of invested capital.
``(B) Special rule for dispositions.--In any case to which
subparagraph (A) applies, subsection (b) shall not apply to
any gain or loss allocable to invested capital. The portion
of any gain or loss attributable to invested capital is the
proportion of such gain or loss which is based on the
distributive share of gain or loss that would have been
allocable to invested capital under subparagraph (A) if the
partnership sold all of its assets immediately before the
disposition.
``(C) Invested capital.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the term `invested capital' means, the fair market value at
the time of contribution of any money or other property
contributed to the partnership.
``(D) Treatment of certain loans.--
``(i) Proceeds of partnership loans not treated as invested
capital of service providing partners.--For purposes of this
paragraph, an investment services partnership interest shall
not be treated as acquired on account of a contribution of
invested capital to the extent that such capital is
attributable to the proceeds of any loan or other advance
made or guaranteed, directly or indirectly, by any partner or
the partnership.
``(ii) Loans from nonservice providing partners to the
partnership treated as invested capital.--For purposes of
this paragraph, any loan or other advance to the partnership
made or guaranteed, directly or indirectly, by a partner not
providing services to the partnership shall be treated as
invested capital of such partner and amounts of income and
loss treated as allocable to invested capital shall be
adjusted accordingly.
``(d) Other Income and Gain in Connection With Investment
Management Services.--
``(1) In general.--If--
``(A) a person performs (directly or indirectly) investment
management services for any entity,
``(B) such person holds a disqualified interest with
respect to such entity, and
``(C) the value of such interest (or payments thereunder)
is substantially related to the amount of income or gain
(whether or not realized) from the assets with respect to
which the investment management services are performed,

any income or gain with respect to such interest shall be
treated as ordinary income for the performance of services.
Rules similar to the rules of subsection (c)(2) shall apply
where such interest was acquired on account of invested
capital in such entity.
``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) Disqualified interest.--The term `disqualified
interest' means, with respect to any entity--
``(i) any interest in such entity other than indebtedness,
``(ii) convertible or contingent debt of such entity,
``(iii) any option or other right to acquire property
described in clause (i) or (ii), and
``(iv) any derivative instrument entered into (directly or
indirectly) with such entity or any investor in such entity.

Such term shall not include a partnership interest and shall
not include stock in a taxable corporation.
``(B) Taxable corporation.--The term `taxable corporation'
means--
``(i) a domestic C corporation, or
``(ii) a foreign corporation subject to a comprehensive
foreign income tax.
``(C) Investment management services.--The term `investment
management services' means a substantial quantity of any of
the services described in subsection (c)(1) which are
provided in the conduct of the trade or business of providing
such services.
``(D) Comprehensive foreign income tax.--The term
`comprehensive foreign income tax' means, with respect to any
foreign corporation, the income tax of a foreign country if--
``(i) such corporation is eligible for the benefits of a
comprehensive income tax treaty between such foreign country
and the United States, or
``(ii) such corporation demonstrates to the satisfaction of
the Secretary that such foreign country has a comprehensive
income tax.
``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out the
purposes of this section, including regulations to--
``(1) prevent the avoidance of the purposes of this
section, and
``(2) coordinate this section with the other provisions of
this subchapter.
``(f) Cross Reference.--For 40 percent no fault penalty on
certain underpayments due to the avoidance of this section,
see section 6662.''.
(b) Application to Real Estate Investment Trusts.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 856 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(9) Exception from recharacterization of income from
investment services partnership interests.--
``(A) In general.--Paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) shall be
applied without regard to section 710 (relating to special
rules for partners providing investment management services
to partnership).
``(B) Special rule for partnerships owned by reits.--
Section 7704 shall be applied without regard to section 710
in the case of a partnership which meets each of the
following requirements:
``(i) Such partnership is treated as publicly traded under
section 7704 solely by reason of interests in such
partnership being convertible into interests in a real estate
investment trust which is publicly traded.
``(ii) 50 percent or more of the capital and profits
interests of such partnership are owned, directly or
indirectly, at all times during the taxable year by such real
estate investment trust (determined with the application of
section 267(c)).

[[Page 1635]]

``(iii) Such partnership meets the requirements of
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) (applied without regard to
section 710).''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (4) of section 7704(d)
of such Code is amended by inserting ``(determined without
regard to section 856(c)(8))'' after ``856(c)(2)''.
(c) Imposition of Penalty on Underpayments.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 6662 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after
paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
``(6) The application of subsection (d) of section 710 or
the regulations prescribed under section 710(e) to prevent
the avoidance of the purposes of section 710.''.
(2) Amount of penalty.--
(A) In general.--Section 6662 of such Code is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Increase in Penalty in Case of Property Transferred
for Investment Management Services.--In the case of any
portion of an underpayment to which this section applies by
reason of subsection (b)(6), subsection (a) shall be applied
with respect to such portion by substituting `40 percent' for
`20 percent'.''.
(B) Conforming amendments.--Subparagraph (B) of section
6662A(e)(2) of such Code is amended--
(i) by striking ``section 6662(h)'' and inserting
``subsection (h) or (i) of section 6662'', and
(ii) by striking ``gross valuation misstatement penalty''
in the heading and inserting ``certain increased underpayment
penalties''.
(3) Reasonable cause exception not applicable.--Subsection
(c) of section 6664 of such Code is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively,
(B) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' in paragraph (4), as so
redesignated, and inserting ``paragraph (3)'', and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any
portion of an underpayment to which this section applies by
reason of subsection (b)(6).''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subsection (d) of section 731 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``section 710(b)(4)
(relating to distributions of partnership property),'' before
``section 736''.
(2) Section 741 of such Code is amended by inserting ``or
section 710 (relating to special rules for partners providing
investment management services to partnership)'' before the
period at the end.
(3) Paragraph (13) of section 1402(a) of such Code is
amended--
(A) by striking ``other than guaranteed'' and inserting
``other than--
``(A) guaranteed'',
(B) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting ``,
and'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) any income treated as ordinary income under section
710 received by an individual who provides investment
management services (as defined in section 710(d)(2));''.
(4) Paragraph (12) of section 211(a) of the Social Security
Act is amended--
(A) by striking ``other than guaranteed'' and inserting
``other than--
``(A) guaranteed'',
(B) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting ``,
and'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) any income treated as ordinary income under section
710 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 received by an
individual who provides investment management services (as
defined in section 710(d)(2) of such Code);''.
(5) The table of sections for part I of subchapter K of
chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:

``Sec. 710. Special rules for partners providing investment management
services to partnership.''.
(e) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to taxable years ending after January 27, 2009.
(2) Partnership taxable years which include effective
date.--In applying section 710(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (as added by this section) in the case of any
partnership taxable year which includes January 27, 2009, the
amount of the net income referred to in such section shall be
treated as being the lesser of the net income for the entire
partnership taxable year or the net income determined by only
taking into account items attributable to the portion of the
partnership taxable year which is after such date.
(3) Dispositions of partnership interests.--Section 710(b)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this
section) shall apply to dispositions and distributions after
January 27, 2009.
(4) Other income and gain in connection with investment
management services.--Section 710(d) of such Code (as added
by this section) shall take effect on January 27, 2009.
(5) Publicly traded partnerships.--For purposes of applying
section 7704, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010.

SEC. 701. INCREASE IN EXCISE TAX RATE ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

SA 59. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Strike section 114 and insert the following:

SEC. 114. CHIP GROSS INCOME ELIGIBILITY CEILING.

(a) Application of CHIP Eligibility Ceiling.--
(1) In general.--Section 2110 (42 U.S.C. 1397jj) is
amended--
(A) in subsection (b)(1)--
(i) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
(ii) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) whose gross family income (as defined in subsection
(c)(9)) does not exceed 250 percent of the poverty line.'';
and
(B) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(9) Gross family income.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term
`gross family income' means, with respect to an individual,
gross income (as defined by the Secretary in regulations) for
the members of the individual's family. For purposes of the
previous sentence, in defining `gross income' the Secretary
shall, to the maximum extent practicable, include income from
whatever source, other than amounts deducted under section
62(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(B) Income disregards authorized.--A State may provide,
through a State plan amendment and with the approval of the
Secretary, for the disregard from gross family income of one
or more amounts so long as the total amount of such
disregards for a family does not exceed $250 per month, or
$3,000 per year.''.
(2) Denial of federal matching payments for state schip
expenditures for individuals with gross family income above
250 percent of the poverty line.--Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C.
1397ee(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(8) Denial of payments for expenditures for child health
assistance for individuals whose gross family income exceeds
250 percent of the poverty line.--No payment may be made
under this section, for any expenditures for providing child
health assistance or health benefits coverage under a State
child health plan under this title, including under a waiver
under section 1115, with respect to an individual whose gross
family income (as defined in section 2110(c)(9)) exceeds 250
percent of the poverty line.''.

[[Page 1636]]

(b) Effective Date; Transition.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments
made by this section shall apply to payments made for items
and services furnished on or after the first day of the first
calendar quarter beginning more than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Transition.--The amendments made by--
(A) subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to an individual who
was receiving, or was determined eligible to receive, child
health assistance or health benefits coverage under a State
child health plan under title XXI of the Social Security Act,
including under a waiver under section 1115 of such Act, as
of the day before the date of the enactment of this Act,
until such date as the individual is determined ineligible
using income standards or methodologies in place as of the
day before the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(B) subsection (a)(2) shall not apply to payment for items
and services furnished to an individual described in
subparagraph (B).
______

SA 60. Mr. WICKER (for himself and Mr. Cochran) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend
title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the
Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes; which was
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 76, after line 23, add the following:

SEC. 116. ASSURING COVERAGE OF LOW-INCOME CHILDREN.

Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)), as amended by
section 601(a)(1), is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(12) No payments to any state for expenditures for child
health assistance or health benefits coverage for individuals
whose gross family income exceeds 200 percent of the poverty
line until at least 90 percent of all united states eligible
children whose gross family income does not exceed 200
percent of the poverty line are enrolled in medicaid or chip
.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this title or title
XIX, for fiscal year quarters beginning on or after January
1, 2009, no payments shall be made to any State under
subsection (a)(1) or section 1903(a) on the basis of the
enhanced FMAP for providing child health assistance or health
benefits coverage for any individual whose gross family
income (as defined by the Secretary) exceeds 200 percent of
the poverty line for any fiscal year quarter that begins
before the date on which the Secretary certifies to Congress
that at least 90 percent of all children in the United States
whose gross family income (as so defined) does not exceed 200
percent of the poverty line, and who are eligible for child
health assistance under a State child health plan under this
title or for medical assistance under a State plan under
title XIX (or under a waiver of such plans), are enrolled in
such plans.''.
______

SA 61. Mr. BINGAMAN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 130, strike lines 8 through 13, and insert the
following:
(d) Applicability; General Effective Date.--
(1) Condition for application.--
(A) In general.--
(i) General effective date.--Subject to clause (ii), except
as provided in subparagraph (B), the amendments made by this
section shall take effect on January 1, 2010.
(ii) Certification requirement.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no State with a State plan under Medicaid
or a State child health plan under CHIP shall be required to
comply with section 1902(a)(46)(B) or 2105(c)(9) of the
Social Security Act before the date on which the Secretary
and the Commissioner of Social Security jointly certify that
a significant number of United States citizens, including
citizen children, who are eligible for coverage under such
plans will not lose that coverage as a result of the
application of such requirements. For purposes of the
preceding sentence, the Secretary and the Commissioner of
Social Security shall determine what is a significant number
of such citizens on the basis of the best estimates available
of the number of non-citizens that the application of such
requirements may prevent from fraudulently obtaining
assistance under such plans, compared to the best estimates
available of the number of United States citizens that may be
inappropriately disenrolled from, or prevented from enrolling
in, such plans as a result of the application of such
requirements.
(iii) Extension of prescription drug discounts to enrollees
of medicaid managed care organizations.--Section
1903(m)(2)(A) (42 U.S.C. 1396b(m)(2)(A)) is amended--

(I) In general.--

(aa) in clause (xi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(bb) in clause (xii), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(cc) by adding at the end the following:
``(xiii) such contract provides that (I) payment for
covered outpatient drugs dispensed to individuals eligible
for medical assistance who are enrolled with the entity shall
be subject to the same rebate required by the agreement
entered into under section 1927 as the State is subject to
and that the State shall allow the entity to collect such
rebates from manufacturers, and (II) capitation rates paid to
the entity shall be based on actual cost experience related
to rebates and subject to the Federal regulations requiring
actuarially sound rates.''.

(II) Conforming amendments.--Section 1927 (42 U.S.C. 1396r-
8) is amended--

(aa) in subsection (d)--
(AA) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Notwithstanding the subparagraphs (A) and (B)--
``(i) a medicaid managed care organization with a contract
under section 1903(m) may exclude or otherwise restrict
coverage of a covered outpatient drug on the basis of
policies or practices of the organization, such as those
affecting utilization management, formulary adherence, and
cost sharing or dispute resolution, in lieu of any State
policies or practices relating to the exclusion or
restriction of coverage of such drugs; and
``(ii) nothing in this section or paragraph (2)(A)(xiii) of
section 1903(m) shall be construed as requiring a medicaid
managed care organization with a contract under such section
to maintain the same such polices and practices as those
established by the State for purposes of individuals who
receive medical assistance for covered outpatient drugs on a
fee-for service basis.''; and
(bb) in paragraph (4), by inserting after subparagraph (E)
the following:
``(F) Notwithstanding the preceding subparagraphs of this
paragraph, any formulary established by medicaid managed care
organization with a contract under section 1903(m) may be
based on positive inclusion of drugs selected by a formulary
committee consisting of physicians, pharmacists, and other
individuals with appropriate clinical experience as long as
drugs excluded from the formulary are available through prior
authorization, as described in paragraph (5).''; and
(cc) in subsection (j), by striking paragraph (1) and
inserting the following:
``(1) Covered outpatients drugs are not subject to the
requirements of this section if such drugs are--
``(A) dispensed by a health maintenance organization other
than a medicaid managed care organization with a contract
under section 1903(m); and
``(B) subject to discounts under section 340B of the Public
Health Service Act.''.

(III) Effective date.--The amendments made by this
subsection take effect on the date of enactment of this Act
and apply to rebate agreements entered into or renewed under
section 1927 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8)
on or after such date.

(iv) Increased funding for the medicaid improvement fund.--
[Review with CBO to specify numbers and whether savings all
go to 2014 or also to 2015 through 2018]Section 1941(b)(1)(A)
(42 U.S.C. 1936w-1(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking
``$100,000,000'' and inserting ``$____''.
______

SA 62. Mr. BINGAMAN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 108, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
``(H) State option to rely on state income tax data or
return.--At the option of the State, a finding from an
Express Lane agency may include gross income or adjusted
gross income shown by State income tax records or returns.''.
______

SA 63. Mr. BINGAMAN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 99, beginning on line 8 strike ``through'' and all
that follows through ``application,'' on line 10, and insert
``in writing, by telephone, orally, through electronic
signature, or through any other means specified by the
Secretary and''.
On page 108, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
``(H) State option to rely on state income tax data or
return.--At the option of the State, a finding from an
Express Lane agency may include gross income or adjusted
gross income shown by State income tax records or returns.''.
______

SA 64. Mr. BINGAMAN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title

[[Page 1637]]

XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's
Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes; which was ordered to
lie on the table; as follows:

SA 65. Mr. MARTINEZ (for himself, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Wicker, Mr.
Bunning, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Inhofe,
Mr. Chambliss, and Mr. DeMint) submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social
Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance
Program, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table;
as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. RESTORATION OF PROHIBITION ON FUNDING OF
NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROMOTE
ABORTION AS A METHOD OF BIRTH CONTROL (``MEXICO
CITY POLICY'').

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regulation, or
policy, including the memorandum issued by the President on
January 23, 2009, to the Administrator of the United States
Agency for International Development, titled ``Mexico City
Policy and Assistance for Voluntary Family Planning,'' no
funds authorized under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.) for population planning
activities or other population or family planning assistance
may be made available for any private, nongovernmental, or
multilateral organization that performs or actively promotes
abortion as a method of birth control.
______

SA 66. Mr. CORNYN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Strike section 114 and insert the following:

SEC. 114. DENIAL OF PAYMENTS FOR COVERAGE OF CHILDREN WITH
EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME THAT EXCEEDS 200
PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE.

(a) In General.--Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Denial of payments for expenditures for child health
assistance for children whose effective family income exceeds
200 percent of the poverty line.--For child health assistance
furnished after the date of the enactment of this paragraph,
no payment shall be made under this section for any
expenditures for providing child health assistance or health
benefits coverage for a targeted low-income child whose
family income (as determined without regard to the
application of any general exclusion or disregard of a block
of income that is not determined by type of expense or type
of income (regardless of whether such an exclusion or
disregard is permitted under section 1902(r))) would exceed
200 percent of the poverty line but for the application of a
general exclusion of a block of income that is not determined
by type of expense or type of income.''.
(b) Grants to States.--
(1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under paragraph
(2), the Secretary shall make grants to States as follows:
(A) 75 percent of such amounts shall be directed toward
increasing coverage for low-income children under CHIP.
(B) 25 percent of such amounts shall be directed toward
activities assisting States, especially States with a high
percentage of eligible, but not enrolled children, in
outreach and enrollment activities under CHIP, such as--
(i) improving and simplifying enrollment systems,
including--

(I) increasing staffing and computer systems to meet
Federal and State standards;
(II) decreasing turn-around time while maintaining program
integrity; and

(ii) improving outreach and application assistance,
including--

(I) connecting children with a medical home and keeping
them healthy;
(II) developing systems to identify, inform, and fix
enrollment system problems;
(III) supporting awareness of, and access to, other
critical health programs;
(IV) pursuing new performance goals to cut ``procedural
denials'' to the lowest possible level; and
(V) coordinating community- and school-based outreach
programs.

(2) Funding.--There is appropriated to provide grants under
paragraph (1) an amount equal to the amount of Federal funds
that the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
certifies would have been expended for the period beginning
April 1, 2009, and ending September 30, 2013, if section 114
(relating to limitation on matching rate for States that
propose to cover children with effective family income that
exceeds 300 percent of the poverty line) of S. 275 (111th
Congress) as reported by the Committee on Finance of the
Senate and placed on the Senate calendar on January 16, 2009,
had been enacted.
______

SA 67. Mr. CORNYN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 45, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
``(3) Limitation.--
``(A) In general.--A State shall not be a shortfall State
described in paragraph (2) if the State provides coverage
under this title to children whose family income (as
determined without regard to the application of any general
exclusion or disregard of a block of income that is not
determined by type of expense or type of income (regardless
of whether such an exclusion or disregard is permitted under
section 1902(r))) exceeds 200 percent of the poverty line.
``(B) Grants to states with unspent funds.--Of any funds
that are not redistributed under this subsection because of
the application of subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall make
grants to States as follows:
``(i) 75 percent of such funds shall be directed toward
increasing coverage under this title for low-income children.
``(ii) 25 percent of such funds shall be directed toward
activities assisting States, especially States with a high
percentage of eligible, but not enrolled children, in
outreach and enrollment activities under this title, such
as--

``(I) improving and simplifying enrollment systems,
including--

``(aa) increasing staffing and computer systems to meet
Federal and State standards;
``(bb) decreasing turn-around time while maintaining
program integrity; and

``(II) improving outreach and application assistance,
including--

``(aa) connecting children with a medical home and keeping
them healthy;
``(bb) developing systems to identify, inform, and fix
enrollment system problems;
``(cc) supporting awareness of, and access to, other
critical health programs;
``(dd) pursuing new performance goals to cut `procedural
denials' to the lowest possible level; and
``(ee) coordinating community- and school-based outreach
programs.''.
______

SA 68. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 75, beginning on line 13, strike ``whose'' and all
that follows through line 17, and insert the following:
``whose family income would exceed 300 percent of the poverty
line (determined without regard to any block or other income
disregard and without excluding any type of expense
(regardless, in the case of child health assistance or health
benefits coverage provided in the form of coverage under a
Medicaid program under paragraph (2) of section 2101(a) (or a
combination of the coverage options under paragraphs (1) and
(2) of such section) of whether such a disregard or exclusion
is permitted under section 1902(r)).''.
______

SA 69. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Beginning on page 75, strike line 18 and all that follows
through page 76, line 2.
______

SA 70. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Strike section 114 and insert the following:

SEC. 114. DENIAL OF PAYMENTS FOR COVERAGE OF CHILDREN WITH
EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME THAT EXCEEDS 300
PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE.

Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Denial of payments for expenditures for child health
assistance for children whose effective family income exceeds
300 percent of the poverty line.--For child health assistance
furnished after the date of the enactment of this paragraph,
no payment shall be made under this section for any
expenditures for providing child

[[Page 1638]]

health assistance or health benefits coverage for a targeted
low-income child whose effective family income would exceed
300 percent of the poverty line but for the application of a
general exclusion of a block of income that is not determined
by type of expense or type of income.''.
______

SA 71. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``SCHIP Funding Extension Act
of 2009''.

SEC. 2. FUNDING THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2010.

(a) Through Fiscal Year 2010.--
(1) In general.--Section 2104 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1397dd(a)), as amended by section 201(a)(1) of the
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (Public
Law 110-173) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(11), by striking ``and 2009'' and
inserting ``through 2010''; and
(B) in subsection (c)(4)(B), by striking ``2009'' and
inserting ``2010''.
(2) Availability of extended funding.--Funds made available
from any allotment made from funds appropriated under
subsection (a)(11) or (c)(4)(B) of section 2104 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397dd) for fiscal year 2009 or 2010
shall not be available for child health assistance for items
and services furnished after September 30, 2010.
(b) Additional Allotments To Maintain SCHIP Programs
Through Fiscal Year 2010.--Section 2104 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397dd) is amended by striking
subsection (l) and inserting the following new subsections:
``(l) Additional Allotments To Maintain SCHIP Programs for
Fiscal Year 2009.--
``(1) Appropriation; allotment authority.--For the purpose
of providing additional allotments described in subparagraphs
(A) and (B) of paragraph (3), there is appropriated, out of
any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such
sums as may be necessary, not to exceed $3,000,000,000 for
fiscal year 2009.
``(2) Shortfall states described.--For purposes of
paragraph (3), a shortfall State described in this paragraph
is a State with a State child health plan approved under this
title for which the Secretary estimates, on the basis of the
most recent data available to the Secretary, that the Federal
share amount of the projected expenditures under such plan
for such State for fiscal year 2009 will exceed the sum of--
``(A) the amount of the State's allotments for each of
fiscal years 2007 and 2008 that will not be expended by the
end of fiscal year 2008;
``(B) the amount, if any, that is to be redistributed to
the State during fiscal year 2009 in accordance with
subsection (f); and
``(C) the amount of the State's allotment for fiscal year
2009.
``(3) Allotments.--In addition to the allotments provided
under subsections (b) and (c), subject to paragraph (4), of
the amount available for the additional allotments under
paragraph (1) for fiscal year 2009, the Secretary shall
allot--
``(A) to each shortfall State described in paragraph (2)
not described in subparagraph (B), such amount as the
Secretary determines will eliminate the estimated shortfall
described in such paragraph for the State; and
``(B) to each commonwealth or territory described in
subsection (c)(3), an amount equal to the percentage
specified in subsection (c)(2) for the commonwealth or
territory multiplied by 1.05 percent of the sum of the
amounts determined for each shortfall State under
subparagraph (A).
``(4) Proration rule.--If the amounts available for
additional allotments under paragraph (1) are less than the
total of the amounts determined under subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of paragraph (3), the amounts computed under such
subparagraphs shall be reduced proportionally.
``(5) Retrospective adjustment.--The Secretary may adjust
the estimates and determinations made to carry out this
subsection as necessary on the basis of the amounts reported
by States not later than November 30, 2008, on CMS Form 64 or
CMS Form 21, as the case may be, and as approved by the
Secretary.
``(6) One-year availability; no redistribution of
unexpended additional allotments.--Notwithstanding
subsections (e) and (f), amounts allotted to a State pursuant
to this subsection for fiscal year 2009, subject to paragraph
(5), shall only remain available for expenditure by the State
through September 30, 2009. Any amounts of such allotments
that remain unexpended as of such date shall not be subject
to redistribution under subsection (f).
``(m) Additional Allotments To Maintain SCHIP Programs for
Fiscal Year 2010.--
``(1) Appropriation; allotment authority.--For the purpose
of providing additional allotments described in subparagraphs
(A) and (B) of paragraph (3), there is appropriated, out of
any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such
sums as may be necessary, not to exceed $4,000,000,000 for
fiscal year 2010.
``(2) Shortfall states described.--For purposes of
paragraph (3), a shortfall State described in this paragraph
is a State with a State child health plan approved under this
title for which the Secretary estimates, on the basis of the
most recent data available to the Secretary, that the Federal
share amount of the projected expenditures under such plan
for such State for fiscal year 2010 will exceed the sum of--
``(A) the amount of the State's allotments for each of
fiscal years 2008 and 2009 that will not be expended by the
end of fiscal year 2009;
``(B) the amount, if any, that is to be redistributed to
the State during fiscal year 2010 in accordance with
subsection (f); and
``(C) the amount of the State's allotment for fiscal year
2010.
``(3) Allotments.--In addition to the allotments provided
under subsections (b) and (c), subject to paragraph (4), of
the amount available for the additional allotments under
paragraph (1) for fiscal year 2010, the Secretary shall
allot--
``(A) to each shortfall State described in paragraph (2)
not described in subparagraph (B) such amount as the
Secretary determines will eliminate the estimated shortfall
described in such paragraph for the State; and
``(B) to each commonwealth or territory described in
subsection (c)(3), an amount equal to the percentage
specified in subsection (c)(2) for the commonwealth or
territory multiplied by 1.05 percent of the sum of the
amounts determined for each shortfall State under
subparagraph (A).
``(4) Proration rule.--If the amounts available for
additional allotments under paragraph (1) are less than the
total of the amounts determined under subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of paragraph (3), the amounts computed under such
subparagraphs shall be reduced proportionally.
``(5) Retrospective adjustment.--The Secretary may adjust
the estimates and determinations made to carry out this
subsection as necessary on the basis of the amounts reported
by States not later than November 30, 2010, on CMS Form 64 or
CMS Form 21, as the case may be, and as approved by the
Secretary.
``(6) Availability; no redistribution of unexpended
additional allotments.--Notwithstanding subsections (e) and
(f), amounts allotted to a State pursuant to this subsection
for fiscal year 2010, subject to paragraph (5), shall only
remain available for expenditure by the State through
September 30, 2010. Any amounts of such allotments that
remain unexpended as of such date shall not be subject to
redistribution under subsection (f).''.
(c) Extension of Treatment of Qualifying States.--
(1) In general.--Section 2105(g)(1)(A) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(g)(1)(A)) is amended by
striking ``or 2009'' and inserting ``2009, or 2010''.
(2) Applicability.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall be in effect through September 30, 2010.
(3) Repeal of limitation on availability of fiscal year
2009 allotments.--Paragraph (2) of section 201(b) of the
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (Public
Law 110-173) is repealed.
______

SA 72. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 153, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
(d) Requirement for States Covering Children Whose Income
Exceeds 200 Percent of the Poverty Line to Offer Premium
Assistance for All Families of Targeted Low-Income
Children.--
(1) In general.--Section 2102(a) (42 U.S.C. 1397b(a)) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) effective for plan years beginning on or after
October 1, 2009, in the case of a State that provides child
health assistance for any targeted low-income child with a
family gross income (determined without regard to any block
or other income disregard and without excluding any type of
expense (regardless, in the case of child health assistance
or health benefits coverage provided in the form of coverage
under a Medicaid program under paragraph (2) of section
2101(a) (or a combination of the coverage options under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of such section) of whether such a
disregard or exclusion is permitted under section 1902(r)))
that exceeds 200 percent of the poverty line, how the plan
shall offer child health assistance in the form of premium
assistance to all targeted

[[Page 1639]]

low-income children who have access to private health
insurance coverage or coverage under a group health plan.''.
______

SA 73. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act
to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Beginning on page 58, strike line 14 and all that follows
through page 62, line 17, and insert the following:
``(a) Termination of Coverage for Nonpregnant Childless
Adults.--
``(1) No new chip waivers; automatic extensions at state
option through 2009.--Notwithstanding section 1115 or any
other provision of this title, except as provided in this
subsection--
``(A) the Secretary shall not on or after the date of the
enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2009, approve or renew a waiver,
experimental, pilot, or demonstration project that would
allow funds made available under this title to be used to
provide child health assistance or other health benefits
coverage to a nonpregnant childless adult; and
``(B) notwithstanding the terms and conditions of an
applicable existing waiver, the provisions of paragraph (2)
shall apply for purposes of any period beginning on the first
day of the first month that begins after the 6-month
termination period, in determining the period to which the
waiver applies, the individuals eligible to be covered by the
waiver, and the amount of the Federal payment under this
title.
``(2) Termination of chip coverage under applicable
existing waivers 6 months after the date of the enactment of
this act.--
``(A) In general.--No funds shall be available under this
title for child health assistance or other health benefits
coverage that is provided to a nonpregnant childless adult
under an applicable existing waiver after the last day of the
6-month termination period.
``(B) Extension upon state request.--If an applicable
existing waiver described in subparagraph (A) would otherwise
expire before the date described in paragraph (1)(A),
notwithstanding the requirements of subsections (e) and (f)
of section 1115, a State may submit, not later than 30 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, a request to the
Secretary for an extension of the waiver. The Secretary shall
approve a request for an extension of an applicable existing
waiver submitted pursuant to this subparagraph, but only
through the last day of the 6-month termination period.
``(C) Application of enhanced fmap.--The enhanced FMAP
determined under section 2105(b) shall apply to expenditures
under an applicable existing waiver for the provision of
child health assistance or other health benefits coverage to
a nonpregnant childless adult during the 6-month termination
period.
``(3) State option to apply for medicaid waiver to continue
coverage for nonpregnant childless adults.--
(A) In general.--Each State for which coverage under an
applicable existing waiver is terminated under paragraph
(2)(A) may submit, not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, an application to the Secretary for a
waiver under section 1115 of the State plan under title XIX
to provide medical assistance to a nonpregnant childless
adult whose coverage is so terminated (in this subsection
referred to as a ``Medicaid nonpregnant childless adults
waiver'').
``(B) Deadline for approval.--The Secretary shall make a
decision to approve or deny an application for a Medicaid
nonpregnant childless adults waiver submitted under
subparagraph (A) within 90 days of the date of the submission
of the application. If no decision has been made by the
Secretary as of the last day of the 6-month termination
period, on the application of a State for a Medicaid
nonpregnant childless adults waiver that was submitted to the
Secretary by the date described in subparagraph (A), the
application shall be deemed approved.
``(C) Standard for budget neutrality.--The budget
neutrality requirement applicable with respect to
expenditures for medical assistance under a Medicaid
nonpregnant childless adults waiver shall--
``(i) in the case of any period of fiscal year 2009 in
which such waiver is in effect, allow expenditures for
medical assistance under title XIX for all such adults to not
exceed the total amount of payments made to the State under
paragraph (2)(B) for any previous corresponding period in
fiscal year 2009, increased by the percentage increase (if
any) in the projected nominal per capita amount of National
Health Expenditures for 2009 over 2008, as most recently
published by the Secretary;
``(ii) in the case of fiscal year 2010, allow expenditures
for medical assistance under title XIX for all such adults to
not exceed the sum of the total amount of payments made to
the State under paragraph (2)(B) for fiscal year 2009 and
under title XIX for any period of fiscal year 2009 in which
such waiver is in effect, increased by the percentage
increase (if any) in the projected nominal per capita amount
of National Health Expenditures for 2010 over 2009, as most
recently published by the Secretary; and
``(iii) in the case of any succeeding fiscal year, allow
such expenditures to not exceed the amount in effect under
this subparagraph for the preceding fiscal year, increased by
the percentage increase (if any) in the projected nominal per
capita amount of National Health Expenditures for the
calendar year that begins during the year involved over the
preceding calendar year, as most recently published by the
Secretary.
``(4) 6-month termination period.--In this subsection, the
term ``6-month termination period'' means the period that
begins with the first day of the first month that begins on
or after the date of enactment of this Act and ends on the
last day of the 5th succeeding month.

____________________

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET

committee on armed services

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Tuesday, January 27, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs

Mr. CASEY. 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 January 27, 2009 at 10 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on finance

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on
Tuesday, January 27, 2009, at 10:30 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen
Senate Office Building.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during
the session of the Senate, conduct a hearing entitled ``Access to
Prevention and Public Health for High Risk Populations'' on Tuesday,
January 27, 2009. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in room 385 of
the Russell Senate Office Building.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on the judiciary

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Health IT: Protecting
Americans' Privacy in the Digital Age'' on Tuesday, January 27, 2009,
at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Janet Phoenix, my health
policy fellow, be granted the privilege of the floor during Senate
consideration of H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2009.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Stephanie
Carlton and Evan Feinberg of my staff be granted the privilege of the
floor during debate on H.R. 2.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

CATHOLIC SCHOOLS WEEK

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to
consideration of S. Res. 22, which was submitted earlier today.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.

[[Page 1640]]

The legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 22) recognizing the goals of Catholic
Schools Week and honoring the valuable contributions of
Catholic schools in the United States.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the
preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid on the
table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The resolution (S. Res. 22) was agreed to.

The preamble was agreed to.

The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

S. Res. 22

Whereas Catholic schools in the United States have received
international acclaim for academic excellence while providing
students with lessons that extend far beyond the classroom;

Whereas Catholic schools present a broad curriculum that
emphasizes the lifelong development of moral, intellectual,
physical, and social values in the young people of the United
States;

Whereas Catholic schools in the United States today educate
2,270,913 students and maintain a student-to-teacher ratio of
14 to 1;

Whereas the faculty members of Catholic schools teach a
highly diverse body of students;

Whereas the graduation rate for all Catholic school
students is 95 percent;

Whereas 83 percent of Catholic high school graduates go on
to college;

Whereas Catholic schools produce students strongly
dedicated to their faith, values, families, and communities
by providing an intellectually stimulating environment rich
in spiritual character and moral development; and

Whereas in the 1972 pastoral message concerning Catholic
education, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
stated, ``Education is one of the most important ways by
which the Church fulfills its commitment to the dignity of
the person and building of community. Community is central to
education ministry, both as a necessary condition and an
ardently desired goal. The educational efforts of the Church,
therefore, must be directed to forming persons-in-community;
for the education of the individual Christian is important
not only to his solitary destiny, but also the destinies of
the many communities in which he lives.'': Now, therefore, be
it

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) recognizes the goals of Catholic Schools Week, an event
cosponsored by the National Catholic Educational Association
and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that
recognizes the vital contributions of thousands of Catholic
elementary and secondary schools in the United States; and

(2) commends Catholic schools, students, parents, and
teachers across the United States for their ongoing
contributions to education, and for the vital role they play
in promoting and ensuring a brighter, stronger future for the
United States.

____________________

HONORING THE LIFE OF ANDREW WYETH

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed
to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 23, submitted earlier today
by Senator Casey.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 23) honoring the life of Andrew
Wyeth.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of Senator Specter's
resolution honoring Andrew Wyeth and to pay tribute to the landmark
life and legacy of this towering giant of American Art. My State of
Maine joins Pennsylvania, the Nation, and the world in mourning the
inexpressible loss of Andrew Wyeth, a painter of enormous genius, brave
vision, and unmatched realism who long ago secured a rightful and
prominent place in the pantheon of artists.

One of the most `American' of painters, Andrew Wyeth possessed a
courage and sensitivity to capture the stark beauty of the landscapes
and individuals he depicted. And those of us from Maine will forever
hold a special place in our hearts for the undeniable love he had for
our State, as portrayed in his moving landscapes of Maine's coasts and
especially in his exceptional ``Christina's World.'' Like millions
around the world, we will miss Andrew Wyeth's historic and enduring
contributions to the American story as told on canvas as well as his
powerful capacity for capturing the human condition unvarnished.

On a personal note, it was such a privilege to know Andy and his
wonderful wife, Betsy, over the years. I will always treasure the fond
memories of visiting Andy and Betsy and their family at their home on
Allen Island. Indisputably, Andy lived his life the way he painted--
with integrity, grace, and an abiding sense of humanity. And I always
remember the pride and honor I felt attending the presentation of a
National Medal of the Arts in 2007 to Andy at the White House in an
unforgettable ceremony rightly recognizing his iconic body of work over
an extraordinary lifetime.

I would like to include for the Record a recent outstanding article
entitled Wyeth's White Wonder by John Wilmerding, published in The Wall
Street Journal, Saturday, January 24, 2009. Formerly a professor at
Dartmouth College, Mr. Wilmerding curated the exhibition Andrew Wyeth:
The Helga Pictures at the National Gallery of Art in 1987 and recently
retired as Sarofim Professor of American Art at Princeton University.
Describing Andrew Wyeth's Snow Hill as one of his most memorable works,
Mr. Wilmerding captures the essence of the painting and the painter,
calling Snow Hill ``one of the most haunting, beautiful and resonant of
Wyeth's seven-decade career.''

Poet Robert Frost once wrote of a star that ``it asks a little of us
here/It asks of us a certain height,'' and certainly the same can be
said of Andrew Wyeth who inspired and entreated us to experience his
courageous rendering of the world as he saw it, and like generations to
come, we are eternally indebted to him. Andrew Wyeth's artistic
achievements resonate not only in our time--but for all time. He will
be profoundly missed, and we extend our deepest condolences to Betsy
and to our great friends--their son, Jamie and his wife, Phyllis--their
son, Nicholas; and the entire Wyeth family for their tremendous loss.

I ask unanimous consent the article 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, Jan. 24-25, 2009]

Wyeth's White Wonder

(By John Wilmerding)

Andrew Wyeth died last week on a winter's day familiar to
us from many of his paintings: snowy, cold and moody. Perhaps
the best form of appreciation we can express for his artistic
achievement is to undertake a close look at one of his iconic
works in this case ``Snow Hill,'' a painting from the height
of his powers that is relatively little known, seen or
reproduced. While it has been on loan to the Brandywine
Museum (www.brandywine-museum.org) for several years, its
fragility of surface has kept it from going out on loan to a
wider audience, and its singularity of subject matter has not
readily found it a place in recent Wyeth monographs or
exhibition catalogs. Only posterity is likely to sort out
which of his paintings will stand up as his most memorable
works, but ``Snow Hill'' is likely to hold its own as one of
the most haunting, beautiful and resonant of Wyeth's seven-
decade career.

Indeed, the picture is about marking seven decades. Wyeth,
who lived to the age of 91, painted this large tempera to
mark his 70th birthday (in 1987). He finished the painstaking
effort two years later. There are few others that are larger
and as ambitious. The artist was conscious of mortality for
much of his career, from the deaths of his father and nephew
in a train accident in 1945, to his own miscellaneous
ailments, operations and illnesses throughout his later
years.

We know that many of his images were in varying degrees
autobiographical, and this painting was a conscious summary
of his artistic life that was both somber memoir and playful
recalibraion. Like many of Wyeth's winter landscapes in
watercolor, dry-brush, or egg tempera, this makes the most of
a near-monochromatic palette, where darks and lights play
against each other, and nature's full range of grays and tans
takes on a heightened texture. One of his great talents was
an intense technical virtuosity in all of his chosen media.
Yet even as his admirers and critics are drawn to the magic
realism of objects and surfaces, it is the

[[Page 1641]]

charged emotion, suggestive meaning, and complex moods
beneath facades and faces that distinguish his finest
visions.

The setting was intimately familiar to Wyeth almost his
entire life, a view looking down over the Kuerner farm and
the nearby hills of the Brandywine Valley in Pennsylvania.
The artist knew almost every inch of the roads, buildings and
fields we see in the distance below. Historians and others
may argue for some time whether his future reputation will
rest on the landscapes or portraits (respectively descended
from two of his artistic idols, Winslow Homer and Thomas
Eakins). ``Snow Hill'' is unusual in the merging of the two--
one open, silent and vast; the other intimate, animate and
active. The foreground hilltop, receding valley, and broad
sky constitute a painted tour de force of whites, off-whites
and cream colors. Its poetic emptiness recalls the stark
eloquence seen in but a few of Wyeth's other strongest
compositions--such as ``Christina's World'' (1949), ``River
Cove'' (1958) and ``Airborne'' (1996).

Atop the hillside we view the improbable scene of a Maypole
dance at Christmas time. The seven ribbons descending from
beneath the tree above mark the artist's seven decades. In a
surreal vision, Wyeth assembles prominent figures from his
life and art who appeared in major paintings over the years.
Holding hands from left to right across the foreground are
Karl and Anna Kuerner, followed by William Loper and Helga
Testorf. In the back right is the family friend and neighbor
Allan Lynch, wearing his telltale hat with earflaps flying,
and finally, partially obscured, a figure with billowing
brown coat who recalls the artist's wife, Betsy, posing years
earlier in the snowy courtyard of their Chadd's Ford
farmhouse. In this enumeration we realize the group only
comes to six, suggesting a missing seventh figure. Possibly
Christina Olson, the most enduring of Wyeth's Maine subjects,
made famous by his first masterpiece, ``Christina's World,''
is not present, since her paralysis would keep her from
dancing. Or perhaps the implied seventh individual might be
the artist himself, participant in their lives and unseen
orchestrator of this imaginary get-together. In any case,
this is a witty and exuberant conjuring of artistic
imagination.

Not surprisingly for Wyeth, however, there are notes of
darkness beneath the celebratory gathering: Wyeth had lived
through Karl Kuerner succumbing to cancer, Allan Lynch to
suicide, and William Loper to madness. Even so, what we
ultimately experience here is the enjoyment of art, life and
creativity, an idea subtly but vividly conveyed by the air-
touched ribbons. They contain the most intense colors and
free-flowing brushstrokes in this picture. Wyeth once
described how he approached their execution. In part
remembering his childhood games with friends, dressing up as
soldiers or medieval knights with play swords or sabers, he
envisioned here addressing the painting like a fencer with an
epee. With arm and brush extended, he swiftly moved to the
surface and slashed each stroke of color from the apex down
to the figures.

There is one more level of meaning embodied in this half-
real, half-dream image, which resides in its title. ``Snow
Hill'' is at once a literal description and a literary
allusion. Yes, our vantage point is on the crown of this
snowy hill, gently curving across the foreground. But its
contour also brings to mind the great rounded back of a white
whale, which Wyeth connected to ``Moby-Dick.'' His painting's
title comes from a line toward the end of Melville's book. In
chapter 133, ``The Chase--First Day,'' a sailor aloft cries,
``there she blows!--there she blows! A hump like a snow-hill!
It is Moby Dick!'' This of course reinforces Wyeth's own
juxtapositions of black and white, darkness and light, death
and life. His ``Snow Hill'' is a more personal drama than
Melville's, but no less a celebration of whiteness, in
symbolism and pigment.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the
preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the
table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be
printed in the Record.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The resolution (S. Res 23) was agreed to.

The preamble was agreed to.

The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

S. Res. 23

Whereas Andrew Wyeth was one of the most popular American
artists of the twentieth century, whose paintings presented
to the world his impressions of rural American landscapes and
lives;

Whereas Andrew Wyeth was born in Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania
on July 12, 1917, where he spent much of his life and where
today stands the Brandywine River Museum, a museum dedicated
to the works of the Wyeth family;

Whereas Andrew Wyeth died the morning of January 16, 2009,
at the age of 91, in his home in Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania;

Whereas it is the intent of the Senate to recognize and pay
tribute to the life of Andrew Wyeth, his passion for
painting, his contribution to the world of art, and his deep
understanding of the human condition;

Whereas Andrew Wyeth was born the son of famed illustrator
N.C. Wyeth and grew up surrounded by artists in an
environment that encouraged imagination and free-thinking;

Whereas Andrew Wyeth became an icon who focused his work on
family and friends in Chadds Ford and in coastal Maine, where
he spent his summers and where he met Christina Olson, the
subject of his famed painting `Christina's World';

Whereas Andrew Wyeth's paintings were immensely popular
among the public but sometimes disparaged by critics for
their lack of color and bleak landscapes portraying isolation
and alienation;

Whereas Andrew Wyeth's works could be controversial, as
they sparked dialogue and disagreement in the art world
concerning the natures of realism and modernism;

Whereas Andrew Wyeth was immensely patriotic and an
independent thinker who broke with many of his peers on the
issues of the day;

Whereas Andrew Wyeth was a beloved figure in Chadds Ford
and had his own seat at the corner table of the Chadds Ford
Inn, where reproductions of his art line the walls;

Whereas Andrew Wyeth received the Presidential Medal of
Freedom in 1963 and the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor in
1988;

Whereas Andrew Wyeth let it be known that he lived to paint
and never lost his simplicity and caring for people despite
his immense fame and successful career; and

Whereas the passing of Andrew Wyeth is a great loss to the
world of art, and his life should be honored with highest
praise and appreciation for his paintings which remain with
us although he is gone: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) recognizes Andrew Wyeth as a treasure of the United
States and one of the most popular artists of the twentieth
century; and

(2) recognizes the outstanding contributions of Andrew
Wyeth to the art world and to the community of Chadds Ford,
Pennsylvania.

____________________

APPOINTMENT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, on behalf of the Vice President,
pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 276h-276k, as amended, appoints the following
Senator as Chairman to the Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary Group
conference for the 111th Congress: The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd of
Connecticut.

____________________

ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2009

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, the Senate stand in adjournment
until 10 a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, January 28; that following the
prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the
morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be
reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume
consideration of H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PROGRAM

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will resume
consideration of the children's health insurance bill. We will continue
to work through the amendments to the bill.

I want to say, by way of observation, that today's proceedings in the
Senate were refreshing and positive. Amendments were brought to the
floor, debated, voted on, and we are moving on to more tomorrow. It is
almost like the Senate of old.

We will continue to work through amendments to the bill, and I hope
in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation we can complete this bill.
Senators should be prepared to work on these amendments and vote
throughout the day tomorrow.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A.M. TOMORROW

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent

[[Page 1642]]

that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

There being no objection, the Senate, at 7:22 p.m., adjourned until
Wednesday, January 28, 2009, at 10 a.m.

____________________

NOMINATIONS

Executive nomination received by the Senate:

international banks

TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, OF NEW YORK, TO BE UNITED STATES
GOVERNOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND FOR A TERM OF
FIVE YEARS; UNITED STATES GOVERNOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL BANK
FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS;
UNITED STATES GOVERNOR OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS; UNITED STATES GOVERNOR OF THE
AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS; UNITED
STATES GOVERNOR OF THE ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK; UNITED STATES
GOVERNOR OF THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FUND; UNITED STATES
GOVERNOR OF THE EUROPEAN BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT, VICE HENRY M. PAULSON JR., RESIGNED.

____________________

DISCHARGED NOMINATION

The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs was
discharged from further consideration of the following nomination by
unanimous consent and the nomination was confirmed:

DANIEL K. TARULLO, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM FOR A TERM
OF FOURTEEN YEARS FROM FEBRUARY 1, 2008.

____________________

CONFIRMATION

Executive nomination confirmed by the Senate Tuesday, January 27,
2009:

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

DANIEL K. TARULLO, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM FOR A TERM
OF FOURTEEN YEARS FROM FEBRUARY 1, 2008.

[[Page 1643]]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Tuesday, January 27, 2009

The House met at 10:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker
pro tempore (Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas).

____________________

DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

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

Washington, DC,

January 27, 2009.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

____________________

MORNING-HOUR DEBATE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 6, 2009, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists
submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with each
party limited to 30 minutes and each Member, other than the majority
and minority leaders and the minority whip, limited to 5 minutes.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO RAYMOND M. FITZGERALD

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, today I come to the well and before my
colleagues to remember one of my employees who was with me for 5 years
and a true Chicago South Sider, an individual who worked diligently
here in the Washington, D.C. community for many, many years, Ray
Fitzgerald.
Ray was my legislative director for 5 years. Before that, he worked
for the State of Illinois in Gov. Jim Edgar's administration. He then
moved to the Science Committee for 1 year, and then came to my office.
Ray, during his time here, met the love of his life, Kristin
Wolgemuth, who also was a Congressional staffer and also from Chicago,
and who had worked for Harris Fawell, a Congressman and Congresswoman
Judy Biggert from the Chicagoland area. They fell in love, got married,
and then were able to enjoy D.C. and the community and work hard for
this country. They have three children; Nora, 7, Maggie, 4, and Lucy,
2. Ray was a devout Roman Catholic, and Ray was able to live his faith,
along with his wife, Kristin, and affect many lives positively.
Ray just last week lost his life in a terrible battle with cancer.
Many of us from around the country attended his funeral yesterday in
Chicago and the wake the night before. The wake was as large as you
would expect when you have a loved one who has left you. Of course, the
funeral was just as large, and I appreciated the funeral service
focusing on the hope of salvation to those who believe, and remembering
Ray's life.
But the thing that highlighted Ray's service here in Washington and
the respect he garnered was his honesty, his transparency, the
friendships that he developed and his work effort. Many people from the
Washington, D.C. area went out for the wake and for the funeral
yesterday, and we will pass the word out to the Washington, D.C.
community about a memorial service that will be conducted here in
Washington in the weeks to come. Kristin and the girls are coming out,
along with Ray's mother and other family members and friends.
What was as important in this fight with cancer was the ministry that
Kristin and Ray did as they struggled with what is God's will. Many
times we pray for God's will to be done, hoping that it is the answer
to our desires and aspirations and prayers. God's will in this case was
not for Ray to stay here on Earth, but to take him up in His loving
arms with Him in Heaven and thus be truly healed.
This battle that was raged joined numerous people from across the
country as Kristin was faithful in providing us the highs and the lows
of the battles; the times when they were able to take the girls out to
parks and to zoos and the times the family was very hopeful, but also
times when Ray was really physically just struggling. She continued to
ask for prayer and support and focus on her husband, her family and
that loving environment.
One of the last e-mails I sent to them was talking about how they
were able to comply with God's will. I really hated when Ray left
Washington, D.C. He was a trusted confidant and a good friend. But, in
hindsight, I see how God was preparing for his departure to get him in
and around his family. He has five sisters. His mother is still there.
Kristin has an extended family in that area. They were there to lift
Ray, Kristin and the girls up and provide the love and care that they
needed in this battle, and they will be there for the duration of
strengthening the family and helping Kristin raise these three young
girls.
I would like to share one of the last e-mails that Kristin sent to us
as a whole on the announcement of her husband's death.
She writes, ``Loved ones, oh to never have to write this e-mail.
After meeting with all of Ray's doctors yesterday and today it is clear
that they have done all they can do to fight his cancer.
``Despite the many rounds of chemo, the cancer is growing and getting
stronger and Ray is much too weak to endure another round of chemo.
Even if he weren't so sick, Ray's liver status renders chemo dangerous
and ineffective.''
In this, she is talking about putting him into hospice, and Ray died
shortly after that.
Now, think of a young wife and mother of three children, ages 7, 4
and 2, to be so strong in faith. She always would end her e-mails with
the phrase ``not afraid and not alone,'' and this is in the 10 month
battle with cancer. ``Not afraid and not alone.'' In the funeral
yesterday, I thought I heard Kristin say many people attributed that to
her. She attributed it to her husband.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO KATIE STAM, MISS AMERICA 2009, AND RYAN GUTHRIE, CHIEF OF
STAFF

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hill) for 5 minutes.

Tribute to Katie Stam, Miss America 2009

Mr. HILL. Madam Speaker, I rise for two reasons this morning, on this
snowy day in Washington, DC.
Number one is to congratulate Katie Stam, who is the new Miss
America, who won her crown last Saturday in Las Vegas. Katie is from my
hometown of Seymour, Indiana, and we could not be more proud of Katie
and her accomplishments, more than ever before. This is a real tribute
to her. She is a talented young lady. I know her personally. I had the
opportunity to speak with her on Sunday to congratulate her on her
accomplishments. She is a great singer and a beautiful woman.
She is also a friend of the family. She and my youngest daughter,
Libby, know each other very well, and we all speak very highly of
Katie. I know for certain that she is going to represent not only
Seymour, not only Indiana,

[[Page 1644]]

but the entire United States of America as America's not only beautiful
person outside, but beautiful person inside as well.
We are immensely proud of Katie. I know her family very well. They
are great people. It is just a proud moment for all of us to stand here
in the well of the House today to congratulate Katie on all of her
accomplishments that she has done.

Tribute to Ryan Guthrie, Chief of Staff

Mr. HILL. Madam Speaker, the second reason that I rise here this
morning is to honor my Chief of Staff, Ryan Guthrie, who is moving on
to bigger and better things.
Ryan Guthrie has been with me since day one, when I began the
campaign for Congress back in 1998. He is a graduate of Indiana
University. He is also from Seymour, Indiana, my hometown. He has been
with me from the get-go.
Madam Speaker, in this business of politics you get to a point where
you have to depend reliably on people that you trust, and I can't think
of anybody that I trust more than Ryan Guthrie. He has been a stalwart
companion of mine. He has been there with me from day one. He has been
through the battles. He has been through the victories and through the
defeats. We have laughed and cried together, and I am going to miss him
very much, but I wish him well.

____________________

NEW LEGISLATIVE PROCESS A BREATH OF FRESH AIR

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, we are hearing a lot here on Capitol
Hill about Otto von Bismarck's old sausage metaphor, that one doesn't
want to watch either sausage or legislation being made. Well, for too
long, Madam Speaker, the legislative process in this House was a scene
right out of Upton Sinclair's graphic novel, ``The Jungle.''
But currently with a new Congress and new Administration I would say
that it has been a breath of fresh air watching this legislative
process. It has been open. The ingredients have been great. The
legislative leadership, the new President and his administrative team,
have been involved, talking with people in both parties, in both
chambers, and we are moving towards a package that I think people ought
to embrace enthusiastically.
The economic stimulus is moving into stage II, almost the home
stretch. We are putting down positions, principles and guidelines. Any
timetable at this juncture is perhaps artificial in nature. The target
figure of $825 billion or $800 billion or $850 billion is a little
arbitrary and subject to amendment, to adjustment. Such parameters are
useful, maybe necessary. They are not set in stone, and it is necessary
that we do this right. What we can agree upon is to make the economic
impact as soon as possible while we help rebuild and renew America to
make it better.
I am concerned as the process moves forward, particularly as it
relates to the infrastructure portion, that we make sure that the money
gets to where it needs to go.

{time} 1045

Primarily, I want to make sure that our metropolitan areas around the
country are not shortchanged.
The last Surface Transportation Act was held up for 2 years because
people were arguing about whether States got an allocation that was
fair enough. But the greatest disparity for transportation funding in
this country was between metropolitan areas, which seldom got their
fair share: 78 cents on the dollar in Dallas, southern California
shortchanged by over $1 billion.
One of the things we ought to do now, in this package while it's
still in the formative stage, is to make sure that we use the existing
STP allocation for all funds, not just part of the transportation
funding. This formula would guarantee that metropolitan areas get their
fair share and not concentrate money unduly in State departments of
transportation.
The second suggestion I would make is that we not use a lot of
onerous paperwork to make sure that people are complying with the use-
it-or-lose-it provisions.
We have very powerful compliance tools. We could simply make modest
reductions in future revenue streams for people that don't make their
target--hold them accountable, get the spending, and be able to protect
the Treasury.
Third, we ought to consider having local incentives for people that
are actually going to reach in and put more of their own money into
projects, being able to provide some modest incentive so that we reward
and not penalize those who will get more money into the economy faster.
Last, we ought to assure that States put the money where it can be
spent. For example, if the State of New York has areas that can't take
advantage of their allocation in time, but there are areas that can, we
encourage the shift. The City of New York has almost $2 billion worth
of projects that could meet that 2010 guideline. We ought to put
language into this bill that encourages States to reallocate to areas
that can use it, not risk losing it.
We ought to make sure that we don't shortchange transit investments.
I think we ought to go back to the marker laid down by Chairman
Oberstar last December, of $12 billion; that ought to be a
recommendation as a floor for transit. This would assure that we are
able to make investments in these transportation activities that
actually create more jobs than other types of transportation
investments. Transit is very job intensive.
A perfect example is a project we have in Portland, Oregon, where we
have had stuck in the Department of Transportation a ``small-start''
streetcar expansion project for months. It meets all the statutory
criteria, but the Bush Department of Transportation and their FTA and
OMB could not figure out how to allocate the money. They couldn't even
issue ``small start'' administrative rules that complied with the
statute.
This is an opportunity to be able to jump start something that would
not only be millions of local dollars for the transit project, but it
would incent millions more for related development along the alignment.
And it's not just Portland, Oregon; it's Tucson, it's Seattle. We have
a chance to jump start a new American industry for streetcars for the
80 communities around America who want to move in this direction, even
manufacturing streetcars in America for the first time in two-thirds of
a century.
I urge we move in a positive way. Support transit, support our
metropolitan areas, get our economy moving while we revitalize our
communities.

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until noon today.
Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 48 minutes a.m.), the House stood in
recess until noon.

____________________

{time} 1200
AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order at noon.

____________________

PRAYER

The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
Almighty God and Lord of life, we seek Your guidance that we may live
Your life in fullest measure.
Since the time of Sarah and Abraham, Your covenant with Your people
has been the model of married life and social order. Renew us in faith
and faithfulness.
May husbands and wives live in deeper understanding, honoring each
other both in their words and their goodness. May the bonds of intimacy
grow in American family life, that hearts will be converted to lasting
values and explore the joy discovered in the love and faithfulness they
uncover in themselves and in each other.
Enable government of this Nation to create an atmosphere where family
life

[[Page 1645]]

may flourish for generations to come. Lord, from You comes guidance now
and forever.
Amen.

____________________

THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's
proceedings and announces to the House her approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires) come
forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. SIRES led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

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

____________________

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

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

S. 328. An act to postpone the DTV transition date.

____________________

THE ECONOMY IS UNRAVELING

(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, 55,000 Americans lost their jobs
yesterday. Nine thousand five hundred jobs were lost at the drug
company Pfizer. They didn't have $4 billion to keep 9,500 employees,
but they had $68 billion to buy another drug company, Wyeth, with the
help of four banks, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Bank
of America, which have collectively received $238 billion in bailout
monies and loan guarantees.
Using bailout funds for mergers and acquisitions which result in the
loss of jobs is nothing new. The Treasury Department gave PNC $5.2
billion in bailout funds, which PNC promptly used to take over National
City Bank in Cleveland, my hometown, putting at least 7,800 jobs at
risk.
Today, as Congress takes up an economic stimulus package, we are in a
race to try to create jobs to stimulate the economy while corporations
are getting bailout funds and cutting jobs. The economy is unraveling.
We clearly cannot rely on the private sector to create jobs. When the
private sector cuts jobs, and we are approaching unemployment levels of
10 percent in some States, then it's the duty of government to create
jobs.
The stimulus package is a first step, but only a first step.

____________________

WE MUST INVEST IN PROJECTS TO BENEFIT OUR ECONOMY

(Mr. SIRES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Speaker, if we want the recovery package to be
successful, we must invest in projects to benefit our economy in the
short term and in the long term. The American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act does just that.
Investing in our infrastructure creates 40,000 new jobs in New Jersey
and has long-term benefits that will modernize our crumbling
infrastructure. The recovery plan also provides additional long-term
investment in energy, health care and education. Specifically, this
bill provides New Jersey with $3.4 billion over 2 years to modernize
our schools, enhance our educational technology and increase aid to
students.
Finally, this legislation provides immediate and direct tax relief
for 95 percent of working families, and for job-creating small
businesses. By helping the average American employer and employee with
their taxes, we ensure they have income to grow their businesses and
make investment in the future.
I urge support for the bill.

____________________

TET, THE LUNAR NEW YEAR

(Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, today marks the
second day of Tet, or more commonly known as the Lunar New Year. This
year is the Year of the Water Buffalo.
Tet is a reaffirmation of the Vietnamese cultural heritage and
tradition and is the largest and the most celebrated holiday for the
Vietnamese people. It is when friends and families come together to
celebrate the past year and, of course, we look to the future year.
On January 30, the Union of the Vietnamese Student Associations of
Southern California will hold its annual Tet Festival in the City of
Garden Grove. I would like to recognize the UVSA and the Vietnamese
community for their endless efforts in bringing students, young
professionals and community organizations together for the annual Tet
Festival.
The Vietnamese American community plays a vital economic and cultural
role in the 47th District of California, and I am very proud of its
efforts in fighting to achieve freedom and human rights for all
Vietnamese people.
As the Representative of the 47th District, it is a great honor to
represent one of the largest Vietnamese communities in the world, and I
would like to congratulate the Vietnamese community for all their
successes this past year and to wish them a very happy new year, Chuc
Mung Nam Moi.

____________________

TURN AROUND THE MALDISTRIBUTION OF THIS NATION'S WEALTH AND INCOME

(Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, as we consider the stimulus bill
today, it's important to reflect on how we got into this financial
morass.
After all, over the last 8 years of the Bush administration, we saw
the highest corporate profit and the deepest tax cuts in American
history. So what's the problem? Well, 96 percent of the income growth
over those 8 years went to the top 10 percent, only the wealthiest
Americans.
They were the ones that benefited from the tax cuts. They benefited
from the corporate deregulation. Forty-six percent of the profit went
to financial services firms. So the problem is that only 4 percent of
the income growth during the Bush years went to the 90 percent of
middle-class Americans and those struggling to get into the middle
class.
But what did they do to cope with this static income? Well, they did
what the President told them to do. After 9/11 he said go shop in the
mall, and that's what they did by borrowing. The increase in consumer
spending was exactly equal to the amount of money borrowed from
inflated home equity values.
That's what they did, and now we have the bust in real estate values
and almost 40 percent of Americans are technically insolvent. That's
why this bill starts to turn around that maldistribution of this
Nation's wealth and income. That's why it should be supported today.

____________________

CONGRESS SHOULD ACT IN BIPARTISAN FASHION TO ADDRESS OUR NATION'S
ECONOMIC RECESSION

(Ms. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, over the last couple weeks House
committees, including Transportation and Infrastructure, on which I
serve, have worked hard to craft an economic recovery package that
would address the deep recession problems that we have. Likewise, over
the last couple of months, we've worked with President

[[Page 1646]]

Obama, and we have listened to economists, over 10 of them, all who say
action needs to happen now.
Today, President Obama will meet with my colleagues, congressional
Republicans, in a bipartisan fashion to really explain why this package
is the best way to move forward and to turn this economy around.
Conservative economic policies have not worked. In fact, we haven't
produced jobs, and there has not been a production of economic
prosperity.
The American people demanded change in November. The Economic
Recovery and Reinvestment Package strives to do just that, helping to
bring American jobs and providing 90 percent of middle Americans an
immediate tax cut.
Mr. Speaker, if congressional Republicans really listen to President
Obama today, they will support the legislation, and they will join us
for change.

____________________

ECONOMIC RECOVERY PACKAGE INVESTS IN THOSE HARDEST HIT BY ECONOMY

(Mr. COHEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, as the economic recession worsens, millions
of Americans are in financial trouble and looking for some immediate
assistance, but help is on the way. Tomorrow this House will vote on
the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act that will provide 3 to 4
million jobs here in America.
Those hit hardest by the economic crisis are the ones we need to help
first, and we are doing that by extending unemployment benefits to
people in America, millions who are still looking for jobs. It is
difficult to find a job when thousands are being cut. Yesterday a
record number of jobs were cut.
Economists say one of the best ways to stimulate the economy is to
put the money in the hands of people who will spend it immediately,
spend it on necessities, and that's people who are out of work. That's
something we are going to do.
It's also critical to give those people health insurance, and we will
provide the States with money so that they can continue to provide
Medicaid to those people who need that assistance. There are nearly 7
million unemployed Americans who need health insurance through COBRA.
That will also be extended.
Mr. Speaker, this economic recession has hurt millions. This Congress
will respond and provide assistance.

____________________

PUERTO RICO AND TERRITORIES DESERVE TO BENEFIT FULLY FROM ONGOING
EFFORTS TO REVITALIZE ECONOMY

(Mr. PIERLUISI asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1. As
the Congressional Budget Office has just confirmed, the bill will have
a very positive impact on our Nation's economy.
I am particularly grateful for the inclusion of Puerto Rico and the
other U.S. territories in most of the bill's provisions. The
territories are an integral part of the United States and thus deserve
to benefit fully from our ongoing efforts to revitalize the economy.
As the final version of this bill is worked out, I will continue to
seek more equitable treatment for the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico in
those few areas where I believe improvements should still be made.
For example, I will continue to make the case that Puerto Rico should
receive an increase in Medicaid funding that better reflects the
island's legitimate needs and does more to address the negative impact
that the current spending cap is having on the Commonwealth's finances.

____________________

SUPPORT THE STIMULUS PACKAGE

(Mr. TEAGUE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with America's economy in deep
trouble. Families from Hobbs to Silver City and across the country are
struggling. They are wondering if they will be able to make ends meet.
We must act now to help those families. I know that we won't all
agree with every little part of the economic recovery bill that we are
considering. I have some concerns myself, but I intend to support the
package, not because it's perfect, but because it will create jobs and
get our economy going. After all, that's what the people sent us here
to do. If this bill passes, 684,000 New Mexicans will get a tax break
and over $400 million will go into infrastructure and investments to
create jobs and support economic development.
I am also pleased that the bill includes language from two bills that
I introduced as a stimulus package for southern New Mexico to create
green jobs and give families with kids a tax break. I urge my
colleagues to pass this stimulus legislation so we can put America back
on track and back to work.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 181, LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT OF
2009

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 87 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 87

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 181)
to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify
the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a
discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that
is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is
paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or
other practice, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived except those
arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the bill are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and Labor; and (2) one motion to commit.

{time} 1215

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The gentlewoman from Maine is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for
debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask
unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which
to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 87.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Maine?
There was no objection.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 87 provides for
consideration of S. 181, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. This
measure is identical to the version of the bill that was passed by this
House on January 9 of this year by a significant vote of 247-171. The
bill is also virtually identical to the version adopted in the 110th
Congress.
It is well past time to get this legislation to the President for his
signature. Today, we plan to do just that. After this bill is passed by
the House later today, it will go directly to the White House and on
President Obama's desk.
First, I want to commend Chairman Miller for his leadership and his
tireless efforts that have brought us so far. As my colleague,
Chairwoman DeLauro, said during her eloquent remarks when this body
first took up the bill 2 weeks ago, ``We are here today because Lilly
Ledbetter got short-changed--short-changed by her employer, the
perpetrator of consistent pay discrimination lasting years, and short-
changed again by the Supreme Court.'' And so now we are here today to
fight for the final passage of this essential legislation.

[[Page 1647]]

As a mother of two daughters, a woman who has owned her own business
myself much of my adult life, and as a newly elected Member of this
body, I was proud to cast one of my first votes in favor of the Lilly
Ledbetter Act, and I am proud that both Chambers have already made a
strong commitment to protect workers against pay discrimination in the
workplace.
This important legislation is long overdue, and I urge my colleagues
to join me in supporting the underlying bill, S. 181, the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume. I'd like to thank my friend the distinguished
gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree) for the time.
I wish to welcome my distinguished colleague to the Rules Committee.
She is a very important addition to the Rules Committee, and all of us
have had the privilege of welcoming her in the last days. She stated in
her statement that she is a new Member. She's also a new member of our
committee, and obviously we are very pleased that she is.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule that, once
again, clearly contradicts the majority's pledge to the American people
to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
Today, the majority proceeds to consider this legislation here on the
floor of the House under a closed rule. That means, Mr. Speaker, that
if this rule is passed and this legislation is brought to the floor
under it, every Member of this House will be forbidden from offering
any amendments to it. And what makes this act even more unfortunate is
that this bill did not make its way through the committee process
during this Congress, thereby abandoning the critical committee vetting
and amendment process. In effect, what the majority is doing is
sidelining the legislative process.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, may say
that they would refute that claim because this legislation was
considered in the previous Congress and should be passed quickly. But I
bring to my colleagues' attention that we have dozens of new Members
who were not here in the last Congress and are now not given the
opportunity to participate in the usual and proper legislative process.
So, something that truly concerns me is that this closed rule may, in
effect, foreshadow how the majority will continue to run this House.
Considering the fact that we are only in the fourth week of the 111th
Congress, and that when we take into account this rule, we count this
rule, the majority has already considered four pieces of legislation
under closed rules, I am quite concerned that the future will bring
closed rule after closed rule to this floor.
So, Mr. Speaker, the question is obvious. Will the majority continue
its current path of blocking a bipartisan legislative process? Will
they break their record of offering 64 bills, as they did under closed
rules in the 110th Congress? Or will they change their behavior and
open up this legislative process?
The majority promised that it would when it achieved the majority 2
years ago, but it has not done so. In fact, as I stated, in the last
Congress, 64 bills--breaking all records of all prior Congresses--64
bills were brought to this floor under closed rules that do not permit
any Members in this House to have their ideas considered in the form of
amendments. So the facts do not lead to optimism.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee for
his kind welcome to a new Member.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a new Member, and my colleague on
the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
Mr. POLIS of Colorado. I'd like to thank the gentlewoman from Maine
for the time. First, on the rule, before I get into the merits of the
issue, which is a very important issue we all care about, with regard
to the rule on this item, we did discuss it and debate it as part of
the initial rules for the House of Representatives which we put in
place. So this was discussed both within caucus and debated before the
House as a whole.
I heard many objections from my colleagues on the other side, perhaps
including the gentleman from Florida, with regard to the rules package,
around the recommit issue, around the terms limit issue. I did not hear
at that point extensive disagreement about the rules for this
particular item, which were included in that initial package.
I would like to thank Chairman Miller for his leadership on this
issue of equality and fairness in the workplace and Representative
DeLauro for her continued work on this issue. This bill restores and
clarifies important protections that are a long time coming. This bill
corrects a wrong that has cost our working women more than just the
dollars they have earned. Today's bill ensures that every worker,
whether male or female, is given equal opportunity to fight against
discrimination in the workplace.
When someone's pay is based not only their ability, not on their
creativity, not on their personal drive, not on the value they create
in the economy, but rather on their chromosomes, we cheat ourselves and
we cheat our entire economy and all American families. Pay
discrimination, whether based on gender or any nonperformance factor,
means the best and the brightest within our society are being held
back.
Discrimination is a cancer of economic inefficiency that eats away at
American prosperity. When we fail to promote those who show leadership,
we stifle the innovation and progress that make our country great. And
while our country has made great strides, tremendous strides towards
equality, we have a long way to go, and particularly women still
continue to suffer for less pay for the same work than men across our
Nation.
Pay discrimination furthers inequalities. And that is why I strongly
support the Lilly Ledbetter Act. It gives women the legal hammer they
need to continue to break the glass ceiling.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would remind my distinguished friend that we did make known our
protest with regard to the fact that this legislation was in the list
of bills that the majority on the first day of this Congress made clear
would be brought to the floor without the possibility of amendments.
But it's interesting. When the Senate considered this legislation,
the Senate did authorize and have debate on amendments. And so the
question really, I think, is begged. What is the harm in allowing
Members of this House to bring forth their ideas and letting this House
work its way via the majority, the majority decide, and that way vet
the ideas, discuss, debate, and decide which ideas brought forth by
colleagues are appropriate and should be adopted. There's no harm in
that, Mr. Speaker. There's no harm.
But, unfortunately, the pattern is continuing. The record was broken
in the last Congress with regard to the number of closed rules, with
regard to the number of pieces of legislation that were brought to this
floor under a structure that did not allow any amendments to be
proposed and debated by Members of either party. And that trend
continues.
So we saw it not only on the first day of this Congress, but we see
it today. Already, four bills, in the few days that this Congress has
met, the 111th Congress has met already, we have seen four bills
brought forth under these structures known as closed rules that do not
allow Members of either party from proposing ideas to improve any of
the pieces of legislation that have been brought to the floor. I think
that's the most unfortunate.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague
on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank my colleague for yielding to me, and I welcome
her to the Rules Committee. This is going to be an exciting year.

[[Page 1648]]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
This is a great day, this is an important day, because at long last we
have a Congress and a President of the United States who not only
believes in equal pay for equal work, but are willing to stand up and
fight for equal pay for equal work.
Mr. Speaker, last year, we passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
We sent it to the United States Senate, and the Republicans in the
United States Senate led a filibuster to block progress on this bill.
And if we could overcome that filibuster, we have got a President of
the United States named George Bush who said he would veto the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

{time} 1230

Well, times have changed. We passed the bill again here in the House
by a large margin, the Senate has passed it, and we are now accepting
the Senate version.
My colleague from Florida says, well, what harm is it to open all
this up again? The harm is, if you add or change this bill that we are
voting on today, it will go back to the United States Senate; it will
delay this important piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, discrimination is wrong in any form, discrimination in
the workplace. Paying a woman less than a man for equal work is wrong.
It is something that is intolerable. And the important thing about this
bill is it will move us closer to equality in the workforce. We still
have a long way to go.
Mr. Speaker, on average, women earn just 78 cents for every dollar
earned by a man. The Institute of Women's Policy Research has found
that this wage disparity costs women anywhere from $400,000 to $2
million in lost wages over a lifetime. And equal pay, Mr. Speaker, is
not simply a women's issue; it is a family issue.
People should be paid for the quality of their work. They should not
be discriminated against because of their gender. This vote is about
ending discrimination. It is not about process, it is not about
anything else. It is about whether at long last the United States
Congress and the President of the United States are going to stand up
for equal pay for equal work, and I think that this is an important
step in the right direction.
I want to congratulate George Miller, the chairman of the Education
and Labor Committee, as well as Rob Andrews, my colleague, for his
incredible work on this. But we have waited long enough. George Bush
and the Republicans have thrown enough roadblocks in our way. We have
removed them. We are moving forward. We are moving toward equality. We
are moving to end discrimination. And I am proud to stand on the floor
and support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would point out
that every piece of legislation brought to this floor is preceded by a
debate on the terms of debate. In other words, the rule that we are now
considering as a resolution sets the framework for how the underlying
piece of legislation can be debated; and, if you will, it does set the
process, the parameters for the process of the debate. It establishes
the resolution, the rule that is debated and voted on before the
underlying legislation can be considered, sets forth, determines if
amendments are authorized; and, if so, what amendments are authorized.
And so it is process that is debated by the rule, resolution commonly
known as the rule, that is brought to the floor before legislation is
considered. And that is what we are on right now. That is what we are
discussing right now, the resolution, the rule to set the terms of
debate.
What I am pointing out and will reiterate now is that it is most
unfortunate and unnecessary, totally unnecessary, for the majority to
bring forth legislation that will have the support of the majority on
the floor when it is considered, the underlying legislation, to bring
it forth with a rule that prohibits debate, that shuts out debate, that
does not allow any amendments from any Member, whether they are
Democrats or Republicans, on the underlying piece of legislation. That
is what I am trying to point out, and I thought it was pretty clear.
Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished gentlelady
from Maine (Ms. Pingree) and welcome her. Thank you for your leadership
as well. It is my pleasure to be able to thank Chairman Miller and also
my friend from New Jersey, Congressman Andrews, for his work. And let
me thank Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for her collective effort, and the
Senate for moving forward.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, 70,000 Americans lost their jobs. I would
suspect, as we work on the Economic Stimulus Package and TARP, that,
unfortunately, we are going to see a constant march of those losing
their jobs.
So why is it absolutely urgent and imperative that we move forward on
the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? Because this is a deterrent. When
people are losing their jobs, 70,000 to 100,000 jobs a day, then there
are normally one bread winner per family, man or woman. How shameful it
would be if that bread winner happens to be a woman and she is
subjected to the unfair, disparate treatment of not being able to be
paid equally in the workplace for her work.
It is well known that women are still earning 78 percent for every
dollar earned by a man, and the Institute of Women's Policy Research
has found that this wage disparity costs women anywhere from $400,000
to $2 million in lost wages of a lifetime. Families of America cannot
tolerate that now. The children of America cannot tolerate that now.
When a woman rises to the occasion or she is already in the workplace,
we must pay her fair wages, and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act allows
any discrimination to be petitioned in the court, unlike Lilly
Ledbetter, who was stymied by statutory process because she did not
know.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the underlying rule and this
bill, for as we move towards stimulating the economy and bringing jobs
back to America, there is no way that this body, this Constitutional
body, this country that believes in equality and justice for all can
allow the constant discrimination in pay against women, for our
children will suffer and our children's children will suffer. This bill
is a necessity, because it is time now to eradicate the vestiges of
discrimination on the basis of gender.
I ask my colleagues to support this rule, support this legislation,
and to thank those who have been part of sponsoring this, and
recognizing that in the 18th of congressional district where women go
out to work every day, where they are providing the economic engine not
only for our communities but for their families, must be treated
fairly. 70,000 jobs lost yesterday. How many today? We must eradicate
the unfair treatment of women in the workplace as relates to wages.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the
balance of our time.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey, a member of the Education and Labor Committee that did
such great work on this bill, Mr. Andrews.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and, Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate her for stewarding through in her first effort as a member
of the Rules Committee this very historic piece of legislation. I think
it is fitting that the gentlelady from Maine, who has excelled as a
businessperson, as a State legislator, and now as a legislator here,
has left her very considerable imprint on this process and I
congratulate her.
The process has afforded under the rules of the House, both in
committee and here on this floor, the opportunity for competing views
to be heard about this idea. I know, Mr. Speaker, we will hear
frequently this afternoon that no one in the House supports
discrimination on the basis of gender, and I believe that is true. The
issue is not what we say, though, it is what we do. And we have a
chance to take a step against discrimination on the basis of gender,

[[Page 1649]]

but I am sure, Mr. Speaker, there will be those who say this is the
wrong time and the wrong step. I respectfully disagree.
There are those who say this is the wrong time to take this step
because there will not be any statute of limitations; that is to say,
people can sue forever if they have been the victim of employment
discrimination. That is not accurate. You have 180 days in most States
and a few more days in other States to file a claim once an act of
discrimination has occurred. If a plaintiff does not file his or her
claim by that time, the claim expires. This has been the law in a
majority of circuits for a very long time. The U.S. Supreme Court
disrupted that law. We are restoring it.
We expect to hear that there will be a flood of litigation, that the
courthouses will be filled with people filing discrimination claims
once this bill becomes law. That is not the case. Again, this bill
restores the law as was understood by a majority of the circuits until
the Supreme Court gave its ill-founded decision in the Ledbetter case.
There was no flood of litigation under the prior understanding of the
statute, and I do not believe there will be a flood of litigation now.
We will hear that this should apply only to intentional
discrimination against women or others on the basis of gender. You
know, if you are hit by a truck, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter if the
truck driver intended to hit you or simply did so carelessly; if you
are injured, you are injured. And if a person can show discrimination
on the basis of any of the suspect categories under title VII under the
law, they should be compensated, whether or not they can prove the
discrimination was intentional. If there is a pattern and practice of
discrimination because an employee is a woman, it should be remedied,
and limiting this to intentional discrimination makes no sense.
We expect to hear that employees will sit on their rights; that they
will have an opportunity to sue and wait for a very long time to do so.
There is simply no evidence that people did that under the prior law as
understood by the circuits. And, frankly, it would be a very ill-
founded plaintiff who would do such a thing since it would cost them
money to do so, reminding you that the burden of proof would fall upon
the plaintiff to come up with the evidence of discrimination that took
place a long time ago. So she or he has no incentive to sit on their
rights and have to bear that burden of proof.
Finally, we will hear that employees will sit on their rights because
somehow it makes economic sense to do so. Mr. Speaker, it simply
doesn't. The statute limits someone to go back 2 years backwards, for
back pay, from the point at which discrimination took place. It would
be a very irrational plaintiff who would wait a very long time to wait
and go back those 2 years. The longer you wait, the more it costs you
as a plaintiff.
So these arguments have been fully aired. I respectfully would argue
they are all wrong. The time is right for us to stand up and not simply
say we are against discrimination, but vote against discrimination, and
pass this bill this afternoon.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, what we are saying
is that there is no need to close off debate; that this legislation
could very easily have been debated openly; that Members on both sides
of the aisle could have been given the opportunity to bring forth
amendments as they were able to in the Senate, and that this
legislation would move forward. It is not only unfortunate but
unnecessary for the majority to close off debate. And, as I stated
previously, there is a pattern.
In the last Congress, despite having promised the most open and the
most transparent, the most fair Congress in history, the reality was
exactly the opposite: More pieces of legislation were brought to this
floor under closed rules that did not allow any amendments during the
last Congress, the first Congress where our friends on the other side
of the aisle had the majority in many years. More pieces of legislation
were brought to the floor with closed rules prohibiting all amendments
than in history, in all of history before in the history of Republic.
So that is unfortunate.
But we are seeing the pattern continue. It has continued in these
weeks in the beginning of the 111th Congress, and already this is the
fourth bill, the fourth piece of legislation brought to the floor under
a structure that does not permit any amendments under closed rules.
That is what we are saying, it is uncalled for, it is unfortunate. And
we hope, I guess because hope springs eternal, that our friends on the
other side of the aisle will open the process up and will allow Members
from both sides of the aisle to introduce amendments and have them
debated and have the majority work its will.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1245

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
lead this bill today as a newly elected Member and a new member of the
Rules Committee, and I appreciate working alongside my new colleague on
the Rules Committee. And I'm sure we will have a busy afternoon
together.
We have heard several arguments and supportive thoughts from many of
my distinguished colleagues from this side of the aisle. And I
appreciate their thoughts and their very hard work that it has taken to
bring this bill to the floor and the momentous occasion we will have
today when we are able to take this vote. I have also heard several
arguments from my esteemed colleague from Florida. And I just want to
remind him that when this bill was debated during the last session of
Congress in the Education and Labor Committee where there were ample
opportunities to bring amendments, those people in opposition only
brought two amendments. So this is not a bill where there is tremendous
disagreement. And in fact, the fact that there were no speakers
virtually in opposition to this bill shows us what an important piece
of legislation we are dealing with today, and in fact only were the
discussion around the process taken up today. And I feel that since we
have already debated this bill in the House and the Senate when it was
last here, we passed it by an overwhelming margin of 247-171. It was
passed by a bipartisan vote in the Senate of 61-36.
I am confident that this bill will receive very strong support today
and want to say that I'm proud to be a Member of this body when this is
happening. I do want to remind my colleagues that this legislation
simply restores prior law. It is so important. And by passing it, we
are making great strides in protecting workers by reversing the Supreme
Court's Ledbetter decision as we have been eloquently described to
today. We owe it to all American workers to strengthen, not weaken,
nondiscrimination charges based on gender, race and religion.
It has passed the House, and it has passed the Senate previously.
Today we are here to send it on to President Obama for what will be his
first signature of any bill.
I urge my colleagues to support workers everywhere and vote ``yes''
on the underlying bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question
and on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1, AMERICAN RECOVERY AND
REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I

[[Page 1650]]

call up House Resolution 88 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 88

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1) making supplemental appropriations for job
preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy
efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and
State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived except
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed
three and one half hours equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations, who may yield control of blocks of that time.
After general debate, the Committee of the Whole shall rise
without motion. No further consideration of the bill shall be
in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The gentleman from
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Dreier). All
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I
yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent
that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks on House Resolution 88.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 88 provides for general
debate on H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I would
like to think this rule is not controversial because it is only about
general debate, but it will lead the way to an important debate on the
underlying legislation, H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act.
Madam Speaker, George W. Bush left this country with an economy much
worse off than the one he inherited from the Clinton administration.
Eight years after being handed record budget surpluses, President Bush
passed on to President Obama an economy that has record budget deficits
and is in worse shape since the Great Depression.
Unemployment is rising. Fifty-five thousand more jobs were lost
yesterday alone. Wages are stagnating. And work hours are being cut
back. People are having trouble making ends meet, including putting
food on the table.
And that is where this recovery package steps in. The provisions that
make up the American Recovery and Reinvestment Package range from
investments in infrastructure and green technology to extending
unemployment for workers who have exhausted their benefits. We provide
aid to struggling State governments and tax cuts for low and middle-
income families and small businesses. These are all good investments
that we hope will help reinvigorate our economy. And I look forward to
voting for them tomorrow.
Madam Speaker, some of the most important parts of this package, in
my opinion, are the antihunger provisions that will not only stimulate
the economy, but will also help combat hunger in this country. This
recovery package includes $20 billion for the Food Stamp program, $200
million for elderly nutrition services, including Meals on Wheels and
Congregate Meals, $726 million to increase the number of States that
provide free healthy dinners to children in need, $150 million to
purchase commodities for food banks to refill emptying shelves, and
$100 million to improve State management information systems for the
WIC program.
Madam Speaker, food stamp increases will reach about 14 million low-
income households as soon as 25 days after enactment. About 90 percent
of all food stamp households have income below the poverty line. In
other words, these are benefits that are timely and they are targeted.
It is important to note that every dollar in food stamps that a low-
income family receives enables that family to spend an additional
dollar on food or other items. And don't just take my word for it.
Leading conservative economists support inclusion of these benefits in
the recovery package. Former Reagan economic adviser Martin Feldstein
has said that a temporary food stamp increase would place resources in
the pockets of people with a high propensity to spend quickly, rather
than save, the limited income that they have.
Mark Zandi, a former economic adviser to the McCain campaign, says
that a temporary increase in food stamp benefits gives the best ``bang
for buck.'' Specifically, he estimates that such an increase would
generate $1.73 in increased economic activity for each $1 in cost.
Madam Speaker, increasing food stamps is not charity. It is stimulus.
It is not a handout or a give-away. But investments in antihunger
programs do fulfill our moral commitment to make sure our fellow
citizens have enough to eat. More than 36 million Americans went hungry
in 2007, before the economy took this drastic spike downward. Yet the
last stimulus plan signed into law didn't include increases for food
stamps or any kind of antihunger programs.
The fact that hunger remains a problem in America should make every
single Member in this Chamber feel ashamed. H.R. 1 gives us a chance to
begin to solve this problem and to prevent many more American families
from slipping into hunger.
Madam Speaker, as I said at the outset, the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act includes large investments in our infrastructure to
help rebuild our roads and our bridges, to help with our water and
sewer plants, to help State and local governments deal with the
financial burdens and crises they are currently faced with. This is a
bill that will help put people back to work and that will create
millions of jobs that will hopefully stimulate this economy. The one
thing I do know, Madam Speaker, is that doing nothing is not an option.
That is what has been happening in the previous administration. They
ignored this problem for far too long. And their response when the
probably became a huge problem was grossly inadequate.
So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to
support this package.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my
friend from Worcester for yielding me the traditional 30 minutes and I
yield myself, as I said, such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, we all know that the United States of America is
facing one of the greatest challenges we have ever had. This is a very
tough and painful time for Americans all across the economic spectrum.
People have been losing their homes. We have seen the jobless rate
surge. And we have challenging and difficult days ahead of us. Every
one has acknowledged that. Conservative, liberal, moderate, wherever
you stand on the political spectrum, we all know that we are dealing
with extraordinarily difficult times.
I have to say at the outset as my friend went through the litany of
challenges that President Barack Obama has now inherited, it is true,
we are facing very tough times. But I think it is very important to
note that I was privileged to come to this institution in 1981. And
when Ronald Reagan became President of the United States, if you look
at the numbers that existed in 1980 and 1981, the time of the
transition from the Carter administration to the Reagan administration,
the inflation rate was 13.5 percent, the unemployment rate was 7.1
percent and interest rates were well into double digits.
Now, no one knows what tomorrow is going to bring. And most people
have said that tomorrow is going to be challenging and difficult. And I
personally believe that it is. But I think that it is important to note
that the challenge which President Obama has inherited

[[Page 1651]]

and which we, as elected leaders in this country, have inherited is a
tough one. But it may or may not be unprecedented.
We do know this. And I'm very pleased that President Obama is at this
moment right here in the Capitol meeting with members of the Republican
Conference. And I have just come from that meeting to begin the debate
on the issue of the so-called economic stimulus package. President
Obama, in his presentation to us, provided a very nice, encouraging
message with which I agree. He said that as we deal with this economic
stimulus package, let's work as hard as we possibly can to put politics
aside.
This is a message that President Obama has carried repeatedly
throughout his campaign. And 1 week ago today, as he stood on the west
front of the Capitol, he made it very clear that that was that exactly
what he wanted to do, was to put politics aside.

{time} 1300

Now I will say to my friend that pointing the finger of blame is an
unfortunate thing, and I think it is really being political, and that
is why I hope very much that we can follow the words of encouragement
that President Obama has just given Republican Members, and that is to
put politics aside and as we debate this stimulus package, focus on the
merits. ``Focus on the merits'' are the exact words that the President
of the United States just used within the last few minutes downstairs.
I believe it is absolutely imperative that we look at the merits.
Everyone knows that we need to take action to stimulate our economy, to
get people back to work, to help people buy and keep homes, to keep
businesses investing, job creating, and to ensure that the very
important societal needs that are out there are adequately addressed.
The problem that we have, Madam Speaker, is that as we look at this
package that is before us, unfortunately there has not been the kind of
bipartisan cooperation that President Obama has encouraged and has
personally sought.
As we look at the legislation, the measure that we are going to be
working on further today upstairs in the Rules Committee, it is an $825
billion package. It is an $825 billion package which, based on the
report that was released yesterday from the professional, nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office, has levels of expending that go not just a
year beyond where we are, not just 2 years beyond where we are, but to
10 years. And, Madam Speaker, I know very few Members have recognized
this, one of our crack staff members found this out last night in
looking at budget authority versus outlays, there is actually $2.3
billion, according to the professional, nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office, that in this stimulus packaged is expended beyond 10
years, beyond 2019.
Now again, following the words of encouragement that we as Republican
Members have just received from President Obama downstairs focusing on
the merits of the stimulus package versus politics is going to be a
high priority for us. And that is why, again, this study which just
came out from the professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office, remember this is not a Republican publication. Yes, I am a
Republican, proud to be a Republican, I am simply reporting to the
House, Madam Speaker, what it is that was included in this
Congressional Budget Office study which I commend to every single one
of our colleagues. I encourage people to look at the professional,
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office study, and the reason I am
focusing on it is I want to share, along with the information that I
just provided, that $2.3 billion of this is actually expended beyond
2019, 10 years from now.
I would like to share a couple of paragraphs from this study. It is
on page 4 and this is entitled H.R. 1, American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act 2009 as introduced in the House of Representatives
yesterday on January 26. It provides a summary. This is, again, from
the CBO. It reads: ``CBO expects that Federal agencies, along with
States and other recipients of the funding, would find it difficult to
properly manage and oversee a rapid expansion of existing programs so
as to expend the added funds as quickly as they expend the resources
provided for their ongoing programs.''
This study goes on to say: ``Lags in spending stem in part from the
need to draft plans, solicit bids, enter into contracts, and conduct
regulatory or environmental reviews. Spending can be further delayed
because some activities are by their nature seasonal. For example,
major school repairs are generally scheduled during the summer to avoid
disrupting classes, and construction and highway work are difficult to
carry out during the winter months in many parts of the country.'' It
is snowing outside right now. We know that to be the case.
And then, Madam Speaker, this report, not a partisan report from the
professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office goes on to say:
``Brand new programs pose additional challenges. Developing procedures
and criteria, issuing the necessary regulations and reviewing plans and
proposals would make distributing money quickly even more difficult--as
can be seen, for example, in the lack of any disbursements to date
under the loan programs established for automakers last summer to
invest in producing energy-efficient vehicles. Throughout the Federal
Government, spending for new programs has frequently been slower than
expected and rarely been faster.''
Madam Speaker, again, these are not my words. There is nothing
partisan about this. These words came from the study released yesterday
from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. I focus on this
because I believe that President Obama was absolutely right 15 minutes
ago when he said to Republican Members of this institution that we
should focus on the merits and not on politics. We don't want to focus
on politics because we know it is absolutely essential that we come
together with a package that will truly stimulate our economy, get
Americans working, create jobs and deal with this very serious economic
challenge.
Now as we move ahead, Madam Speaker, what needs to be done is we need
to have a package that will not do as the Congressional Budget Office,
the professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has stated,
create slow, wasteful, duplicative spending, and that is basically what
they are saying here. They are talking about in their independent
analysis how difficult it is going to be to get these dollars out
there, and to not spend $2.3 billion of this 11 years from today, we
should instead focus on fast acting, immediate action.
Now what is it that we can do to deal with the issue of immediacy
that faces us? Well, on the opening day I was pleased to introduce
legislation which is included in the alternative package that we are
going to bring forward. That legislation is focused on addressing a
particular problem that is out there in our economy, and that is the
housing industry. Traditionally, the housing industry has played a very
important role in reigniting our economy.
Yesterday the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, in his
testimony before the Rules Committee, said there is no way the housing
or the auto industry will be able to play a role in bringing us out of
economic recession. And I challenged him on that because I don't
believe that is in any way accurate in concluding it because we can
take action.
On opening day I introduced legislation which calls for incentivizing
Americans to purchase and have an interest in keeping their homes. What
it consists of, and we will have this in our package, is a $7,500
exclusion to help people offset the downpayment they make on their
home. Everyone has recognized that a big part of this problem in the
housing industry has been the fact that people put absolutely nothing
down and had subprime rates of interest. And those subprime rates of
interest allowed people, unfortunately, to treat their homes like
rental units. So they had no vested interest in it, and so they were
actually encouraged to walk away.
If we can say to an American, and we all know that the savings rate
has gone

[[Page 1652]]

up because of these challenging economic times, that they put some
dollars aside that actually utilizes that to increase the percentage of
their downpayment on that home purchase will play a role in dealing
with that inventory of housing that is out there.
We saw the reports of the layoffs at Home Depot and a wide range of
other companies yesterday. We know if we are able to encourage people
to have a vested interest in their home and purchase their home, that
will go a long way towards encouraging responsibility and seeing that
they have a vested interest in that home. That is just one example.
We also believe when it comes to tax relief that we should provide
tax relief to Americans who pay taxes. That is why in our package we
are going to call for an across-the-board cut for every single
American, reducing from 10 percent to 5 percent on the first level of
income that is taxed.
Action like this, I believe, Madam Speaker, will provide an immediacy
which is what the American people want. They want an immediate
response. And yes, some spending is necessary. We recognize that
infrastructure spending is necessary. But as we look at the litany of
items that have been included in this package that in no way stimulate
our economy, I believe that we should in fact focus on responsibility,
private sector job creation, and economic growth. That, I believe, will
mitigate the pain which so many of our fellow Americans are suffering
at this moment.
Madam Speaker, because of the direction in which we are headed, I am
going to encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule. I recognize it is
only a general debate rule, but I am very troubled with the legislation
that we have seen, some of the actions that have been taken in the
committees of jurisdiction. With that, I am going to urge opposition to
this rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am all for bipartisanship, but I find it curious that the gentleman
is preaching bipartisanship when this morning, and I read from
Politico, there is a story that says this morning House minority leader
John Boehner went for the jugular, urging his members to oppose the
economic centerpiece of Obama's first term just hours before the
President paid the Republicans the compliment of coming to the Capitol
for a private meeting, even before he did the same for House Democrats.
I will yield to the gentleman in just a second.
It seems to me if we want to be bipartisan, then everybody should
reserve judgment until all the facts are on the table. I would like to
think that the House minority leader would have reserved his judgment
on the overall package until he and the Republican Members of this
House had an opportunity to hear the new President out. That did not
happen.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and let me say that I
stand here, having just left the meeting with the President to come up
to voice my strong opposition to the $825 billion package that was
unveiled without consultation with the Republican leadership. The
partisanship has, unfortunately, been demonstrated through actions of
my friend on the other side of the aisle. So we are seeking opposition
to it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, the fact of the matter is the
economic downturn is no longer subject to debate. In the last 4 months,
the country has lost 2 million jobs and is expected to lose another 3
to 5 million in the next year. This recovery package represents a
crucial first step forward in a concerted effort to not only save but
create millions of more jobs in this country. This is a defining moment
for every single person in this Chamber. We need to act. We need to
move forward with something big and bold, and not the same old, same
old.
And bipartisanship, Madam Speaker, doesn't mean that Democrats should
capitulate to every request that the Republicans make. Bipartisanship
doesn't mean that we should embrace policies that have failed in the
past, embracing the same old, same old.
Chairman Obey was before the House Rules Committee last night and
talked about the Republican amendments that he accepted during debate
on this package in the Appropriations Committee. This is not everything
I would like, Madam Speaker. Quite frankly, I think the package needs
to be bigger. But this represents, I think, the best judgment of our
new President, working with his advisers, and I think this package is a
crucial first step forward in trying to bring this economy back from
where it is today. This is a crucial step in trying to create millions
of more jobs to put people back to work to try to stimulate this
economy to get things moving again.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I assume my friend
has seen this Congressional Budget Office study, and I want to add, as
we talk about this Congressional Budget Office study, that it is
important to note that while our friend, the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee talked about his acceptance of amendments, it
is fascinating that the Energy and Commerce Committee had a rigorous
debate on a number of amendments. They accepted four Republican
amendments by voice vote that dealt with things like COBRA
qualification, health information technology, the rights of
pharmacists, and they dropped those four amendments from the bill. So
what kind of bipartisanship is that, I ask my friend.
Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, I would say to my friend that the
Congressional Budget Office study report is disputed by many, many on
the House Appropriations Committee and many on the Senate
Appropriations Committee. In fact, Mark Zandi who is a conservative
economist and former adviser to John McCain, your Presidential
candidate in the last go-around, projected that this stimulus package
would create 4 million jobs by the end of 2010 and it will provide a
vital boost to this lagging economy.
The bottom line is, I think it is obvious that the kind of
investments that are in this package, infrastructure, green jobs,
investments in education, investments in Food Stamps and investments in
medical technology, investments in making sure that we have more nurses
and more primary care doctors, all of those things create more jobs and
will stimulate the economy.
We can debate reports all we want, but those of us who have been here
for awhile know that when you invest in things like infrastructure, you
create jobs back home. That is what we are doing here. There are
expedited provisions here to make sure that the money gets out quickly.
Madam Speaker, I would like to yield at this point 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

{time} 1315

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern.
I think it is very important for us to get our hands around exactly
what the situation is now. Our house is on fire. There are two things
we need to do. We got to get the water, and we got to get the water
quickly and put this fire out. Our economy is crumbling right before
our eyes. We are losing 6,300 homes to foreclosure every day. We are
losing almost that many jobs every day. Each day there is a new
headline, 5,000 jobs here, 6,000 jobs here. Ladies and gentlemen, we
can't wait.
Now, let us talk about this economic recovery and investment package,
because that is what it is, and let's be fair and accurate with the
American people as we talk. We have a new administration that is
saddled with the responsibility of leading and applying the executive
decisions. This administration, the Obama administration, has come to
Congress, and with them, together, we have put together this package, a
package that has a great many

[[Page 1653]]

things in it because our economy has a great many things in it.
Now, if you want to stimulate the economy, there are only three basic
ways to do it: You can cut taxes, which is in here; you can do huge
government spending, which is in here; and you can also use the Fed to
cut the interest rates, which we have already done and they are frozen
at zero. So we are left with these two things. And this package is
equally balanced in terms of the impact that is needed. We need to get
stimulus in as quickly as we can.
Madam Speaker, if I may just share with you a little letter I
received from one of my constituents in a high school in Clayton County
in Forest Park. Let me just read this.
It says, ``Dear Congressman Scott. I am a high school student that
attends Forest Park High School here in Clayton County, Georgia. This
school is in bad shape and I hope you can help us get money for the
school. The school needs new tile for restrooms and new windows. The
hallways need new lockers so that the lockers that don't open can be
replaced. Classrooms need new desks so that some of the desks that have
graffiti and old gum stuck to them can be replaced. We need more space
in the lunchroom. Congressman Scott, the lines are so long in the
lunchroom that when some students just get their food, it is time for
them to go back to the classroom.''
Well, in this package we have $43 million into this Clayton County
school system. In another county in my district, $50 million. And I am
sure every Member of this House can get a letter saying the same thing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, our country is riveted with
those moments that try men's souls. We are at such a moment in our
history. And when the history books are written on this moment, let it
be said that both Republicans and Democrats came together and responded
at this moment with the confidence that the American people are looking
to us with a way out of this dilemma that we are in. That is why they
elected us, to lead, to lead with confidence and with boldness, and to
rise to the occasion of this moment that tries men's souls as those
moments in our past history from the foundation of this country to now
have.
Let us move with quick dispatch and get this measure off, passed and
over to President Obama, so he can execute this plan immediately.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
just to say to my good friend from Clayton County, Georgia, who does a
spectacular job, that we all want to ensure that schools and the other
very pressing needs out there are addressed. Getting our economy
growing is critical for that and I know my friend concurs with the
importance for us to do that, and that is why I point to this
independent, professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
study which has indicated that there is going to be a tremendous lag
time in getting those resources to those schools to which my friend has
referred.
Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from
Moore, Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend and distinguished
ranking member of the Rules Committee from California for yielding.
I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation.
Let me say at the outset, I respect the Rules Committee and the very
important function that it carries out as a former member, but it is
preeminently, as it should be, the Speaker's committee. In this case I
believe the Speaker has presented us with legislation in a format that
is unlikely to receive significant minority support and participation,
and, frankly, that is unfortunate, Madam Speaker, because I think it is
avoidable.
There is much in the current situation that, frankly, the two parties
in this body agree on. We agree that we are in a serious recession. We
agree that dramatic Federal response is required to deal with job loss
and the mounting economic challenges we face. We agree that tax cuts
are an important part of that solution. We have some disagreement over
which ones and how much, but clearly it is an area we can find common
ground on.
We agree that infrastructure is important to moving us forward,
although I regret there is very little of this bill, frankly, that
deals with infrastructure. Less than 10 percent in total actually goes
to infrastructure spending. I think that is something we could find
common ground on and enlarge. We disagree, quite obviously, over a
whole range of other spending issues which constitute over half the
bill.
In our opinion, the spending is simply too much. There are too many
new programs that have not been authorized and gone through the
appropriate committee process. There is unsustainable spending in this
program, things like Pell Grants and IDEA money that is good, but
frankly will ramp up and then immediately crash down. Or we will set
ourselves up for a future tax increase, which I don't think anybody,
certainly on my side of the aisle, is anxious to do. So there are areas
of agreement and disagreement.
Madam Speaker, it is not too late to find common ground. We could
defeat this rule and ask the Rules Committee to send us back three
items that we could consider sequentially and separately. We could root
out the bad programs. We could find common ground. We could find common
ground on tax cuts. We can find common ground on infrastructure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my good friend, the former Rules
Committee member and a great appropriator, an additional minute.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
We could then have our disagreements over the spending portion of the
bill. We could vote on each of these items separately. They could later
be merged and sent on as a separate bill. In that process we would find
significant bipartisan participation and agreement. But, unfortunately,
the rule under which we are likely to bring the legislation to the
floor is going to make that impossible and give us the old partisan
debates that the country would like to see us move past.
So I would ask my colleagues to reject this rule and ask my capable
friends on the Rules Committee in both parties to go back and to give
us the type of process and the type of bill that will yield a
bipartisan outcome, a bipartisan victory. That is what the country
wants, that is what America needs, that is what the President has asked
us to do. That is what we are capable of doing if we will address this
matter in the appropriate manner.
So I urge the rejection of this rule and the beginning of a
bipartisan process where we can find so much common ground.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the previous speaker, who I
had the pleasure of serving with on the Rules Committee for many years,
but what we seem to be hearing over and over from the other side is
they care about job loss, but. They care about the survival of small
businesses, but. They care about the fact that hunger is a growing
problem in America, but. They care about the infrastructure, but.
Well, ``but'' nothing. The time has come, because things are so bad,
and we don't have to argue about how we got here, but the reality is I
think there is a consensus that we are in a serious economic meltdown
right now and that in fact we need to do something. We need to do
something big and bold. We need to try to jump-start this economy.
This may not be all that needs to be done, quite frankly, but the
fact is, if you care about infrastructure, you need to support a bill
that spends and invests in infrastructure. If you care about job losses
in this country, then you have got to do something other than just talk
about it, and invest in programs that will help create more jobs. If
you care about the fact that

[[Page 1654]]

hunger is a growing problem in the United States of America, which is
shameful, then you need to do something that will not only help feed
hungry people, but stimulate the economy. And this bill does that, and
more.
So there are lots of things in this bill that I think will stimulate
this economy. We could all find something that we don't like. But the
fact of the matter is, if everybody had the opportunity to write this
bill, there would be 435 different bills. This bill I think represents
the best judgment of the new President of the United States, working
with the Democratic leadership and working with Members in this House,
and I think it deserves support.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Well, how we got in this situation is that ideology
triumphed over reason. For the last eight years, and a little longer,
we have been told that there are few problems in America that can't be
solved other than by more tax breaks and a permissive attitude toward
corporate law enforcement. Now we have the results, the Bush recession,
and if we don't pass this legislation it will soon become the Bush
depression.
Now, the real question we need to be asking is, ``how do we get the
biggest bang for the buck?'' We want to be concerned about every single
one of these taxpayer dollars, that they do the most possible to ensure
an economic recovery. And one of the people that we have turned to is a
principal economic adviser to Senator John McCain and his presidential
campaign.
He, like other economists, has analyzed the provisions of this bill,
and he has told us that we will add to our gross domestic product $1.72
for every 1 dollar that we spend in this bill on food stamps to help
hungry people in this country. He also told us that on some of the
corporate loss carryback provisions, we will get only 19 cents added
per dollar spent, and that with a permanent corporate tax cut, as some
have advocated, we will get only 30 cents for every dollar we invest.
I think we need to focus our attention where it does the most good in
order to ensure an economic recovery for families across our country.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. On your time, later.
Mr. DREIER. I will yield time to you if you will agree to yield for a
question here.
Mr. DOGGETT. Let me give an example of what this bill does with
regard to one provision in this bill that I was involved in writing
that deals with the illegal action of the Secretary of the Treasury
under President Bush, Mr. Paulson, to just suspend the law that
President Ronald Reagan signed so that corporations wouldn't go out and
dodge their taxes by taking over some other corporation's tax losses.
Secretary Paulson suspended that law without any legal basis for banks
in this country, and some have estimated that could result in a drain
on the Treasury of $140 billion. This bill closes that loophole.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. On your time.
Mr. DREIER. I will be happy to yield the gentleman 1 additional
minute, if he will yield.
Mr. DOGGETT. May I have regular order and may I be assured that I
have my full minute to discuss what I want to discuss?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas will suspend.
The gentleman from California, the gentleman from Texas has been
recognized.
Mr. DREIER. I just yielded him an additional minute.
Mr. DOGGETT. That is great. I have got an additional minute yielded
here and a minute there. Which, Madam Speaker, may I take first?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 2 minutes.
Mr. DOGGETT. All right, I yield for 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
I simply wanted to engage in a little debate here, if I might, and
that is the reason I yielded time to my friend, so that we could ask
the question as to whether or not the gentleman has looked at the
Congressional Budget Office study, the professional, nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office Study.
Mr. DOGGETT. Not only looked at it, but I heard testimony all this
morning in the Budget Committee.
Mr. DREIER. If I could complete my thought, my question is, have you
in fact looked at the professional, nonpartisan CBO study that came out
last night talking about the slowness with which we will have to
contend at getting these resources? And I agree with my friend on the
need to try and get it in, and I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. DOGGETT. I have not only looked at the report, but I have spent
most of the morning listening to the testimony of Dr. Elmendorf, who
wrote that report, and indeed it is from that very report that the kind
of language that I was referring to earlier, some of the proposals that
you are advocating, are the ones that are the least effective for
getting our recovery going, and that is why I think we have a blended
proposal here. But some of the changes you want are not efficient. They
are a weak way of getting recovery, and we should be focused on the
biggest bang for the buck.
Now, let me focus on the minute that the gentleman from Massachusetts
was kind enough to yield to me, because there is one provision in this
bill that I think is very important. It is $13.5 billion in additional
assistance to many working families, many middle-class families,
concerning higher education.

{time} 1330

This was not in the bill as originally proposed by President Obama
and his advisers, but he said, as he is saying to Republicans, I'm
sure, right now, ``If you've got a better idea, I'm open to it.'' And
in this case, the better idea was an idea he advanced in the campaign
that we need to do more, particularly at a time of economic downturn,
to get more of our young people and perhaps not so young people back
into community colleges, into higher education institutions across this
country.
What this tax credit will do, in addition to the important increase
in Pell grants in this bill, is to provide a refundable credit to many
working families of up to $1,000, up to $2,500 to other families that
will for the first time cover textbooks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman another 30
seconds.
Mr. DOGGETT. This credit will for the first time cover textbooks,
will supplement Pell grants, will provide a real opportunity not only
for individuals to retool their skills but in the process retool our
whole economy with a better trained workforce.
I think this is a very effective way to address economic recovery.
I'm pleased it has been incorporated in this bill. There is not a
family that has a stake in higher education, trying to get someone into
a higher education institution, or who has someone there now that is
not likely to gain, middle-class families, working families, from this
bill.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will say that I truly do believe that we are making an attempt to
follow the directive that was provided to us within the last hour by
President Obama in his address to the Republican Conference when he
talked about the need to focus on merits rather than politics here.
We are, in fact, offering an alternative. We are, in fact, saying
that we believe that encouraging private sector growth and, yes,
putting into place spending that will help to develop our
infrastructure is important. So we acknowledge that.
The fact is if you look at what Ronald Reagan inherited in 1981, as I
was

[[Page 1655]]

saying in my opening remarks, an inflation rate of 13\1/2\ percent,
interest rates that were beyond 15 percent, an unemployment rate that
was in excess of 7 percent, what was it that was done the last time
that we faced a challenge that, quite frankly, according to the numbers
as of right now was even greater than it is today? What was the
response, in a bipartisan way, of Democrats and Republicans alike? And
I remember very vividly as we did this in May of 1981 and August of
1981. What happened, Madam Speaker, we put into place a package that
restrained the rate of growth of Federal Government, cutting by 17
percent the rate of growth of Federal spending. That was done in May of
1981, known as the Gramm-Latta budget package. Then in August of 1981,
the bipartisan Conable-Hance economic growth package brought about a
broad across-the-board marginal rate reduction which tripled the flow
of revenues to the Federal Government as it unleashed tremendous
economic growth.
So, Madam Speaker, this notion that we are saying we are for small
business but, we are for all these other things but, as my friend from
Worcester has said just a few minutes ago, is preposterous. We have a
very, very strong and positive track record on what needs to be done to
get this economy growing. We have the ability to do that. And I believe
that President Obama is sincere when he says we need to talk about the
merits and not the politics.
Again, looking at 1981, when a number of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle joined in a bipartisan way to do this, that is the
prescription for the challenges that we face today. It worked then, and
I believe very strongly that it can work now. Encouraging individual
initiative and responsibility, stepping forward with ways in which we
can help these industries that have been suffering greatly is something
that can be done. And when this study that was done by the
Congressional Budget Office made it very clear that in this package
that has been brought before us, without consultation with the
Republican leadership, without consultation with the Republican
leadership, we are, in fact, expending dollars which will be slow and
wasteful; and, Madam Speaker, we're expending dollars more than 10
years from now in this package.
So I will agree with my friends on the other side of the aisle we are
never going to come to a perfect agreement, but I believe we should use
what has, in fact, worked in the past in generating real economic
growth.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's history
lesson about Ronald Reagan and about what happened in 1981. I wasn't
here in 1981. I was a senior in college, but I appreciate the
gentleman's giving me that history lesson.
But when he talks about the strong track record of the Republicans, I
beg to differ. I think the American people differ. That's what the
outcome of this election was about. People do not want more of the
same. They're tired of the Republican track record. They want to go in
a very different direction.
Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding to me.
Madam Speaker, I stand in strong support of the economic recovery
legislation before us today.
My own State, New York, has been hard hit by the recession. The
collapse of the markets on Wall Street have left gaping revenue holes
that have contributed to our $15.4 billion State budget deficit.
In this economic crisis, high unemployment and rising costs have put
a huge strain on many American families. This legislation contains a
series of programs to provide relief, including helping workers train
and find jobs, extending unemployment benefits, and increasing food
stamp benefits.
I'm so proud that we will protect health care coverage for millions
of Americans during this recession by providing an estimated $87
billion in additional Federal matching funds. This will help States
like New York maintain our Medicaid programs in the face of massive
State budget shortfalls over the next 2 years. I have long fought hard
for increased F-MAP funds and am grateful that the stimulus will
provide some much-needed relief to our States as they struggle to
maintain access to needed services. And as we marked up the bill last
week in the Energy and Commerce Committee, I was very, very proud that
we had the monies in this bill.
We will also reduce our dependence on foreign oil by making
investments aimed at dramatically increasing renewable energy
production and renovating public buildings to make them more energy
efficient. In this bill we will invest wisely in U.S. development of
advanced vehicle batteries and battery systems through loans and grants
so that America can lead the world in transforming the way automobiles
are powered. We will also have tax credits for private homeowners for
new furnaces, energy-efficient windows and doors, and insulation.
So this is a great bill, and, Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues
to support this bill.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am going to try again, Madam Speaker. I know that my friend who was
a senior in college when I began my service here in the institution, I
appreciate his reminding me of how much older I am than he, although I
have to tell him I was not too much older than he when he was a senior
in college and I was proud to begin my service here.
The fact is, okay, I've talked about Ronald Reagan. And I know my
friend is from Worcester, and he's very proud of that, and what I would
like to do is talk about John F. Kennedy, the President of the United
States from his State.
In 1961 we all know John F. Kennedy became President. He did a lot of
great things. He's been a model for Democrats and Republicans alike in
so many areas. There were challenging economic times in the early
1960s, and John F. Kennedy did exactly what Ronald Reagan did in 1981,
and my friend describes this as the ``same old, same old.''
Well, I believe that it's imperative for us to recognize the best way
to get our economy growing. Not only Ronald Reagan but John F. Kennedy
recognized it and put into place policies that unleashed the kind of
economic growth to which we all aspire today. We know that it's been
done many times throughout world history and it can happen.
So if my friend wants to criticize the gentleman from his State,
President Kennedy, just as he criticizes Ronald Reagan for the same
old, same old, Madam Speaker, I welcome his doing that.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2
minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, they never said our task and
our job would be easy. I imagine when the Founding Fathers were trying
to create this great Union, it was not easy then as well. But we have a
responsibility and a duty. We have taken an oath of office. We have a
responsibility to the American people.
Our President has offered a solution. That is why we are here. And I
rise to support the rule and the underlying bill because I am looking
for an economic engine that will actually roll across America's
railways, that will go into the hamlets and villages and communities
where people are depressed and oppressed. And, frankly, there are items
that I think answer the question whether or not we are concerned about
creating jobs.
The increase of the earned income tax credit is one that we have seen
work and can work. I have worked with John Hope Bryant, who chairs an
organization dealing with financial literacy. We saw the impact of the
earned income tax credit for Hurricane Katrina families, for working
families, and that has been increased. For those who are seeking homes,
we don't want

[[Page 1656]]

to kill off the homeowners market, and we see now that the $7,500 tax
credit that had to be repaid in 15 years will now be waived and
forgiven. We can get homeowners or home purchasers into homes, which
Americans would like to do.
We will be seeing $20 billion for school modernization, $14 billion
for K-12, and $6 billion for higher education institutions. We will
also be seeing moneys going for educational technology grants. But my
school districts are already lining up to be able to create that
economic engine to keep teachers at work and to train the next
generation of workers.
There are green jobs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman.
There is more infusion of Medicaid dollars so that those who are
uninsured will have the resources necessary to be able to, in essence,
provide for their family but keep looking for work.
This is a calling of crisis. And so with the green jobs, the
infrastructure, I do support this rule, but I would certainly like to
see the mark of the transportation and infrastructure go from $9
billion to $12 billion. I would like to see the language of ``use it or
lose it'' be restored. I want to make sure that the metro system of
Houston can fall under the transit funding. And we're going to be
working with the chairman of the Transportation Committee and our
congressional delegation because these will create jobs across America.
I want to see rail travel restored. I want to make sure the
infrastructure of America is rebuilt. I want the bridges in the 18th
Congressional District enrolled rebuilt by the hands and labor of the
American people. That's what this stimulus is about.
There is no doubt that if we stand on this floor of the House or the
other body and ignore the cry of Americans, we too can hold our heads
in shame.
Support this rule and support this legislation.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I think that it's become very clear in this debate
that we all recognize the fact that there is a great deal of suffering
going on here in the United States of America. Our constituents are
hurting. We are dealing with a very, very challenging economic
downturn, and we all want to come together to try to find a way to
jump-start our economy.
President Obama has, just a few minutes ago, completed an address to
the Republican Conference, Republican Members of this institution, and
he went over to meet with our colleagues on the other side of the
Capitol. And the words that really struck me that he offered to us were
that as we deal with this economic stimulus package, Madam Speaker,
it's important for us to focus on merits and not politics. Merits and
not politics. And I completely concur with that. I completely concur
with that. And, again, it was 1 week ago today that we were all
privileged to be on the west front of the Capitol as we were able to
witness history and we heard a similar message put forward by President
Obama.

{time} 1345

That's why, as we move ahead on this issue, we are going to expend
our time and our effort focusing on the merits and what needs to be
done to get our economy growing.
We know that there is going to be some very important government
spending stimulus, and we support things like infrastructure spending,
because we know that goods movement, as the economy starts to grow, is
imperative, and it needs to be addressed. And so, yes, we support the
kind of infrastructure spending that we have talked about.
But, Madam Speaker, as we look at the analysis that has been done on
this $825 billion package, it doesn't do what is essential. I believe
that we need to make sure that every dollar expended gets into, on
track, just as quickly as we possibly can. We all want to try and move
that. President Obama has already talked about shovel-ready projects.
We understand the imperativeness of this.
Unfortunately, the study that has been provided by the professional,
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has made it very clear that it
is virtually impossible for us to achieve that goal with this package
that has been put before us. In fact, Madam Speaker, in looking at the
spending, it's not just beyond a year or 2 years, and the President in
his remarks downstairs talked about the fact that he wanted us to get--
maybe not within this year, but within the next 2 years--this spending
out.
Yet, Madam Speaker, based on this professional, nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office study again, not a Republican statement,
$2.3 billion of this package won't be expended until 2019. That's more
than 10 years today, and that's what the CBO study has said, and I
would commend that to all of our colleagues.
What is it that needs to be done? We need to recognize that bold,
strong, decisive, across-the-board marginal rate cuts, doing everything
we can to encourage individual initiative and responsibility, is the
kind of legislative action that we here can take to get our economy
growing and, as we discussed, as the President has said, the merits of
this, unfortunately, we don't do that in this package.
That is the reason, Madam Speaker, that we will be coming forward
with an alternative, an alternative, a very positive alternative that
brings about marginal rate reduction for 100 percent, 100 percent of
American taxpayers, so that they can save and invest. And we, of
course, want to encourage consumption. We, of course, want to encourage
the steps that are necessary to get our economy growing.
I would say again, the idea of incentivizing people to get off the
couch and into showrooms of automobile dealerships, the idea of having
people take responsibility and being incentivized to make a greater
down payment on a home so that they will have a vested interest in it
and not this very, very, very failed zero down payment and subprime
rates of interest, these are the kinds of creative, bold, policies that
we can put into place. That's what we want to do as we deal with the
suffering that is out there.
I am convinced, Madam Speaker, based on the last half century and
looking at the policies of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, that if
we were to do that, we would do exactly what happened following the
implementation of those policies by both John F. Kennedy and Ronald
Reagan in the 1960s and the 1980s. We will boost the economy, increase
the flow of Federal revenues to the Treasury and be able to address the
challenges that are before us.
So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule,
because the underlying legislation itself is very, very badly flawed,
and it's not what the American people need.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me begin by thanking Chairmen Obey,
Rangel, Waxman, Oberstar, Miller, Spratt and Gordon for their
incredible work on this package, and I want to thank their staffs.
I also want to thank Rosa DeLauro for championing the antihunger
provisions in this package, which I think are so important, not only in
terms of our moral obligation to help people in this country who don't
have enough to eat, but it also helps stimulate the economy.
I also am grateful to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and to Speaker
Nancy Pelosi for their leadership in trying to put a good and solid
reinvestment recovery package together.
Madam Speaker, we are facing extremely tough times. This economy is
in the worst shape since the Great Depression. Millions and millions of
people have lost their jobs and millions more will lose their jobs
unless this Congress, working with this President, takes decisive
action.
We are not talking about statistics, we are talking about people. We
are talking about families, and they are hurting. There is not a single
one of us in this chamber who, when we go home,

[[Page 1657]]

do not encounter people who have lost their jobs or who are on the
verge of losing their jobs.
People are struggling, people are fearful. Small businesses are
struggling. They are asking for our help. Cities and towns and States
are facing the worst financial crisis in decades, and they are looking
for help.
The underlying bill before us provides a first step in helping remedy
this terrible situation. John F. Kennedy liked to say that a rising
tide lifts all boats. Well, that is what we are trying to do with this
package.
We are trying to stimulate the economy. We are trying to make sure
that everybody, not just the few who are rich, but everybody, those who
are in the middle class and those who are poor, gets the help that they
deserve.
My colleague talked about a substitute that the Republicans will
offer. Well, that's great, and they will have an opportunity to debate
and make their substitute and let the votes fall where they may. But
the fact of the matter is that I personally believe that their
approach, which I referred to as the same old same old, will not
prevail. I hope it doesn't prevail. That's what this election was
about. People do not want more of the same. They want a different
direction.
Quite frankly, this stimulus package that we debated today should
have been what President Bush asked for a year ago. We are late in
coming to rescue so many families across this country.
I know it's fashionable on the other side to talk about tax cuts, tax
cuts, tax cuts. The bill that President Obama and the Democratic
leadership are putting together, 95 percent of American taxpayers get a
break.
But I should tell my colleagues that for every dollar of direct
spending, the economy gets $1.50 in stimulus. Every dollar of tax cut
produces 75 cents in economic stimulus. So I do think, while we can
make the argument that tax cuts are important, investment in our
infrastructure, investment in our schools, investment in our economy,
is incredibly important.
People have said, well, there is no way we can get all this money
out. I should point out in this bill there are strict accountability
measures to ensure that highways and transit funds get out of the door
quickly to create jobs. It requires States to obligate 50 percent of
the highway and transit funding within 180 days, or the Transportation
Department can reclaim some of the States' highway and transportation
funding in the bill. So there are incentives to get this money out
quickly to help stimulate this economy.
Finally, Madam Speaker, let me say that this really is a defining
moment. People are looking to their government for help. They are
looking for us to take big, bold steps. They are looking at us the same
way that people looked at Franklin Roosevelt during the Great
Depression to come and try to put together a package to help get people
back to work.
Well, that's what we're trying to do here. Madam Speaker, I will say
this, I am proud to be on the floor today debating this rule which will
pave the way for a debate on this Economic Recovery and Reinvestment
Act, because it shows that this government, once again, has a
conscience.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE

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

H. Con. Res. 26

That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of
Wednesday, January 28, 2009, on a motion offered pursuant to
this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his
designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, February
2, 2009, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to
section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs
first; and that when the House adjourns on the legislative
day of Wednesday, February 4, 2009, on a motion offered
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader
or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday,
February 9, 2009, or until the time of any reassembly
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,
whichever occurs first.
Sec. 2. The Speaker or her designee, after consultation
with the Minority Leader, shall notify the Members of the
House to reassemble at such place and time as she may
designate if, in her opinion, the public interest shall
warrant it.

The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings
will resume on questions previously postponed.
Votes will be taken in the following order: ordering the previous
question on House Resolution 87; adopting House Resolution 87; ordering
the previous question on House Resolution 88; and adopting House
Resolution 88.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 181, LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT OF
2009

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 87, on which the
yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 252,
nays 175, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 32]

YEAS--252

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone

[[Page 1658]]

Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NAYS--175

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--5

Brown-Waite, Ginny
McCollum
Solis (CA)
Tiberi
Young (AK)

{time} 1421

Ms. JENKINS, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan and Messrs. REHBERG and
GOODLATTE changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. NYE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 252,
nays 174, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 33]

YEAS--252

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

NAYS--174

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Brown-Waite, Ginny
Marchant
Ruppersberger
Solis (CA)
Tiberi
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Less than 2 minutes remain
on this vote.

{time} 1430

So the resolution was agreed to.

[[Page 1659]]

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

____________________

HONORING JACK KELLIHER ON 30 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE HOUSE

(Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. PASCRELL. I want to recognize and pay tribute to a person, Madam
Speaker, who has dedicated 30 years of service to his government, John
Francis Kelliher, Jr., or Jack, as he is known, Deputy Sergeant at Arms
for police services and congressional relations in House offices. How
many of you know the true extent of his contribution to our work and
the activity that takes place in and around this Chamber?
Please allow me to introduce a person who, to most of us, needs no
introduction. Newer Members may not be as aware of this very special
person that we honor today, a true gentleman the rest of us have come
to respect and admire.
Jack began his career on the Hill as a member of the Capitol Police
force soon after arriving from his native Boston. During his 8\1/2\
years on the force, Jack took part in thwarting two incidents which
easily could have escalated into very serious breaches of House
security.
After leaving the police force, Jack spent the next 12\1/2\ years in
Chamber security, a unit under the direction of the House Sergeant at
Arms charged with securing access to the House Chamber and the area
immediately surrounding it. Most of us have come to know him in that
capacity. More recently, Jack has held the titles of Assistant Sergeant
at Arms and ``Keeper of the Mace,'' a position of trust he has
maintained with honor and with his customary dignity and dependability.
His decision to leave us is received with mixed emotions. He is
leaving on his own terms. Wouldn't we all want that to happen as well?
Jack and his lovely wife, Nancy, have decided to make St. Augustine,
Florida, their new home. It is a decision I'm certain their two
children, John and Tara, support wholeheartedly. Free vacations in
Florida for life.
It's always tough to say goodbye, Jack. We know we will miss you, but
he has decided to leave, and we all wish him well. His parents, John
and Elizabeth, would be so proud of him today, as we are for his
embodiment of all that is good in the service of his country. Thank
you, personally, Jack. And may God bless you and your family as you
embark on this new adventure.
Now get out of this cold and run to the sun.
Madam Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the Honorable Zach Wamp
from Tennessee.
Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to rise on behalf of all
Republicans in the House to honor Jack Kelliher. Jack, if you would
please, while I'm speaking, I would ask for you to stand so that
everyone in the House can see you.
I just want to say, Madam Speaker, briefly, when we honor you today,
Jack, we honor all of the extraordinary support staff and professionals
that serve the United States House of Representatives because you
represent the finest of them through your 30 years of service. Most of
us don't know, he is not just Jack Kelliher, he could be our Jack
Bauer. He pulled, at one point as a Capitol police officer, a bomber
from the gallery. He has a distinguished history of valor and patriotic
service at the highest level. And he is the Keeper of the Mace and
Assistant Sergeant at Arms.
Sitting next to him is Joyce Hamlett, who will take his place full
time. She is my best friend here in the House. We love Joyce.
We are grateful for Jack. As was said, I have had more laughs in the
last 15 years with Jack out on the balcony than just about anybody in
the House. He is a good-natured man and a man of extraordinary
commitment to our country. We will sorely miss him. In St. Augustine a
number of years ago they bought a little place not on the beach but
just off the beach. And it is where he goes to get away from us. And we
won't follow you there, Jack. We want you and Nancy to enjoy those days
and come back to see us. But know every minute how grateful every man
and woman in the U.S. House of Representatives is for your service to
our country, Jack. Thank you and we honor you.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
continue.
There was no objection.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1, AMERICAN RECOVERY AND
REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 88, on which the
yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244,
nays 183, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 34]

YEAS--244

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NAYS--183

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boswell

[[Page 1660]]

Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--5

Brown-Waite, Ginny
Melancon
Solis (CA)
Tiberi
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1446

Mr. SHULER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235,
nays 191, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 35]

YEAS--235

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NAYS--191

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kanjorski
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Brown-Waite, Ginny
Massa
Solis (CA)
Tiberi
Waxman
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes are remaining
on this vote.

{time} 1458

Mr. ROSS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE TO BE AVAILABLE TO SERVE ON INVESTIGATIVE
SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5(a)(4)(a) of rule X, and
the order of the House of January 6, 2009, the Chair announces the
Speaker named the following Members of the House to be available to
serve on investigative subcommittees of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct for the 111th Congress:
Mr. Gene Green, Texas
Mr. Scott, Virginia

[[Page 1661]]

____________________

{time} 1500
COMMUNICATION FROM THE REPUBLICAN LEADER

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Honorable John A. Boehner, Republican leader:

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, January 27, 2009.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi: Pursuant to clause 5(a)(4)(A) of rule
X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I designate
the following Member to be available for service on the
investigative subcommittee of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct during the 111th Congress: The Honorable Doc
Hastings of Washington.
Sincerely,
John A. Boehner,
Republican Leader.

____________________

LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT OF 2009

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 87,
I call up the Senate bill (S. 181) to amend title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a
discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful
under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the
discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The text of the Senate bill is as follows:

S. 181

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 ``Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
of 2009''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) The Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), significantly impairs
statutory protections against discrimination in compensation
that Congress established and that have been bedrock
principles of American law for decades. The Ledbetter
decision undermines those statutory protections by unduly
restricting the time period in which victims of
discrimination can challenge and recover for discriminatory
compensation decisions or other practices, contrary to the
intent of Congress.
(2) The limitation imposed by the Court on the filing of
discriminatory compensation claims ignores the reality of
wage discrimination and is at odds with the robust
application of the civil rights laws that Congress intended.
(3) With regard to any charge of discrimination under any
law, nothing in this Act is intended to preclude or limit an
aggrieved person's right to introduce evidence of an unlawful
employment practice that has occurred outside the time for
filing a charge of discrimination.
(4) Nothing in this Act is intended to change current law
treatment of when pension distributions are considered paid.

SEC. 3. DISCRIMINATION IN COMPENSATION BECAUSE OF RACE,
COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN.

Section 706(e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000e-5(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3)(A) For purposes of this section, an unlawful
employment practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in
compensation in violation of this title, when a
discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is
adopted, when an individual becomes subject to a
discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, or
when an individual is affected by application of a
discriminatory compensation decision or other practice,
including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is
paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or
other practice.
``(B) In addition to any relief authorized by section 1977A
of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a), liability may
accrue and an aggrieved person may obtain relief as provided
in subsection (g)(1), including recovery of back pay for up
to two years preceding the filing of the charge, where the
unlawful employment practices that have occurred during the
charge filing period are similar or related to unlawful
employment practices with regard to discrimination in
compensation that occurred outside the time for filing a
charge.''.

SEC. 4. DISCRIMINATION IN COMPENSATION BECAUSE OF AGE.

Section 7(d) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967 (29 U.S.C. 626(d)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and
(B) by striking ``(d)'' and inserting ``(d)(1)'';
(2) in the third sentence, by striking ``Upon'' and
inserting the following:
``(2) Upon''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) For purposes of this section, an unlawful practice
occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation in
violation of this Act, when a discriminatory compensation
decision or other practice is adopted, when a person becomes
subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other
practice, or when a person is affected by application of a
discriminatory compensation decision or other practice,
including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is
paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or
other practice.''.

SEC. 5. APPLICATION TO OTHER LAWS.

(a) Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990.--The
amendments made by section 3 shall apply to claims of
discrimination in compensation brought under title I and
section 503 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12111 et seq., 12203), pursuant to section 107(a)
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12117(a)), which adopts the powers,
remedies, and procedures set forth in section 706 of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5).
(b) Rehabilitation Act of 1973.--The amendments made by
section 3 shall apply to claims of discrimination in
compensation brought under sections 501 and 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791, 794), pursuant
to--
(1) sections 501(g) and 504(d) of such Act (29 U.S.C.
791(g), 794(d)), respectively, which adopt the standards
applied under title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 for determining whether a violation has occurred in a
complaint alleging employment discrimination; and
(2) paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 505(a) of such Act
(29 U.S.C. 794a(a)) (as amended by subsection (c)).
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Rehabilitation act of 1973.--Section 505(a) of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794a(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``(42 U.S.C.
2000e-5 (f) through (k))'' the following: ``(and the
application of section 706(e)(3) (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(e)(3)) to
claims of discrimination in compensation)''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``1964'' the
following: ``(42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) (and in subsection
(e)(3) of section 706 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5),
applied to claims of discrimination in compensation)''.
(2) Civil rights act of 1964.--Section 717 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(f) Section 706(e)(3) shall apply to complaints of
discrimination in compensation under this section.''.
(3) Age discrimination in employment act of 1967.--Section
15(f) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29
U.S.C. 633a(f)) is amended by striking ``of section'' and
inserting ``of sections 7(d)(3) and''.

SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, take effect
as if enacted on May 28, 2007 and apply to all claims of
discrimination in compensation under title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.), the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 621 et
seq.), title I and section 503 of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, and sections 501 and 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that are pending on or after that
date.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). Pursuant to House Resolution
87, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman
from California (Mr. McKeon) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller).

General Leave

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on S. 181.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5
minutes.
Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives meets to give final
approval to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and send it to President
Obama for his signature. What a difference a new Congress and a
President make.
Nondiscrimination in the workplace must be a sacred American
principle. Workers should be paid based upon their merits, not an
employer's prejudices. Yet, more than 40 years after the

[[Page 1662]]

passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Supreme Court dramatically
turned back the clock on this bedrock principle. Instead of abiding by
decades of long-standing law, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court
decided to commit legal jujitsu to satisfy a narrow ideological agenda.
The Supreme Court simply told bad employers that to escape
responsibility for pay discrimination all they need to do is keep it
hidden for the first 180 days.
The Ledbetter ruling has already dramatically impacted how Americans
can remedy discrimination. It has been cited in hundreds of cases over
the past 19 months since the ruling. Not only have pay discrimination
cases been adversely impacted, but even fair housing protections and
title IX complaints. The Supreme Court sent these lower courts
backwards down the wrong path, and today the Congress will correct that
course by passing this bill.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would simply reset the law as
businesses, most courts, employers and employees and the EEOC had
understood it before the Court's 2007 ruling. Under S. 181, every
paycheck or other compensation resulting, in whole or part, from an
earlier discriminatory pay decision or other practice would constitute
a violation of title VII. In other words, if an employer keeps issuing
discriminatory paychecks, that employer will keep restarting the clock
for filing charges. That's only fair. As long as workers file their
charges, as Lilly Ledbetter herself did, within 180 days of a
discriminatory paycheck, the charges will be considered timely. The
legislation also clarifies that an employee is entitled to up to 2
years backpay as provided in title VII already.
Finally, S. 181 ensures that these simple reforms extend to the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act
and the Rehabilitation Act to provide these same protections for
victims of age and disability discrimination.
Correcting pay discrimination poses significant challenges to
workers, made all the harder with the Supreme Court's Ledbetter
decision. This is best illustrated by Lilly Ledbetter's own words from
an Education and Labor Committee hearing in 2007: ``What happened to me
is not only an insult to my dignity, but it had real consequences for
my ability to care for my family. Every paycheck I received, I got less
than what I was entitled to under the law.
``The Supreme Court said that this didn't count as illegal
discrimination, but it sure feels like discrimination when you are on
the receiving end of that smaller paycheck and trying to support your
family with less money than the men are getting for doing the same job.
And according to the Court, if you don't figure things out right away,
the company can treat you like a second-class citizen for the rest of
your career. This isn't right.''
I agree with Lilly Ledbetter: what happened to her wasn't right.
Unfortunately, it's too late for Lilly Ledbetter to receive justice.
But today, thanks to Lilly's incredible courage and perseverance, and
thanks to millions of Americans making their voices heard, Congress
will reject this ruling for the millions of Americans suddenly now
subject to legal discrimination.
The Ledbetter v. Goodyear Supreme Court ruling was a painful step
backwards for civil rights in this country. Today, the House will
correct this injustice and send President Obama his first bill to sign
into law. All victims of discrimination are entitled to justice, and I
urge my colleagues to support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us was the first substantive piece of
legislation considered by the 111th Congress. In a matter of days, it
could be one of the first substantive measures signed into law by the
44th President of the United States. And despite all the promises of
openness and bipartisanship, at the end of the day it will have been
considered not once, not twice, but three separate times in the House
without the opportunity to debate a single Republican amendment. It
didn't have to be this way.
This legislation is supposed to be about protecting workers--and
especially women--from discrimination in the workplace. Like my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I am strongly opposed to
discrimination of any type, be it gender discrimination, racial
discrimination, or any other type of discrimination inside or outside
the workplace. Rooting out such discrimination is a bipartisan goal,
and I cannot think of a single reason why it is not being given a
bipartisan debate.
The arguments on both sides of this bill are clear, and they have
been debated on this floor before. For my part, I believe that
enriching trial lawyers is simply the wrong way to ensure a fairer,
more just workplace; and clearly that's what this bill will do. By
eliminating the statute of limitations, the bill invites more and
costlier lawsuits. We're talking about economic stimulus this week, so
it's only fitting that we begin with an economic stimulus package for
trial lawyers.
But for me, Mr. Speaker, the controversy we face today is not just
the underlying legislation, although it certainly is controversial. No,
the controversy today is the stunning lack of openness being shown by a
majority that seems intent on wielding the heavy hand of power.
Less than 24 hours ago, the Rules Committee held an emergency meeting
in order to bring this bill to the floor today. As I understand it, the
job of the Rules Committee is to consider potential amendments and
decide which of those will receive a vote by the full House. After 2
years of watching Republican amendments routinely discarded without a
vote, I wasn't surprised that the majority brought this bill to the
floor under a closed rule. What surprised me was that they didn't even
bother to keep up the illusion that they might make one of our
proposals in order. In fact, the Rules Committee did not even set a
deadline for amendments on this bill, so certain were they that not a
single proposal would be worthy of consideration.
For the record, I offered two amendments that were refused by the
majority, two amendments that I believe were consistent with the
majority's stated goals of preventing wage discrimination and
overturning the Ledbetter decision. At the same time, I believe those
amendments would have helped to avert at least some of the unintended
consequences this legislation is sure to spawn. I did not ask the
majority to guarantee that my amendments would pass; I simply asked for
a debate among the Members of good will who can argue the merits and
vote as they see fit. I was denied.
Mr. Speaker, workplace discrimination is a serious issue and it
deserves a serious debate. What a disappointment this is.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for
yielding.
Lilly Ledbetter went to work in a factory in Alabama. She was one of
the best at her job as a supervisor. She routinely won awards for being
best at what she did. Late in her career, when she retired, she found
out that she was systemically paid about 30 percent less than the men
next to whom she worked. She filed suit in Federal court. The company
said she wasn't underpaid because she was a woman, she was underpaid
for other reasons. A jury of her peers heard her case and the
employer's case, and she won unanimously.
The case went up through the United States Supreme Court. The United
States Supreme Court, in the case that now bears her name,
unfortunately, said that because she didn't file suit when she didn't
know that she had been discriminated against, she couldn't recover. So
because the employer was successful at hiding the discrimination for a
period of time, she couldn't recover.
Lilly Ledbetter could be any one of our mothers, daughters, sisters,
wives, or neighbors. What was done to her is an affront not only to
her, but to the

[[Page 1663]]

law. Women should not confront this law as a trap to deny them their
rights. The law should not be a vessel of injustice. And we should not
wait to pass this bill, put it on President Obama's desk, and make it
the law of the land today.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield at this time to the
gentleman from Minnesota, the ranking member of the subcommittee that
has jurisdiction, such time as he may consume, Mr. Kline.
Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose, yet again, seriously flawed
legislation. As you know, we passed this bill just 2 weeks ago, and it
is before us once again.
Unfortunately, the flaws and the potential damage to our civil rights
and our economy remain. The enthusiastic supporters of the Ledbetter
Act continue to beat the drum, claiming we are simply voting on a
straightforward bill to reverse a Supreme Court decision involving
discrimination in the workplace. Despite the passage of time and
continued requests by my colleagues and I in the minority party,
however, they are no closer to telling the whole story.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us would reverse a court decision for
the benefit of Lilly Ledbetter, but perhaps more significantly, it
would dismantle the long-standing statute of limitations established by
the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And this is the reason that the Supreme
Court ruled the way they did. They held that the statute of limitations
is an important part of our society, of our government, of our way of
doing business in this country, and we need to preserve that statute of
limitations.
While I can understand the pain that Ms. Ledbetter felt, can you
imagine as an employer trying to keep track of decisions going back 20
years and more and trying to defend those in a court? It is not
practical, it's not fair.
This bill would set into motion unintended consequences that its
supporters simply are not willing to acknowledge, including radically
increasing the opportunity for frivolous and abusive litigation. This
is, indeed, another boon for trial lawyers.
Further, this bill would also permit individuals to seek damages
against employers for whom they never worked by allowing family members
and others who were never directly subjected to discrimination to
become plaintiffs even after the worker in question is deceased.
Just this weekend our new President said our economic troubles are
worsening. We should heed his caution and recognize that in such a
climate we cannot afford to enable endless litigation and potentially
staggering recordkeeping requirements on employers. We are trying to
get employers to create more jobs to hire more people.
We must also be wary of the devastating effect this bill could have
on pensions by exposing employers to decades-old discrimination claims
that they have little--or I would argue no--ability to defend. This
legislation could risk the retirement security of many hardworking
Americans.
Mr. Speaker, it's very clear that this legislation amounts to a
significant change in our civil rights laws. And despite a delay, we
have had no more debate or deliberation, leaving unanswered many
relevant questions that deserve to be addressed through the normal
legislative process.
My concerns and unanswered questions can only lead me to say that the
Ledbetter bill makes for bad policy created through a poor legislative
process.
I urge my colleagues again to vote ``no.''
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself 15 seconds just to
say, according to the analysis done by the Congressional Budget Office,
there is no new cost associated with this legislation because it
creates no new cause of action, and no anticipated increase in
litigation in spite of the remarks of the gentleman from the other side
of the aisle. And that's what the independent analysis shows of this
legislation.
I would like now to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey), the subcommittee Chair of the committee of
jurisdiction.

{time} 1515

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I don't know about the rest of you, but
I've come to think of Lilly Ledbetter as my girlfriend. I mean she has
been so important to all of us and to women and to the issue on this
landmark day that we have today for women and American workers and
their families because this bill does tell the whole story. And at the
end of this debate, we will be one step closer to overturning an unjust
Supreme Court decision, a decision that offered a restricted and
decidedly unrealistic reading of when a discriminatory action regarding
compensation actually occurs.
Good for the Senate for joining us in passing the Lilly Ledbetter
Fair Pay Act and with an overwhelming bipartisan vote at that, giving
us the go-ahead to do exactly the right thing.
Sadly, Lilly Ledbetter will not be affected by our actions, but we
know that she has paved the way for others who will benefit from her
bravery and will have recourse when they are paid less than their male
counterparts.
The President understands that equality and fairness are crucial in a
free society. He understands that more than 40 years after the passage
of the Equal Pay Act, women are still paid an average of just 78 cents
for every dollar a man earns.
I urge my colleagues to pass this bill, and I look forward to
President Obama's signing it into action, into law, the Lilly Ledbetter
Fair Pay Act.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield at this time to the
gentleman from California, a new member of the committee, Mr.
McClintock, such time as he may consume.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the chilling effect this
legislation will have on our economy because of the endless lawsuits it
makes possible, including for grievances that may stretch back 30 years
or more, and I certainly share those concerns.
But I want to express a deeper concern with this legislation. I
believe it hurts the cause of equality and opportunity in the workplace
by making it more difficult for the people who need jobs and who most
want those jobs to actually get them.
Any person's labor is worth exactly what that person's willing to
receive and what another is willing to pay. The decisions that are made
by both the employee and the employer are unique to those people and to
those circumstances. Someone passionately wanting to break into a
field, for example, or to stay in a region or to shorten a commute or
an infinite variety of other considerations may be willing to accept
less in order to gain those noneconomic advantages than someone who is
equally qualified but indifferent to those advantages. Imposing rigid
one-size-fits-all requirements into the relationship between an
employee and an employer reduces the employee's freedom to negotiate
for the best set of overall conditions for his or her own unique
circumstances. And lest we forget, when all else fails, there is a
fail-safe and absolute protection: It's the word ``no.'' No, the pay is
not acceptable; no, the conditions are not satisfactory; no, I can get
a better job elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, freedom works, and it's time that we put it back to
work.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.
Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise once again in strong
support of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and I commend the Senate
for passing the legislation so quickly and commend the leadership of
this House, Chairman Miller, for bringing it to the floor for its final
vote.
It's remarkable that the potential first piece of legislation signed
into law by President Obama this year is one that will help victims of
pay discrimination.
Last year I had the privilege of hearing Mrs. Ledbetter testify
before the

[[Page 1664]]

Education and Labor Committee. After 19 years, 19 years as a Goodyear
employee, Mrs. Ledbetter discovered she was paid significantly less
than every single one of her male counterparts. She took her case all
the way to the Supreme Court where it was thrown out on a technicality.
She filed her paperwork too late. Unfortunately, Mrs. Ledbetter had no
idea this was even happening to her. I suppose the Supreme Court
decided that Mrs. Ledbetter was a mind reader.
This Fair Pay Act would correct this wrong by clarifying that every
paycheck resulting from a discriminatory pay decision constitutes a
violation of the Civil Rights Act and employees have 180 days after
each discriminatory paycheck to file a suit.
Again, I am pleased Congress is acting swiftly to correct a
disastrous Supreme Court ruling that allows bad employers to
discriminate against their employees as long as they hide it for 180
days. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for S. 181 so we can promptly
send it to the President's desk.
Thank you, Lilly Ledbetter.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a champion of fair pay
and equal pay for women.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lilly Ledbetter
Fair Pay Act. I congratulate Chairman Miller, the driving force behind
this effort, who, with great tenacity and great leadership, has given
this issue the priority that it deserves.
Together, with his colleagues on the Education and Labor Committee
and our dedicated partners in the Senate, Chairman Miller has brought
gender-based pay discrimination front and center in this Congress, and
as a result, we finally have the opportunity to send powerful
legislation to the President's desk today.
We are here because Lilly Ledbetter got shortchanged, shortchanged by
her employer, the perpetrator of consistent pay discrimination lasting
years; and shortchanged again by the Supreme Court.
A jury found that, yes, Lilly Ledbetter had been discriminated
against by her employer. They awarded her $3.8 million in back pay and
damages. But then under Title VII, this award was reduced to $360,000,
and ultimately zero when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against her in
2007, drastically limiting women's access to seek justice for pay
discrimination based on gender, requiring workers to file a pay
discrimination claim within a 6-month period only, regardless of how
long the pay inequity goes on. When women still earn only about 78
percent of what men earn, this ruling has essentially rolled back
efforts to ensure equal pay and left women with little remedy.
As Justice Ginsburg suggested in her dissent, Congress has an
obligation to correct the court's decision. That is why we must pass
the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, clearly stating that Title VII
statute of limitations runs from the date a discriminatory wage is
actually paid, not simply some earliest possible date which has come
and gone long ago. Instead, you would be able to challenge
discriminatory paychecks as long as you continue to receive them.
But we cannot stop there. I strongly urge the Senate to build on this
vital foundation. Take up the Paycheck Fairness Act, which this House
passed in tandem with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, to face gender
discrimination head on and eliminate the systemic discrimination faced
by women.
Mr. Speaker, that process starts in earnest. With the Lilly Ledbetter
Fair Pay Act, we can begin to ensure pay equity. We can help families
gain the resources they need to give their children a better future,
the great promise of our American Dream. Let us make good on that
promise, pass this bill. Let us make sure that women who face the
discrimination that Lilly Ledbetter faced have the right and the tools
to fight against it.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I congratulate the
Democratic leadership on moving this bill forward, George, Rosa, Lynn,
so many who worked so hard on it.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act stands for equal pay for equal work.
This bill overrules the outrageous Supreme Court decision which
rejected Ms. Ledbetter's pay discrimination case because she had not
sued quickly enough to end an injustice. An injustice is an injustice,
and it should not have a time limit on correcting it.
Forty years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act and title VI,
statistics show that women continue to be paid less than their male
colleagues. When I entered the workforce, women were paid 59 cents to
every dollar a man earned. Today it's up to 78 cents. A disparity which
costs women anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million in lost wages over a
lifetime. This is terribly unfair.
In the midst of the dire economic reports of these last weeks and
months, today this Congress can take a step towards helping women and
families who are struggling by passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay
Act. There are too many Lilly Ledbetters in our country, and when you
discriminate against a woman, you discriminate against her family, her
husband, her children. Passing the Fair Pay Act sends a strong message
of fairness and equity to women and families everywhere.
This may be the first bill that gets to President Obama's desk. It
shows a change and a shift of priorities between a Democratic Congress
and the one we replaced. I congratulate all my colleagues and the
Democratic leadership for moving it forward.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Congresswoman Eleanor
Holmes Norton.
Ms. NORTON. Kudos to Mr. Miller, who would not give up on this bill,
for his early hearings and this early consideration now, and to the
Speaker and to our leadership for this early floor time just when women
need us most when the economy is indeed punishing them enough.
I hold here a settlement agreement that is perhaps the best evidence
of why we need this bill. The first case brought under the so-called
Congressional Accountability Act, that was the act of about 10 or 15
years ago that said that the Congress had to abide by the same rules
and rights as workers have in the private sector. This suit was brought
by 300 current and former female custodians. All of them were African
American women. They accused the House of Representatives and the
Senate of paying them $1 less than men who had comparable jobs. After a
long period of depositions and discovery, where a class was approved,
the Congress paid $2.5 million to these women.
Like Lilly Ledbetter, most of them had worked for many years as
female custodians in the House and the Senate. Like Lilly Ledbetter,
they had no idea they were being paid less than the men who did the
same jobs, collecting our trash, if you will, in our offices. The way
they found out and the only way they found out is that they were
represented by a great union, the AFSCME Council 26, affiliated with
the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME), AFL-CIO, who represented them in court and got the
settlement. I remember going over to the Ford building and helping to
hand out the checks. Many of the women, like Lilly Ledbetter, were near
retirement. And this settlement agreement shows that those women,
unlike Lilly Ledbetter, indeed received funds from the United States
Congress under the Equal Pay Act. That is how the act was enforced when
I chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. That is how it
was enforced before I chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. And that is how we return it today.
I would like to include this settlement agreement in the Record.

[[Page 1665]]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PATRICIA HARRIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OFFICE OF THE
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, Defendant.
C.A. No. 97-1658 (EGS), Filed July 25, 2001, Nancy Mayer
Whittington, Clerk, U.S. District Court.

Settlement Agreement

This Settlement Agreement is entered into this 20th day of
July 2001, between plaintiffs Patricia Harris, et al. as
class representatives, (hereinafter collectively referred to
as ``plaintiffs''), on the one hand, and defendant the Office
of the Architect of the Capitol (hereinafter referred to as
the ``Architect''), on the other hand, for the purpose of
finally resolving all aspects of this class action. In the
interest of avoiding the expense, delay, and inconvenience of
further litigation of the issues raised in this action, and
in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and
obligations in this Agreement, and for good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are
acknowledged, plaintiffs and defendant, through their
undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows,
subject to the approval of the Court.

I. DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

A. ``Agreement'' and ``Settlement Agreement''--These terms
refer to this Settlement Agreement and all attachments
thereto.
B. ``Effective date of this Agreement''--This term refers
to the date of Final Court Approval of this Agreement.
C. ``Final Court Approval''--This term refers to the latest
of the following dates, after the conduct of a Fairness
Hearing and approval of this Agreement by the Court: the date
on which any and all appeals from any objections to the
Agreement have been dismissed, a final appellate decision
upholding approval has been rendered, or the time for taking
an appeal has expired without an appeal having been taken. If
there are no objections to the Agreement, this term refers to
that date, following the conduct of the Fairness Hearing, on
which the Court grants final approval of the Agreement.
D. ``Preliminary Court approval''--This term refers to that
date, following submission of this Agreement to the Court by
the parties but prior to the conduct of a Fairness Hearing,
on which the Court grants initial approval of the Agreement.
E. The ``parties' execution of this Settlement
Agreement''--This term refers to the date on which all
parties have signed the Agreement.
F. ``Plaintiffs'', ``plaintiff class'' or ``class
members''--These terms refer to the class of plaintiffs
certified by the District Court on February 29, 2000:
``All women custodial workers employed by the Architect of
the Capitol on or after January 23, 1996, the effective date
of the Congressional Accountability Act, including those who
terminated their employment or retired after that date and
who were hired after that date, with respect to the causes of
action alleged herein as violative of Section 201(a) and (b)
of the Congressional Accountability Act, 2 U.S.C.
Sec. 1311(a) & (b), which incorporate the rights and remedies
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 2000e-2 and other sections cited therein, and make them
applicable to the defendant and the legislative branch
generally.''
G. ``Plaintiffs' counsel'' and ``counsel for plaintiffs''--
These terms refer to plaintiffs' class counsel, Beins,
Axelrod & Kraft, P.C. ``Counsel for the parties'' refers to
counsel for the plaintiff class and counsel for the
defendant.
H. ``Active Class Members'' are the class members who are
currently employed with the Architect as of the date of the
parties' execution of this Settlement Agreement who elect not
to retire.
I. ``Inactive Class Members'' are those class members who,
as of the date of the parties' execution of this Agreement,
have been terminated or retired, died, resigned or been
promoted out of the class. The retired class members who are
part of the Inactive Class Members are those class members
who retired before April 9, 2001.
J. ``Retirement Eligible Class Members'' are those class
members who had not retired as of April 9, 2001, but who 1)
are retirement eligible (by qualifying age and years of
service), and 2) elect to retire pursuant to the terms of
Section II (B) of this Agreement.
K. The term ``night custodial workers'' refers to female
employees who work during the night shift.
L. The term ``day custodial workers'' refers to female
employees who work during the day shift.
M. The Office of Personnel Management will be hereinafter
referred to as ``OPM.''
N. The Congressional Accountability Act will be hereinafter
referred to as the ``CAA.''

II. MONETARY RELIEF

A. Active Class Members and Inactive Class Members
1. Pursuant to Section 415 of the CAA, a lump sum payment
from the Department of Treasury will be made to plaintiffs'
counsel (to be calculated as set forth in paragraph two
below) to distribute to the Active Class Members and the
Inactive Class Members at plaintiffs' counsel's discretion,
except that those Inactive Class members who were terminated
for cause will not receive a payment for any time period
beyond the date they were terminated.
2. The lump sum payment for distribution by plaintiffs'
counsel to the Active Class Members and Inactive Class
Members will be based on the sum of two calculations: 1) the
number of Active Class Members multiplied by $7,000 and 2)
the number of Inactive Class Members multiplied by $4,000.
The lump sum payment for distribution to the Active Class
Members will be reduced by $7,000 for each Active Class
Member who is retirement eligible and elects to retire. Any
money paid under this subparagraph that has not been
distributed to class members two years after Final Court
Approval of the settlement will be remitted back to the
Office of Compliance to be returned to the Department of
Treasury.
B. Retirement Eligible Class Members
1. Pursuant to Section 415 of the CAA, an individual lump
payment from the Department of Treasury will be made in the
amount of $20,000 to each of the Retirement Eligible Class
Members.
2. Only those class members who: a) are eligible to retire
as of April 9, 2001 or become eligible to retire during the
period of April 9, 2001 through September 30, 2001, and b)
who actually retire during the period of April 9, 2001,
through September 30, 2001, may retire during this period and
receive the individual lump sum payment described in
paragraph B.1 above. All class members who are eligible to
retire during this period will have 60 days after receiving
the class notice (as described more fully below) to designate
whether they will retire. A class member's decision under
this paragraph is irrevocable unless the Court disapproves
this Agreement.
3. In order to be eligible for the individual lump sum
payment described in paragraph B.1 above, each class member
who chooses to retire before Final Court Approval of the
Settlement and actually begins her retirement before Final
Court Approval must agree in writing, and will acknowledge in
writing, as follows:
``If the Court does not finally approve the Settlement
Agreement, I will not receive the $20,000 individual lump sum
payment or have any further recourse against the Architect,
except to continue as a plaintiff in Harris v. Office of the
Architect of the Capitol, Civil Action No. 97-16587.
C. Payment Terms
1. Pursuant to Section 415 of the CAA, payments under
Sections II and III of this Settlement Agreement shall be
made from the Department of Treasury. Payments shall be made
to class members whom the parties have identified and who
have exhausted the counseling and mediation procedures of the
CAA. Class members identified after the execution of this
Agreement will be required to exhaust the counseling and
mediation procedures of the CAA in order to be eligible for
the relief described in Sections II and III of this
Settlement Agreement.
2. Plaintiffs' counsel and the Retirement Eligible Class
Members shall receive the payments as set forth in sections A
and B above within sixty (60) days after Final Court Approval
of the Settlement.
3. Nothing in this Agreement shall increase or decrease the
amount of taxes owed by the plaintiffs under the tax code and
other applicable provisions of law.
D. Attorneys' Fees and Costs
1. Pursuant to Section 415 of the CAA, a payment of
$290,000 from the Department of Treasury shall be made to
plaintiffs' counsel, which represent plaintiffs' counsels'
costs and fees at the applicable Laffey rates as of August
31, 2000. This payment will be made within a reasonable time
period. Defendant agrees to assist in expediting this payment
by taking whatever steps are reasonably possible in
accordance with established procedures of the United States
Attorney's Office. In addition, pursuant to Section 415 of
the CAA a one-time lump sum payment from the Department of
Treasury shall be made to plaintiffs' counsel for reasonable
fees and costs after August 31, 2000 at the applicable Laffey
rates, based on monthly invoices to be submitted to and
approved by Defendant's counsel. Plaintiffs' counsel will
submit an invoice for each month in which services are
performed after August 31, 2000 following the parties'
execution of this Agreement
2. Pursuant to Section 415 of the CAA, a payment from the
Department of Treasury in the amount of $5,235.00 to
plaintiffs' counsel for plaintiffs' expert fees.
3. Defendant shall pay the mediator in this matter, Linda
Singer, the sum of $9,484.22, which is the amount owed for
her services as of November 15, 2000. Defendant agrees to pay
Ms. Singer's additional fees if the parties require her
services after November 15, 2000, not to exceed $16,000. To
the extent plaintiffs have paid any mediation fees to Ms.
Singer, defendant will reimburse plaintiffs for those fees in
lieu of Ms. Singer.

iii. NON-MONETARY RELIEF

A. Prospectve Promotions With Pay for Active Class Members
Within sixty days after Final Court Approval of this
Agreement, all Active Class Members will receive a promotion.
The promotion will be retroactive to the date of Final Court
Approval of the Settlement. All Active Class Members who are
night custodial workers will be upgraded from a WG-2 to

[[Page 1666]]

a WG-3 and will be paid at the WG-3 level at their current
step. All Active Class Members who are day custodial workers
will be upgraded from a WG-2 or WG-3 to a WG-4 and will be
paid at the WG-4 level at their current step. No Retirement
Eligible Class Member will receive the promotion referred to
in this paragraph A. All Active Class Members who are night
custodial workers will retain their night differential.
B. Retroactive Promotions
Within six months of the date of Final Court Approval, the
Architect will retroactively promote all class members as of
January 23, 1996, the effective date of the CAA. All night
custodial workers will be retroactively promoted to a WG-3 at
the step they would have held if they had been a WG-3 on
January 23, 1996. All day custodial workers will be
retroactively promoted to a WG-4 at the step they would have
held if they had been a WG-4 on January 23, 1996. No class
member will receive back pay as a result of this retroactive
promotion. To effectuate this provision of the Agreement,
pursuant to Section 415 of the CAA, a payment from the
Department of Treasury shall be made in an amount sufficient
to make all appropriate payments to the Office of Personnel
Management for the retirement fund under Chapter 83 or 84 of
Title 5 U.S. Code, which includes payments for each class
member and the AOC and appropriate deductions for any
additional coverage for the Federal Employee Group Life
Insurance Program (``FEGLI'').
The National Finance Center (``NFC'') will calculate the
additional amount of employee retirement withholding and
employer contribution due for each pay period of the
retroactive promotion for each class member. This additional
amount will be based on the difference in the base pay of the
class members' old and new grade levels, multiplied by the
applicable statutory percentages for the employee deduction
and the agency contribution to the retirement fund. The NFC
will also calculate for each class member, if applicable, the
amount of any additional deductions for the MU. Additionally,
pursuant to Section 415 of the CAA, a payment shall be made
from the Department of Treasury in an amount sufficient to
pay an invoice submitted to the AOC by the NFC for the cost
of performing the referenced calculations under this section,
including overtime charges and indirect costs.
C. Notice of Vacant Positions
Beginning sixty days after Final Court Approval of this
Agreement, the Architect will send all vacancy announcements
for Wage Grade and GS positions for which plaintiffs may be
eligible (including but not limited to Wage Grade and GS 3,
4, 5 and 6 positions) to the plaintiffs' counsel on a monthly
basis for one year.

IV. PROCEDURES FoR CLASS NOTICE

A. Notice to Potential class Members
Within 60 days after Preliminary Court Approval of this
Agreement, the Architect shall send a Notice to potential
class members at their last known address. Attachment A
hereto is a proposed ``Notice of Proposed Settlement and of
Hearing on Proposed Settlement'' (``Fairness Notice''), which
the parties hereby request that the Court approve in
connection with scheduling the Fairness Hearing, as set forth
in paragraph VI below. This notice to class members shall
also include this Agreement. The Architect shall pay for the
cost of this mailing.
B. Published Notice
In order to advise all potential class members of their
rights under this Agreement, including class members who have
retired, who have relocated, or whose current location is
unknown, the Architect shall arrange for the publication, at
the Architect's expense, of a one-time Notice in the general
news sections of the District of Columbia Metro and Prince
George's County editions of The Washington Post, and in Roll
Call. The text of the published notice will be submitted to
plaintiffs' counsel for their review and approval in advance
of publications.

V. PROCEDURES FOR FAIRNESS HEARING

A. Hearing No Later Than 60 Days After Preliminary Approval
The parties request that the Court schedule a Fairness
Hearing to be held no later than 60 days after the Court
preliminarily approves the settlement.
B. Objections to Settlement Agreement
Any person who wishes to object to the terms of this
Agreement, must submit, not less than 15 days prior to the
Fairness Hearing, a written statement to the Court, with
copies to counsel for the parties. The statement shall
contain the individual's name, address and telephone number,
along with a statement of her objection(s) to the Agreement
and the reason(s) for the objection(s).
C. Parties to Use Best Efforts to Obtain Prompt Judicial
Approval
The parties and their counsel shall jointly use their best
efforts to obtain prompt judicial approval of this Agreement.
The parties have bargained in good faith for the terms of
this Agreement. No section or subsection of this Settlement
may be modified or stricken without consent of the parties,
and in no event after Final Court Approval. If the Court does
not approve of this Settlement as written, the Agreement
shall be voidable in its entirety at the option of either
party.

VI. OTHER MATTERS

A. The plaintiffs relinquish all rights to reopen this
action or to seek further or relief than is provided in this
Agreement.
B. The parties to this action have entered into this
Agreement to resolve all issues in controversy in this
action. In recognition of this fact, neither the terms of
this Agreement nor their substance may be offered, taken,
construed, or introduced as evidence of liability or as an
admission or statement of wrongdoing by the defendant, or
used for any other reason either in this action or in any
subsequent proceeding of any nature.
C. This Agreement shall not constitute an admission of
liability or fault on the part of the Office of the
Architect, its agents, servants, or employees, and is entered
into by all parties for the sole purpose of compromising
disputed claims and avoiding the expenses and risks of
further litigation.
D. This Agreement comprises the full and exclusive
agreement of the parties with respect to the matters
discussed herein. No representations or inducements to
compromise this action or the administrative proceedings that
gave rise to it have been made, other than those recited in
this Agreement. No statements other than those recited in
this Agreement are binding upon the parties with respect to
the disposition of this action or the administrative
proceedings that gave rise to it.
E. The terms of this Agreement shall constitute full and
complete satisfaction of all claims of class members against
the defendant that arise out of events occurring up to Final
Court Approval of this Agreement which fall within the scope
of the allegations in the fourth amended complaint in this
action, and of all rights of the class members to relief
within the scope of this action. Upon Final Court Approval of
this Agreement, the class as a whole and each class member
individually shall be bound by the doctrines of res judicata
and collateral estoppel with respect to all such claims.
F. This Agreement shall be enforceable in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia.
G. This action will be dismissed with prejudice upon Final
Court Approval.
Counsel for Plaintiffs: Barbara Kraft and Sarah J.
Starrett.
Counsel for Defendant: Kenneth L. Wainstein, U.S. Attorney;
Mark E. Nagle, Assistant U.S. Attorney; Stacy M. Ludwig,
Assistant U.S. Attorney.
This Agreement has been approved by the Office of
Compliance pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1414.
William W. Thompson, II,
Executive Director, Office of Compliance.
Approved and So Ordered on this 20th day of July, 2001,
Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan,
United States District Judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A FAIRNESS HEARING IS SCHEDULED
FOR September 28, 2001, at 11 a.m. in Courtroom #1.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this act. I join with
so many of my colleagues who find it extraordinarily important that we
right the wrong of the Supreme Court decision and allow access to the
courts for those who have been discriminated against in terms of pay
equity.
And Lilly Ledbetter and the act that is before us today, I want to
thank Chairman George Miller for his leadership and his hard work on
this and his committee for their relentless pursuit of correcting this.
It's one of the very first acts of this new Congress, and I just want
to rise in support of it and hope that it gains an extraordinary vote
in the House today because it will send a message to not only my
mother, my wife, my daughters, but to women throughout our country and
to others that the United States Congress stands squarely on the right
side of history on this critically important question.
Mr. McKEON. I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader.

{time} 1530

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman, I thank the ranking member, I thank
the United States Senate for passing this bill.
I am proud that this is the very first bill that we passed in this
House in the 111th Congress. Lilly Ledbetter is a woman of courage,
leadership, and my daughters owe her a debt of gratitude.
In passing that bill, we recognized that sexism and discrimination
can

[[Page 1667]]

still cheat women out of equal pay and equal worth, a theft of
livelihood and dignity that is especially damaging as families across
our country struggle to pay their bills, as if somehow a single mom
raising children could do it more cheaply than a single dad raising
those same children.
That didn't make any sense then or now. Within my lifetime, sexism in
the workplace could be blatant and unashamed, but today it does some of
its worst work in secret.
We can take a stand against it by voting for final passage today. It
was secret sexism that cheated Lilly Ledbetter out of the thousands of
dollars for years. And we repeat her story, not because it is unique
and shocking, but because it's typical, typical of the experience of so
many American women, indeed, women all over the world.
Ms. Ledbetter was a supervisor at a tire plant. For years she was
paid less than her male coworkers, but she was paid a differential in
secret. Her employer didn't tell her I am going to pay you less than I
pay your male counterparts who do exactly the same work. For years, she
was left in the dark, and by the time she finally saw the proof, the
Supreme Court said it was too late. Ironic.
I will tell you on assault there may be in some States no statute of
limitations and others there may be a statute of limitations.
Essentially, what happens here, if they keep hitting you, and they keep
hitting you month after month after month, it's not the last hit that
counted, it's the first hit that counted. And you couldn't sue for
that, what we would call, we lawyers, tortious conduct, others would
call criminal conduct.
But there was no responsibility that Lilly Ledbetter could get from
the employer for wrongdoing, for breaking the law. There was no dispute
that the law was broken. It was simply that it was broken in secret.
And so Lilly Ledbetter had to suffer in public.
The Supreme Court ruled that even though Ms. Ledbetter had suffered
clear discrimination, the law had been broken. She had missed the time
in which to raise the issue. How perverse, in a nation of laws, of
justice, of equity, that we would say they broke the law in secret, and
you didn't know it, and you couldn't find it out and, therefore, we
will not redress your recognized grievance.
Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this is the right thing to do.
It's the right thing to do, not just for Lilly Ledbetter, not just for
women, it's the right thing to do because our country believes in
fairness, in equity, that we are a nation of laws and treat people
equally under those laws. That is why it's so appropriate for us to
pass this bill today and send it to the President, who will sign it
proudly. All of us who vote for it and see its enactment will be proud
as well.
I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Our Nation is facing serious challenges. The economic picture remains
bleak, with seemingly more jobs lost every day. American families are
struggling to pay bills and send their families to college. I don't
object to the fact that we are considering this bill again, despite
widespread concern about its consequences. What bothers me about it is
that we are not truly debating it. Had this bill truly been ``a narrow
fix,'' as the supporters would have the American people believe, this
rush to approval may not have been such a problem.
However, this is a major, fundamental change to civil rights law
affecting no less than four separate statutes. The last change to civil
rights law of this magnitude, the 1991 civil rights law, took 2 years
of negotiation, debate and partisan accord to accomplish.
Instead, what we have before us is a partisan product that is
fundamentally flawed. It guts the statute of limitations contained in
current law and, in doing so, would allow an employee to bring a claim
against an employer decades after the alleged initial act of
discrimination occurred. Trial lawyers, you can be sure, are salivating
at this very prospect.
You know, I think about a person that maybe did one of these acts 30
years ago, has since sold the company, the company has since sold
again, the original employer that made the discrimination case in the
first place has since passed away and now a trial lawyer can bring all
of these people to court. The person who passed away maybe would still
have that liability. It boggles my mind to think of the unintended
consequences that will come from this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill, and it's the result of an equally
bad process. It breaks the vows of bipartisanship that the majority has
made time and time again. In the last election and in the previous
election they talked about bipartisanship. They talked about regular
order, they talked about transparency, about working together. You
know, we could work out our honest differences but do it in the light
of the day before the American people and, once again, we are denied
that opportunity. I think the American people deserve better.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
goes to basic and fundamental American values, both in our daily lives
and in our workplace, and that is that people ought to be rewarded with
equal pay for equal work. It's fundamental, it's basic to our economy,
it's basic to our society. It's basic to our sense of fairness, to our
sense of justice, and to our sense of equality.
But in far too many workplaces that's not what is done. Women, in
many instances, time and time again, for doing the same job that men
are doing in the same manner that men are doing it, are paid less, not
because they are not doing the job equally as well as the men, but
because somebody decided that they were going to pay them less simply
because they were women.
That runs counter to the values of this Nation. It runs counter to
the values of our society. It runs counter to the best interests of
women. It's rather fascinating that they are suggesting that because of
tough economic times some businesses may only be able to survive if
they can engage in discrimination. If they can carry out a business
plan based upon discrimination, they may be able to survive, so women
should underwrite that discriminatory policy and accept less.
Well, let me tell you what it's like when you are trying to support a
family, either as a dual wage earner or by yourself, and you are
accepting less every week, every day, every hour for the work that you
are doing the same as the people alongside of you, but you are getting
less because you are a woman. Try that in these tough economic times.
Try running your household in these tough economic times where the
Republicans would have you believe we should enforce the policy of
discrimination, that somehow women should underwrite these difficult
times by accepting, being a victim of discrimination.
I don't think so. I don't think the people in this Congress believe
that. I don't believe the people in this country believe that, and
that's why we're going to pass this legislation.
It's fundamental to the values of this country. Now, they are trying
to run up the scare tactics that this gets rid of the statute of
limitation, same statute of limitations, 180 days, that somehow if you
had waited a long time you would collect more recovery than otherwise.
No, you get 2 years of backpay, that's the maximum, and that's it. But
they want to suggest otherwise, no, that's what the law says.
And because of that, because we reset the law to what it was, as it
was interpreted by courts all over this country and by employers and
employees, the CBO in its independent analysis said this does not
increase costs because it does not create a new cause of action and
they don't expect a lot of litigation as a result of this because we go
back to the law as it was.

[[Page 1668]]

So let's move along here and get rid of this outrageous
discriminatory practice that was sanctified by the Supreme Court in
some kind of ideological rampage against women and the treatment and
the fairness of them in the workplace.
We have an opportunity to do that now. We will pass this bill today,
we will send it to the White House where our new President, Barack
Obama, has said he will sign this legislation. And with that signature
on this bill, we can change the law in this country to once again make
sure that women are provided equal pay for equal work that they do in
the American workplace, and I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong
support for this very important bill. I thank Speaker Pelosi for
championing this effort to improve the lives of American women and
their families.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is a bill of enormous importance for
women's rights and civil rights in general. For decades, companies big
and small have paid women less for the same work as their male
counterparts. Today, we correct a major fault in both law and market,
and we move toward true equality for all men and women in America.
This bill is important in so many ways. Perhaps most obviously, the
bill confirms America's commitment to women's rights. Kofi Annan, the
former Secretary-General of the United Nations, was right on the mark
when he said, ``when women thrive, all of society benefits, and
succeeding generations are given a better start in life.'' Today we
help underpaid women thrive, we help restore a sense of dignity and
pride, we help women--mothers and mentors, daughters and sisters--
improve the lives of others as we lawfully improve theirs.
With the passage of this bill, we tell working American women that
their work is valued, that it is just as good as a man's, and that they
deserve fair and equal pay. The extra 20 or 30 cents per dollar that so
many women do not receive means less food on the table or less money to
save for her family's future. Over a lifetime, unequal pay cheats
dedicated, hard working women of $400,000 to $2 million. Imagine what
these women could have done with this money. And to reflect back on the
words of Mr. Annan, passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law
will benefit both current and future generations.
This bill is valuable not only because of its significant place in
the women's rights movement, but also because it demonstrates the
Congress' and President Obama's commitment to positive change, change
that betters the lives of all Americans regardless of gender or race.
Our passage of this bill confirms that equality is a priority for this
new Congress. The first bill signed into law during the 111th Congress
will be the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, ensuring all Americans that--
even in these difficult times--their Government is committed to the
ultimate American promise of equality for all.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank
Congressman George Miller for his leadership in bringing this
legislation forth and for working together to see that gender equity is
not just something we talk about, but something that is achieved.
Sadly, women in the United States still earn only 78 cents on the
dollar compared to men more than 45 years after the passage of the
Equal Pay Act in 1963.
Lilly Ledbetter helped shine new light on this issue when the Supreme
Court denied her the $223,776 in additional wages she would have earned
had she been a man in its 2007 decision, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co. The Supreme Court was restricted by laws that saw women as
less than equal. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would correct this
decision and ensure that future victims of pay discrimination can bring
a lawsuit after any act of discriminatory pay.
Women have made enormous advances toward economic equality, but gaps
in income between men and women persist and only multiply over time, as
the following numbers from Jessica Arons' Center for American Progress
Action Fund report, ``Lifetime Losses: The Career Wage Gap'' show.
Passing this bill along with H.R. 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act, would
be an important first step in addressing this problem.
Although we encourage our daughters to stay in school and obtain
their degrees, women with higher education are losing more income due
to the career wage gap. In fact, $434,000 is the median amount that a
full-time female worker loses in wages over a 40-year period as a
direct result of the gender pay gap, also known as the ``career wage
gap.''
The wage gap widens as women get older and carries into retirement
because women workers earn less than men at every stage of life, and
this continues into retirement. Just some of the statistics that
demonstrate that inequity exists are:
78 cents: The amount that the average, full-time working woman makes
for every $1 a man makes over a year.
$713,000: The career wage gap for women with a bachelor's degree or
higher.
$452,000: The career wage gap for women with some college education.
$392,000: The career wage gap for women with a high school education.
$270,000: The career wage gap for women with less than a high school
education.
17 percent: The additional amount that single mothers would take home
in income if they were paid fairly. This would lead to a 50 percent
reduction in poverty for these women, from 25.3 percent to 12.6
percent.
13.4 percent: The additional amount that single women would receive
in income if they were paid fairly. This would lead to an 84 percent
reduction in poverty for these women, from 6.3 percent to 1 percent.
6 percent: The additional amount that married women would earn if
they were paid fairly. This would lead to a 62 percent reduction in
poverty for these women, from 2.1 percent to 0.8 percent.
$8,000: The gap between the average retirement income that men and
women receive annually. Two-thirds of this disparity can be attributed
to the pay gap and occupational segregation.
Higher wages for women would bring greater prosperity to families. A
report from the AFL-CIO and the Institute for Women's Policy Research
found that if women were paid fairly, family incomes would rise and
poverty levels would fall.
This legislation is intended to combat the wage gap that still exists
today between men and women in the workplace. It is an important step
in addressing the persistent wage gap between women and men.
Early last year the House passed H.R. 2831, legislation reversing
last year's Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and
Rubber Co., in which the court ruled, 5-4, that workers filing suit for
pay discrimination must do so within 180 days of the actual decision to
discriminate against them.
Which is why we need to pass not only the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay
Act but the Paycheck Protection Act as well to stop discriminatory pay
practices by employers against our mothers, wives, daughters, and
granddaughters that do the same job as their male counterparts.
As a Member of the Women's Caucus I have been fighting to close the
wage gap for American women since before I arrived here as a
Representative in 1995, and I believe that equal pay for equal work is
a simple matter of justice. Wage disparities are not simply a result of
women's education levels or life choices.
In fact, the pay gap between college educated men and women appears
the first job after college--even when women are working full-time in
the same fields with the same major as men--and continues to widen
during the first 10 years in the workforce. Further, this persistent
wage gap not only impacts the economic security of women and their
families today, it also directly affects women's retirement security
tomorrow.
I urge my colleagues, both men and women to support equality in
rights and pay for all Americans by supporting H.R. 181, The Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as an original
cosponsor of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, to express my strong support
for the bill. I am pleased we are taking up this bill as passed by the
senate so we can finally send it to the President's desk after
previously passing it twice in this chamber.
The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act corrects and clarifies a serious
misinterpretation by the Supreme Court in its 2007 ruling in the case
of Ledbetter v. Goodyear. In that 5-4 decision, the majority ruled that
Lilly Ledbetter, the lone female supervisor at a tire plant in Gadsden,
AL, did not file her lawsuit against Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. in
the timely manner specified by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964.
The court determined a victim of pay discrimination must file a
charge within 180 days of the employer's decision to pay someone less
for an unlawfully discriminatory reason such as race, age, sex, or
religion.
The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act clarifies that each paycheck resulting
from a discriminatory pay decision constitutes a new violation of the
employment nondiscrimination law, as long as the charge is filed within
180 days of the employee receiving the paycheck.
The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act restores workers' ability to pursue claims
of pay discrimination on not only sex, but race, religion, age, or

[[Page 1669]]

for any other reason. Congress must pass this legislation to help
ensure all workers are treated fairly in the workplace and the standard
of equal pay for equal work is upheld. I urge my colleagues to join me
in supporting this bill to end pay discrimination.
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.
The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 is necessary to overturn the
Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear. In that
decision, this Supreme Court once again went out of its way to read our
anti-discrimination laws as narrowly as possible, and refused to
interpret the law as intended by Congress. In doing so, the Court said
something astonishing: the only discriminatory act was the initial
decision to pay Lilly Ledbetter less than her male coworkers. Once the
employer had successfully concealed that fact from her for 180 days,
she was out of luck, and Goodyear could go on paying her less--just
because she is a woman--forever. The 180-day deadline to sue had
passed. The decision to discriminate was illegal, but paying her less
than her male colleagues from that moment forward was not.
This is astonishing because it rewards employers who successfully
conceal pay discrimination and makes it virtually impossible for
employees to challenge such discrimination. It is also astonishing
because--17 years ago when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991--
Congress rejected the reasoning that the Supreme Court relied upon in
its Ledbetter decision. Through the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Congress
rejected the Supreme Court's conclusion that a statute of limitations
begins to run when an employer adopts a discriminatory seniority system
and does not restart when the discriminatory effects of that system are
felt. Congress made clear that it was rejecting this reasoning in the
context of discriminatory seniority systems, which was the question
presented by the Lorance case, and in all other contexts as well.
Until its Ledbetter decision, the Supreme Court seemed to have gotten
Congress's message. In Ledbetter, however, the Supreme Court relied
upon the faulty reasoning in Lorance and ruled, once again, that a
statute of limitations runs only from the time that a discriminatory
decision is made. Now we're called upon to do it over again. Hopefully,
the Supreme Court will hear us once and for all and interpret statute
of limitation periods as we intend. Thus, while Ledbetter addresses
discrimination in employment, our passage of this bill expresses broad
disapproval of the Court's reasoning in any context where it might be
applied. Within the specific context of pay discrimination, our use of
the phrase ``discriminatory compensation decision or other practice''
should be read broadly, and to include any practice--including, for
example, seniority or pension practices--that impact overall
compensation.
I urge adoption of The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of S. 181, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. As an original
cosponsor of H.R. 11, the House passed version of this bill, I would
like to express my appreciation for the efforts of Chairman George
Miller for his instrumental efforts in ensuring passage of this vital
legislation. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will strengthen
protections against discrimination and safeguard the civil liberties of
our Nation's employees.
Through the passage of this legislation, we correct the injustice
that occurred following the unlawful discrimination against Ms. Lilly
Ledbetter. After nearly 2 decades of service to the Goodyear Tire and
Rubber facility in Alabama, Ms. Ledbetter discovered that she was the
lowest-paid supervisor at the plant, despite having more experience
than several of her male colleagues.
When Ms. Ledbetter sued her employer, a jury found that she had been
the victim of unlawful discrimination. The Supreme Court agreed, but
nonetheless upheld Goodyear's appeal on the ground that Ms. Ledbetter
was barred from challenging the discriminatory payments. The Supreme
Court's reason was that the time limit for bringing her claim had
passed as the initial discriminatory decision had occurred 20 years
earlier. In dismissing Ms. Ledbetter's claim, the Supreme Court
overruled a previous law under which every discriminatory paycheck was
a new violation that restarted the clock for filing a claim.
The Supreme Court's decision put workers who were subject to
discrimination at an extreme disadvantage. As Ms. Ledbetter's case
shows, it is very difficult for employees to discover pay
discrimination, and workers may not discover pay discrimination for
many years after they are discriminated against. Under the Supreme
Court's decision, many victims of this deplorable practice would be
left without recourse.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision encourages employers to
keep a discriminatory pay decision secret for 180 days, allowing them
to pay the discriminatory the rest of a worker's career.
Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons the Supreme Court's decision
rendered much of our civil rights law virtually unenforceable. This was
a decision that affected not only gender discrimination, but also
discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity and sexuality. I am
therefore proud to support this legislation and encourage my colleagues
to do so as well.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 181, the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is critical in the struggle for
financial equality. Even in 2009 women still on average earn 78 cents
for every dollar earned by their male counterparts in a nation where 41
percent of women are the sole income providers for their families.
Economic equality is not an issue that should be based on gender but on
fairness and the quality of ones hard work. The Supreme Court Case of
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., by the narrow 5-4 vote,
greatly impaired the ability of women and others to challenge pay
discrimination. The passage and enactment of this act will restore
prior longstanding law which will enable women and others to challenge
instances of pay discrimination within 180 days of a discriminatory pay
check. For too long women have performed the same tasks and have been
unequally compensated. Unequal pay is not merely a women's issue but a
disparity that affects all of us.
Though there is still more work to be done in the fight for equality
this legislation is an important step.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, in my earlier remarks on the Lilly Ledbetter
Fair Pay Act of 2009, I highlighted the first-rate work of AFSCME
Council 26, affiliated with the American Federation of State, County &
Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO, in a sex discrimination lawsuit
brought by female custodians against the Architect of the Capitol,
which is another way of saying the Congress of the United States of
America. The women custodians were being paid one dollar less than
their male co-workers. I referred to the female custodians' lawsuit in
my remarks because without AFSCME's representation, this discrimination
right here in Congress might never have been uncovered, just as Lilly
Ledbetter did not discover the equal pay violations until after she
retired.
The women's Equal Pay Act lawsuit was historic as well because it was
the first class-action under the Congressional Accountability Act that
holds Congress to the same employment laws as our constituents. The
class was expertly represented by lawyers Barbara Kraft and Sarah
Starrett. By getting the women class certified, AFSCME and its lawyers
were able to exert maximum leverage and, therefore, negotiate a just
settlement with the Architect of the Capitol. The case underscores the
importance of undoing the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision and
restoring the long-standing interpretation of the Equal Pay Act. The
Congress, the body representing the people, had been systematically and
shamefully discriminating against its own workers.
I had been a strong supporter of these women since they first filed
their lawsuit. As a former chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, who had responsibility for enforcing the Equal Pay Act, I
felt at the time that it was my obligation to bring the female
custodians' case to the attention of other Members, and I spoke on the
floor about the case in March 2000. I joined AFSCME and the women at a
press conference on Equal Pay Day on May 10, 2000, to push for equal
pay for these women as well as all other women in the workforce. After
the women settled with the government, I was delighted when I was
invited to help hand-deliver their settlement checks.
The Ledbetter decision undermined the ability of unions like AFSCME
to uncover and protect workers from discrimination, and I was proud to
cite the work of AFSCME, Barbara Kraft, Sarah Starrett and the women
custodians of the U.S. Congress as the best evidence of the need for
the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 87, the Senate bill is considered read
and the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the
third time.

[[Page 1670]]

Motion to Commit

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. McKEON. I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. McKeon moves to commit the bill S. 181, Lilly Ledbetter
Fair Pay Act, to the Committee on Education and Labor.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I move to commit this bill to the committee
so that this bill, which is so sweeping in its scope, be given an
opportunity to be debated in a comprehensive fashion. To this day, this
committee has never had a hearing on this bill.
There has not been a full and fair debate, regular order has not been
followed, and it needs to be. As I noted in my remarks, we have not
entertained, in the three times that this bill has been brought to the
floor, a single Republican amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I rise to speak against the motion
to commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House,
this motion to commit is clearly an effort to not only send this bill
back to committee, but to kill this legislation. My colleagues on the
other side of the aisle recognize the situation that we find ourselves
in. The House has passed this legislation earlier, in this session, and
the Senate has passed similar legislation which we are now taking up.
And when we vote in a little while, this afternoon, we will pass this
legislation, and it will go to the President of the United States.
So this is a desperate attempt to somehow keep that from happening.
And what we will be sweeping is we will be sweeping away a policy of
discrimination in the workplace against women who are paid less than
their male counterparts for the same work.
The fact of the matter is that there were hearings held both in the
Judiciary Committee, in the last session of Congress, and in the
Education and Labor Committee, and all sides were allowed to present
their views in those hearings.

{time} 1545

In the last Congress, it was subject to a full committee markup,
which all Members could have offered as many amendments as they like.
They offered two amendments. Those amendments were rejected. They could
have offered more. They chose not to.
The bill went to the House floor, debated, and was passed on a
bipartisan vote of 225-199 in June of 2007. The minority had an
opportunity to offer a motion to recommit. They chose not to. The bill
went to the Senate, where it was filibustered. Filibustered. And then
the bill was reintroduced identical to what the House had already
passed earlier this month.
On January 9 of this year, we passed the bill on the House floor
again, 247-171, on another bipartisan vote. The minority had another
opportunity to offer a motion to recommit. They chose not to.
The bill went to the Senate, where it was subjected to amendment
after amendment. The bill was passed on a bipartisan vote of 61-36. And
now we are on the cusp of sending this bill to President Obama for his
signature. That is what we should do.
We should reject this motion to commit, an attempt to kill this
legislation, and make sure that this bill goes to the President's desk
and ends this discriminatory policy against women in the workplace. I
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to commit and vote
``aye'' on the passage of the legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to commit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to commit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 176,
nays 250, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 36]

YEAS--176

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (FL)

NAYS--250

[[Page 1671]]

Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis (CA)
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--6

Brown-Waite, Ginny
Etheridge
Lynch
Rush
Tiberi
Young (AK)

{time} 1615

Messrs. CONNOLLY of Virginia, ADLER of New Jersey, LUJAN, JACKSON of
Illinois, HOYER, BOREN, KLEIN of Florida, GUTIERREZ, Ms. KOSMAS, Ms.
BEAN, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Messrs. HILL, TANNER, GORDON of
Tennessee, Ms. McCOLLUM, Messrs. CARNEY, SESTAK, MINNICK, BERMAN,
CARDOZA, CUELLAR, OLVER, Mrs. MALONEY and Mr. SPRATT changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. LUMMIS and Messrs. BILBRAY, COLE, LATHAM and HERGER changed
their vote from ``nay'' to yea.''
So the motion to commit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 36, I inadvertently voted
``nay.'' I meant to vote ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the Senate
bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 250,
nays 177, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 37]

YEAS--250

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis (CA)
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NAYS--177

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Brown-Waite, Ginny
Etheridge
Lynch
Pallone
Tiberi
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeLauro) (during the vote). There is 1
minute remaining in this vote.

{time} 1625

So the Senate bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). Pending any declaration of the
House into the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 88
for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1--which contains an emergency
designation for purposes of pay-as-you-go principles--the Chair must
put the question of consideration under clause 10(c)(3) of rule XXI.
The question is, ``Will the House now consider the bill?''
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page 1672]]

Recorded Vote

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224,
noes 199, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 38]

AYES--224

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis (CA)
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--199

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Arcuri
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

Brown-Waite, Ginny
Etheridge
Kingston
Linder
Lynch
McCarthy (NY)
Pitts
Stark
Tiberi
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1642

Mr. BOSWELL changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Speaker, today, I was unexpectedly
detained and missed one vote.
On rollcall No. 38, on the question of consideration of the bill H.R.
1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, I would have
voted ``aye.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 88 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1.

{time} 1643

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1) making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and
creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science,
assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization,
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Tierney in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall not exceed 3\1/2\ hours, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Appropriations, who may yield control of blocks of that time.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis) each will control 1 hour and 45 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.

{time} 1645

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this country is facing what most economists, I believe,
consider to be the most serious and the most dangerous economic
situation in our lifetimes, certainly going back to the early thirties.
If you take a look at what has happened in the country, late last
year, former President George Bush recognized that the world's credit
markets were near a state of total collapse, and he asked this Congress
to take unprecedented action in order to try to prevent that. Since
that time, we've seen a continued unraveling of financial markets,
we've seen a continued unraveling of the housing markets, and we've
seen the most spectacular loss of consumer confidence in the modern
history of this country. New claims for unemployment insurance last
week hit 590,000. In the last 2 months alone, we've seen this country
lose more than a million jobs.
Consumer purchasing power has evaporated. New home starts fell 15
percent in December, to the lowest number on record going back more
than 50 years. And we've seen other evidence of panic in the
marketplace and on Main Street.
Normally, when consumer purchasing power collapses, our government
uses the tool of monetary policy in order to try to resurrect and
reinflate the economy. The problem is we've already shot

[[Page 1673]]

that bullet. The Federal Reserve has taken phenomenal actions to try to
stabilize the situation to very moderate effect. And now we're being
asked to consider the other tool in our arsenal. We're being asked to
use fiscal policy to expand consumer purchasing power to try and stop
the slide. And that is what this proposal before us here today will try
to do.
In most recessions, we're eventually led out of those recessions
through the leadership of the housing sector and the automobile sector.
This time around, both of those sectors are in shambles, and they're
not likely to lead anybody out of anything. So that leaves us with very
limited tools.
This package today that we are considering is an $825 billion package
that does a variety of things to try to reinflate the economy. It,
first of all, provides tax cuts--which Mr. Rangel will discuss--in
order to try to put some money in people's pockets. We hope that that
succeeds to a greater extent than the last round of tax rebates did.
Secondly, this package attempts to jump-start job creation through
infrastructure investments in roads, bridges, sewers, water repair,
modernizing our electric power grid and expanding broadband access so
that all parts of the country have an opportunity to compete, with
Internet access.
Third, this package attempts to help those who are most impacted by
the recession, who are losing their jobs, their health insurance, and
losing the ability to send their kids to college.
Fourth, this package attempts to modernize the economy--or at least
to begin a long process of doing that--by accelerating the development
of new technology through key investments in science and energy.
And last, it attempts, also, to save jobs by stabilizing State and
local budgets. Because of the economic collapse and because of the
collapse of revenue now forecast at the State and local level, States
face the need to eliminate gargantuan deficits because they're required
to balance their budgets. Without help from the Federal Government to
stabilize their situation, they will be forced to impose major tax
increases and devastating service cutbacks, which under these economic
conditions would be hugely counterproductive. This package attempts to
do all of those things.
Now, none of us can be certain about the degree of success that would
flow from passage of this package.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 2 additional minutes.
But the fact is we are as close as we will ever see to being in the
same position that Franklin Roosevelt was in in the thirties. And at
that time he tried some things; some of the things he tried worked,
some of them didn't, and so he moved on and tried other things.
There is no person on this floor who can guarantee the success of
this package. Certainly, standing alone, this package will not succeed,
because it is going to have to be accompanied by further actions to
build confidence in the economy. It is going to have to be accompanied
by new actions to prevent massive house foreclosures all across the
country. We are going to probably have to have even further
intervention in the financial markets of the country. And this package
that we have here today, the spending portion of this package, may very
well undershoot rather than overshoot the target that many economists
have set out for us.
When President Bush came to office, I was divided in my judgment
about whether I should support his first major new initiative, which
was the No Child Left Behind education package. I had grave misgivings
about that package, but in the end I supported it, largely because I
thought that, as the incoming President, the President deserves to have
the benefit of the doubt. President Obama is in that same situation,
only in far more dire straits. He has asked the Congress to pass an
economic recovery package, and this bill today is attempting to do
that.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
He has asked us to provide a reasonable balance between tax cuts and
spending increases to revive the ability of consumers to purchase the
goods and services produced by this society. Unless someone has a
clearly better idea, I think we have an obligation to support the
President's proposal, at this point as the only game in town. The risks
are enormous if we do not move ahead.
Everyone talks, for instance, about how disappointed they are with
what the previous Bush administration did with respect to the package
on Wall Street. I'm certainly extremely unhappy with some of the
actions taken by Secretary Paulson.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
I believe, nonetheless, that the President was right at the time in
telling the Congress that if we did not take action, the results could
have been catastrophic. I believe if we do not take action on this
package today, the results can be similarly catastrophic. And with
that, I urge Members to support the package.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
might consume.
As we begin today's debate, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I'd like
to reiterate my willingness and desire to work with President Obama.
Mr. President, each of us wants to see you be successful, and we
welcome the opportunity to work with you and your administration. The
challenges we face as Americans--not Democrats or Republicans, but
Americans--are great. We have much work to do.
Mr. President, it is our sincere hope that we will work together
across party lines to restore confidence in our economy and create a
climate conducive to job growth. We can no longer afford to point
fingers and cast blame. If there was ever a time for our country to
come together, it is now.
There is no greater challenge facing working families today than our
Nation's struggling economy. Each of us can speak passionately and with
great empathy of people we know in our own districts who have lost
their jobs, are unable to pay their mortgage, don't have health
insurance, or are struggling to make ends meet. They are asking for our
help. As we demonstrate our compassion, let us also be mindful of our
responsibility to assist those in need without creating an untenable
situation for future generations. That is the balance we must strive to
achieve.
The centerpiece of any stimulus bill ought to be job creation.
Government has a role; but our constituents are not asking for an
unlimited expansion of government. They are asking Congress to focus on
specific sectors of our economy and to provide solutions that will
offer tangible, near-term results.
Most of us would agree that the recent $700 billion Troubled Asset
Relief Program, known as TARP, is an illustration of how good
intentions don't always deliver desired results. Many Members, I'm
sure, would like to have their vote back if they voted for that
package.
When Congress spends too much too quickly, it doesn't think through
the details and oversight becomes more difficult. The TARP bill is only
the most recent example. The lesson learned was this; we cannot manage
what we do not measure. We simply cannot afford to make the same
mistake again.
Public dismay over the lack of transparency in TARP implies a public
desire for more openness and thoughtful consideration of stimulus
spending. A Web site is not oversight. Posting $606 billion worth of
Federal spending on a Web site does not ensure that these funds will be
well spent. Each and every agency should be required to submit a
spending plan to Congress--on the front end, not after the fact--to
ensure that every dollar is spent as intended. Our constituents, Mr.
Chairman and Members, deserve no less.
These taxpayers, who will repay this debt over time, also deserve
specific

[[Page 1674]]

answers before we spend another nickel of their money. They deserve to
know how many jobs will be created in 6 months, 12 months, 18 months,
or longer. They deserve to know where these jobs will be created, how
many of these jobs will be skilled and unskilled positions, and whether
these jobs will be sustained through higher taxes or even more
government spending down the road. These are thoughtful, reasonable
questions deserving a thoughtful and reasonable response.
Many have described this legislation as a transportation and
infrastructure investment package. However, the fact remains that only
$30 billion, or 3 percent of the funding, is directed towards ``shovel-
ready'' road and highway spending. The backlog of these projects is
some $64.3 billion. Similarly, $4.5 billion is allocated for the Corps
of Engineers for improving flood protection and navigation, when a $61
billion backlog exists for Corps projects that are fully authorized.
These are the types of targeted infrastructure investments that will
create sustainable jobs and should be given even greater priority
within this package.
Many Republicans support wellness programs, analog TV conversion
coupons, and the NEA, for example, but these and many other items in
this bill don't create jobs and ought to be funded through our regular
appropriations process. They do not belong in a stimulus bill.

{time} 1700

Nor should a stimulus package be used to establish 32 new government
programs at a cost of some $136 billion, which this bill does. Thirty-
seven percent of the appropriated dollars in this package, more than $1
out of every $3, is dedicated to creating new government programs.
Are we fostering job creation and economic stimulus, or are we simply
growing the size of government? I know my taxpayers are asking. How
about yours?
Our opposition to this package is not based on partisan politics but
on economic reality. There is tremendous pressure on Congress to
maintain funding of existing programs even before we create new ones.
Again, let's take off our partisan hats and look at the sobering facts
before us.
Congress recently provided $700 billion for TARP. It's now
considering $816 billion in this stimulus bill. There is talk of the
Senate's adding another $70 billion to address the AMT fix. Congress
will next week, consider a $410 billion omnibus spending bill for the
work we didn't finish last year. And before long we will be considering
another emergency supplemental spending bill.
Let's be perfectly honest. All these spending bills are placing a
tremendous burden of debt on present and future generations. Our
projected deficit of 2009 is already approaching $1.2 trillion, the
largest in history, even before we consider this stimulus proposal.
So what can be done to make this a better and perhaps even a
bipartisan spending bill? Let me offer four suggestions, Mr. Chairman:
First, narrow the focus of this bill to those items that provide
measurable economic stimulus or produce jobs. Spending should be
targeted to key infrastructure investments that will create jobs over
the next 2 years. We don't question the urgency of this package. We
question its priorities and its price tag.
Secondly, address public concerns over adequate transparency and
accountability by requiring agencies to submit a spending plan before
they start spending the money in this package, as we did in the 9/11
package. Such an approach will ensure that every dollar is spent as
intended.
Further, I would suggest that this bill should ensure that it
captures the full costs associated with waiving cost-sharing
requirements and hiring of additional Federal employees. Proper
safeguards are needed to prevent the unintentional growth of government
over time.
And, lastly, limit the use of the stimulus bill as a vehicle for
increasing base funding of popular domestic programs. Large increases
in these programs create unrealistic expectations for future spending.
I will conclude my remarks as I began them with a message for our new
President:
Mr. President, the challenges we face transcend partisan politics. We
have an historic opportunity to work together to craft a stimulus
package that Republicans and Democrats can support. We appeal to you to
include us in this process. We wish you and your family Godspeed and
welcome the opportunity to work with you, Mr. President.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Chair

The CHAIR. Members are reminded to address their remarks to the
Chair.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I yield 15 minutes to
the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel; 15 minutes to
the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Waxman; 10
minutes to the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr.
Miller; 10 minutes to the chairman of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Oberstar; 5 minutes to Ms. Giffords of
the Science and Technology Committee; 5 minutes to the chairwoman of
the Small Business Committee, Ms. Velazquez; 5 minutes to the chairman
of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt; and 2 minutes to the chairman of
the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Mr. Towns.
The CHAIR. Members so designated will control the time mentioned.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
My colleagues, someone once said that when the going gets tough, the
tough get going. I think of our great country, knowing that through the
Depression, that's just what happened. We came back stronger, more
competitive, and became a nation that was respected. I remember so
clearly in 1941 they thought America was a loser. We almost lost our
entire fleet. But what happened after that? Again America came back
stronger as a world power economically and militarily. And now we're in
trouble again.
This $275 billion bill brings relief. The Ways and Means Committee is
proud to bring this to you for your consideration. It doesn't help our
banks. It doesn't help our fiscal institutions. They don't cry. But
those of us who go back home know who's doing the crying: those people
who work hard every day, and yet they're losing their jobs, they're
losing their dignity, they're losing their homes, they can't put food
on the table.
There is only one way to do it, and that is to be equitable and to
make certain that we have a decent and fair response to their tax
relief, and that's what we intend to do.
We provide $144 million to people who work every day to put food on
the table, to be able to get clothes for their children. And the reason
they don't have confidence is because they don't have money, and we
provide that for them. For families that are low income that have
children, we try to provide something not only for those people who
don't have tax liability immediately but to relieve them of that
payroll tax, because at the end of the day, it's what you take home and
not what you call it.
For working families we have the earned income tax credit. And we
tried desperately hard to make certain that for those people who have
lost their jobs that they not lose their dignity, they not lose their
health insurance, and that they be able to get education and
retraining.
For small businesses, unless we have the people who are working that
have resources to be able to buy, we try to help our small businesses
by giving them an easy opportunity to depreciate and to buy equipment
and not to have to lay off.
And one of the most important parts of our bill is something that
they'll never be able to take away from our great country, and that is
education and technology training. So we can come back stronger. We can
come back notwithstanding what's happening here. And I can't see
anybody in this House going back home saying we

[[Page 1675]]

didn't do enough because for those that are out there feeling the pain
of what we're going through, they are just waiting for relief to be
coming. And our President has promised this, our leadership has
promised this, and this is the time for the Congress to be a part of
that.
The health information technology is not only going to save lives,
it's going to be able to say at the end of the day that we moved
forward to make our country healthier, better educated, knowing more
about technology. And once we do that, when people ask how are you
going to pay back the money, you don't pay it as a sick Nation. You pay
it back as an educated, healthy Nation that restored the dignity and
prosperity that we know. And so we find Members will have ribbons on,
and I refer you to the Record to know more about the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
original chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of
Appropriations, the gentleman from Kentucky, Hal Rogers.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, there is no question but that
the Congress must act swiftly and boldly to counteract the downturn in
the economy. But there's a difference between actions that are swift
and bold and spending huge sums of borrowed money irresponsibly.
When the dust finally settles on this boondoggle, perhaps then we
will face the facts regarding this colossal trillion dollar spending
bill. And the fact is that the Pelosi-Obey bill isn't an economic
stimulus plan at all, but a rampant spending spree, much of which has
nothing to do with bailing out a sagging economy, but with a liberal
litany of left-leaning, big government programs.
We need a true stimulus bill. That much we can all agree on. But it
needs to be aimed directly at creating jobs. It needs to give real
incentives to small businesses, which create three out of four new jobs
in the country. It needs to have a strict oversight program, given the
recent TARP fiasco. And it needs to solely focus on stimulating the
economy, not a mandate to overspend on a broad range of government
programs.
First, this bill is not aimed directly at job creation. According to
the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan office, only 40 percent
of the discretionary funds in this bill will actually stimulate the
economy and create jobs by 2010. Economists all across the Nation
question the wisdom of the U.S. Government's competing for debt
financing, when our small businesses are struggling to refinance their
own debt. How does squeezing out our small business owners help create
jobs in this troubled economy?
Editorial boards across the country are questioning the spending
priorities that have needlessly crept into this bill: $50 million for
the National Endowment for the Arts, $200 million for tree trimming and
sod planting on the National Mall, $150 million for Smithsonian
facility upgrades, $16 billion in Pell grants for college students.
To quote The Washington Post, which I rarely do: ``All of those ideas
may have merit, but why do they belong in an emergency measure aimed to
kick-start the economy?''
If the majority wants to debate funding for the arts, let's do it in
the annual Interior Appropriations bill. If the majority wants to
increase Pell grant funding, bring it up through the annual education
spending bill that's coming up shortly. And if you want to go out and
borrow another $825 billion from your children in the name of saving
the economy, we should demand that it be spent producing jobs for
Americans.
The true drivers of this economy, the small business owners, are
literally left out in the cold. While we're planting sod and cleaning
up trash on the National Mall to the tune of $200 million, we are only
allocating a fraction of that amount to our small business owners
across the Nation in the form of tax breaks. It's not hard to see where
the true priorities lie with this majority.
Second, who knows where this money will go? The bill fails to demand
a full accounting of the funds before they are allocated. Last week's
disapproval vote of more TARP funds would make you think that we'd
learned a thing or two about writing a blank check to the
administration without seeing how they intend to spend it. But
apparently we haven't.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an
additional minute.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. When the Appropriations Committee considered
this legislation last week, the minority put forth several thoughtful,
fiscally-responsible proposals to prioritize infrastructure investment
and demand greater accountability, all denied on a party-line vote.
I proposed an amendment that withheld a portion of these funds until
a simple spending plan was submitted to Congress, a plan requiring
expenditure details, all rejected. It's a sad day when the majority
won't even allow the formulation of a plan before spending bonanzas
begin.
Mr. Chairman, this bill should be about encouraging our small
businesses to create jobs and providing the proper oversight and
accountability that working families deserve. Unfortunately, this bill
fails miserably on both counts.
If money is no object, if success is not your goal, if accountability
is not important to you, vote for this bill. But I urge Members to
oppose this bill and support a bill that actually creates jobs and
demands accountability for the taxpayers.

{time} 1715

Mr. RANGEL. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott), who will share with you our concern about people who have
lost their jobs.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, every day and every corner of this
Nation, and every sector of this economy, the casualties keep mounting.
Seventy-five thousand people lost their jobs yesterday, at Alcoa,
Boeing, Caterpillar, Home Depot, Intel, Microsoft, Pfizer, Sprint,
Texas Instruments and many small businesses. Over 11 million Americans
have already lost their jobs, the highest level in 25 years, and every
major economist says it's going to get worse before it gets better.
Behind every number is a personal story of an American family
struggling to cope with and survive this economic crisis. Behind every
story is an American who deserves our help, who has earned our help on
the job and has every right to expect Congress to act with all
deliberate speed. We must not let them down.
Helping these Americans while they look for work is not only the
right thing to do for them, it is the only thing we can do in our
economy. Unemployment insurance is one of the most effective forms of
economic stimulus, because jobless Americans have little choice but to
spend the money that's given them.
Every unemployment insurance dollar spent returns an economic impact
of $1.64. That's the kind of significant return on investment that will
help America restart its economic engine. This recovery engine responds
to rising unemployment with a historic level of assistance. It provides
$27 billion for a program of extended benefits. For the first time
ever, this legislation provides financial incentives for States to
modernize their unemployment insurance programs and increase access to
benefits.
For the first time ever, this legislation provides a Federal
supplement to increase unemployment benefits by an extra $100 a month
for the next year, and, again for the first time, we will provide
assistance to unemployed workers who are trying to afford health care
coverage. The primary goal of this legislation is to create jobs, but
we must also help the unemployed as those jobs are being created, and
this measure does just that. By voting for this bill, we are standing
up for the American people and standing alongside the American people
right where we belong.
I urge support for this critically important legislation.

[[Page 1676]]

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a member of the committee.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I think this bill really ignores the major
issue that we are really facing. Our Nation is fundamentally broke, but
we have $57 trillion of unfunded obligations. The Ways and Means
Committee, with all due respect, is doing nothing about dealing with
this issue.
I have a bill in with Jim Cooper and Senator Conrad, Senators Conrad
and Gregg have it over on the Senate side, that creates a bipartisan
commission similar to what we did on the Iraq Study Group with every
spending program, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and
tax policy. Some on my side won't like that, a tax policy on the table,
and we give the commission 1 year to go around the country holding
public hearings, coming up with a proposal to require, to require this
institution that has fundamentally failed to do its responsibility.
Now, China holds a large portion of our debt. People talk about it,
but yet nobody does anything about it. If the Chair of the Ways and
Means Committee gets on the train in Washington and takes it to New
York City and looks to the right and to the left, the factories are in
decay. There is graffiti all over the walls, the windows are broken.
You come through my old neighborhood in Philadelphia, and it's in
decay.
By doing this, by getting control of our spending in a way that would
honestly do it in a bipartisan way, I would tell the Chair of the
committee, we would bring about a renaissance in this Nation whereby we
would have the ability to invest in Alzheimer's research and autism
research and cancer research and manufacturing to create new jobs that
really show that America is back. So I think the failure of this bill
is that this provision is not in it.
The last issue is, I call it the father amendment or the mother
amendment or the grandmother/grandmother amendment, all of us at some
time are going to get an opportunity, and we are going to leave here.
And our grandkids are going to say, you know, Dad, when you were there,
or Mom, when you were there, or Grandpop, when you were there, or
Grandmom, when you were there, did you know that China was buying our
debt up? Did you know the Saudis were buying our debt up? Did you
really know, Grandfather or Grandmother, that our factories were in
decay? Did you know that they controlled our debt? Did you? Did you,
Pop? Pop, did you do anything about it? Dad, did you do anything about
it?
And the answer is, as of now, this Congress, and let me just say,
both political parties, have fundamentally failed. So you are going to
have to tell your kids and your grandkids, no.
When I was there, as of January of 2009, we did nothing, and we
allowed our country to fall into decline. This amendment ought to be,
it ought to be in the Republican substitute, and it's not, and I voted
against the Republican substitute. It ought to be in this, and it's
not, and I voted against this. And if this does not pass, Barack Obama
will preside over the decline of this Nation when he is running for
reelection as President of this Nation in 4 years.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who is going to share with us his dreams about
a country that is not dependent on fossil fuel.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's recognition.
I appreciate Mr. Levin's courtesy.
I have been listening to our friends on the other side of the aisle.
These are the architects of the Bush economic meltdown, who have given
him billions and billions and billions of borrowed dollars, blank
checks, to the last administration. All of a sudden, they are fiscally
interested.
Well, let me just say, we just left a Budget Committee meeting where
we had five brilliant respected Ph.D.s from all across the spectrum who
said we are on uncharted water, you should err on the side of a larger
stimulus, not a smaller, and that one of the most important areas deals
with energy.
I am proud that we have taken these provisions that we have been
dancing around for the last 3 or 4 years and playing Russian roulette
with where the private sector couldn't invest in them. It was on again,
off again. Now we have made them certain and indefinite. We have
encouraged these investments by increasing the level and giving them a
longer period of time to cope with them.
I think all of us ought to embrace this. These are provisions that
are investing in our energy future. They are going to create jobs, they
are going to fight global warming, and they are going to help us in the
international arena.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the committee.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I was in a meeting today with the Republican Party and President
Obama, and we pledged to work with him to turn this economy around, and
we feel very serious about working with the President on a bipartisan
basis.
But as we look at the stimulus package, I don't think this is quite
what he had in mind. Only 7 percent of the appropriation goes to
shovel-ready projects, only 13 percent in general goes to public works-
type projects. At that rate it spends $275,000 per job, and the
household income for America is about $50,000. This is not bold enough
in terms of job creation for the targeted 3 to 4 million jobs.
The second part is this bill creates 32 brand new Federal programs at
a cost of $136 billion, new spending, and yet we didn't have hearings
on all of these new programs.
Then it has extension of some spending that we already have, millions
of dollars for contraceptives, $50 million for the National Endowment
for the Arts, $200 million for grass resodding on The Mall. In fact,
for every $1 in small business tax relief, this bill gives $4 to resod
The National Mall, and $600 million to prepare the country for
universal health care.
And then, as Mr. Wolf said, we are going to talk about the debt. Our
Nation is $10.6 trillion in debt.
Now, the worst Republican deficit was $412 billion. The Democrats
this quarter will exceed $1 trillion in deficit spending and, as Mr.
Walz said, we owe $3 trillion to other countries, led by China.
I sit on the Agriculture Committee. We have about $26 billion in the
Agriculture portion of this bill, but only $1.7 billion is spent on
public works, things that will create jobs. The rest of it is
traditional left-wing spending, expansion of the Food Stamp Program,
even though food stamps has an automatic enrollment, and it also has an
automatic inflation guard. But we are increasing food stamps.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
Mr. KINGSTON. This changes our $400 million loan program to extend
broadband, changes it to a $2.8 billion grant program, thus creating
one of the largest corporate welfare elements that's out there--and I
don't know how that creates jobs--and $23 million for the Inspector
General for audits, and how does that create jobs. There are better
ways.
We should reduce unfunded mandates, we should increase the public
works, we should have more tax cuts for small business, we should
implement the SAFE Act, and we should reward responsible behavior.

Announcement by the Chair

The CHAIR. All Members are advised not to traffic in the well when a
Member is under recognition, as a matter of courtesy.
Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks).
Mr. KINGSTON. I want to say I apologize.
Mr. DICKS. Well, I accept the gentleman's apology, but he was
inaccurate on what he said. That is something I cannot forgive him for.
Out of the $200 million for The Mall, $150 million is to save the
Jefferson Monument from sinking, sinking, into the Tidal Basin. Only
part of the

[[Page 1677]]

money is used to resod the grass, and, there is money also to protect
and restore the Sylvan Theater as well.
There is a national group that has organized to restore The National
Mall. We just saw $1.8 million Americans come and stand on that Mall.
It is a national treasure. It is part of the Park Service. It deserves
to be fixed.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
chairman of our committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, there is no greater challenge facing our families and
businesses today with our Nation's struggling economy. The past few
months have been absolutely traumatic for many. There is genuine
anxiety and fear about job security, loss of savings, a serious drop in
home values and the decline of the value of personal investments.
As a result, consumer confidence is at historic lows. Quite
correctly, Americans are asking for help. We must respond by passing an
economic package as quickly as possible. However, we must make sure
that that response is effective, efficient and timely.
Unfortunately, the bill the majority has placed before us today does
not meet those common-sense standards. Clearly, many Americans find
themselves in real trouble and in need of relief. Provisions of this
bill, such as the extended unemployment benefits, nutrition assistance
and job training are critically important to help many Americans
struggle through hard times. However, they have little to do with
creating 3 to 4 million jobs.
However, there is a significant role for government to play in the
targeted infrastructure, investment, roads, tunnels, bridges, sewers,
flood control.

{time} 1730

As Mr. Lewis said earlier, many of the majority have described this
legislation as a transportation and infrastructure investment package.
However, only $30 billion of that, or 3 percent of the funding, is
directed towards shovel-ready road and highway spending that would
immediately create jobs. And there's a $61 billion backlog in Army
Corps projects that could be addressed immediately.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, less than
half the spending in this stimulus package will be paid out in the next
2 years. At that rate, an economic recovery will probably outrun most
of that spending.
This should worry all Americans. This isn't just a stimulus package;
it is legislation jam packed with a lot of domestic spending, even if
there's no evidence that that spending will create jobs or prevent
layoffs.
I note that the majority proposes a $79 billion State stabilization
fund. Apparently, this program is designed to bail out some--I repeat--
some States that did little to control their own spending and bonded
indebtedness in recent years.
Take my own State of New Jersey as an example. In the last 6 years,
New Jersey State spending has increased by $11 billion, and our State's
debt has more than doubled to $36 billion. Clearly, this is not a
picture of restraint. Add to that picture some of the highest taxes in
income taxes in the Nation.
In other words, while the Federal budget deficit has exploded,
Federal taxpayers are now supposed to pull some State governments out
of a fiscal hole that was partially of their own making.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, if we
are going to quote CBO, we ought to quote CBO accurately. In fact, the
Congressional Budget Office has said that, in their estimate, 65
percent of the money in this bill will be spent in the next 2 years.
The administration's estimate is 75 percent.
I would point out CBO also says that over the next 2 years this bill
will inject $526 billion into the economy, and they state that the
implementation of this bill ``would have a noticeable impact on
economic growth and employment in the next few years.'' That is a whole
lot better than doing nothing.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member
of the committee, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from California.
Mr. Chairman, there is no argument that our economy is on a downhill
slide. Chairman Obey conveyed that very well in his opening remarks.
But there is an argument on how we get out of this economic slide
downwards.
The bill before us is based on the philosophy that government
spending will stir the economy. It will not. Historically, we know that
bailouts and government spending simply don't work.
During the Great Depression, high Federal spending did not save our
economy. Instead, it remained stagnant. World War II built the
industrial base. And it was in the 1950s, with the private sector, that
drove us to a number one economy in the world.
In the 1990s, Japan tried to stimulate their economy with the bailout
of banks and with federal government spending. They borrowed the
equivalent of $250 billion and spent it. What happened? Their economy
remained stagnant, and their average per capita income went from second
in the world to tenth in the world.
This bill has the same idea that failed in the 1930s and failed in
Japan: borrowed money, Federal spending. But there is a better plan.
Let's get the money directly to working Americans.
Let's cancel the unauthorized and new programs and new spending in
this bill and return it in the form of waived payroll taxes for working
Americans. Give them a vacation from payroll taxes. It will be like a
10 percent pay raise.
We all know what they will do with it. They will do one of three
things. They will either save it, which helps the banks recapitalize
and creates mortgages and home sales; or they will spend it, which
creates a demand for goods and a demand for more jobs; or they will
invest it, which means companies can expand their businesses and hire
more employees.
All we have to do is exchange the unauthorized new government
spending and transfer that money back to hardworking Americans who earn
the money. A very simple concept that will have a direct stimulation to
our economy. And it will happen this year. We will not be waiting until
2010 or 2011 or 2012 or 2013. It will happen this year.
So let's cancel those new unauthorized programs and give back the
taxes to working Americans and get the economy rolling.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
Mr. LEVIN. Well, the opponents of this bill say there is a dramatic
set of conditions that are new, but they have too narrow a focus, and
they are singing the same old song, and we just heard it.
There are crises of confidence in this country, and this bill
addresses it. There's a crisis of confidence in jobs. This bill
addresses the need for jobs and for those who lose them. Families are
worried about the education of their kids, and they wonder whether the
government will respond. This bill provides, I think, $140 billion to
make sure that the education of the kids in this country will continue.
Families are worried about whether health care will continue. This
bill provides dramatic new provisions for health care for 8 million
families, at least, in this country.
Vote for this bill.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a member
of this committee, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. I thank the ranking member.
Mr. Chairman, we all know that we are in unprecedented economic times
that call for unprecedented action. The bill we have under
consideration is certainly unprecedented because of the size itself.
$825 billion. That is just for now, without the add-ons we expect over
in the Senate.
This measure will have an unprecedented impact on the deficit by
increasing it by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next few
years. In turn, this dramatic rise will trigger large-scale borrowing
from the future incomes of our children and our grandchildren.

[[Page 1678]]

These add-on deficits will cause the Nation's debt to soar to a level
at which we will owe interest payments of more than $750 billion per
year by the year 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Those numbers assume that the stimulus package actually works--and we
don't know for certain that it will work.
I raise these points because with spending numbers this high, we need
to get it right. While there are certainly some good qualities to this
bill, there are also numerous elements thus far, including spendout
rates noted by CBO, that raise questions about the stimulus impact of
the bill. Currently, there are estimates on the job creation potential
of the bill that show only about 10 percent of the funds creating jobs.
If those estimates are accurate, the question arises as to where the
other funds are going.
Some analyses show that the lion's share of the monies in this bill
are destined for expansion of an assortment of government programs that
have nothing to do with economic stimulus. Moreover, these programs are
ones that are funded each year through the normal appropriations
process, and will be funded again in 2010.
That tells me that we are using this bill to expand the funding scope
of certain programs in order to make room for additional spending in
the 2010 cycle. We are calling this extra spending ``emergency''
spending so we will not have to find a way to pay for it. Whether we
call it emergency, or something else, the deficit effect is still the
same, and our children will pay for it.
Many of these programs already have large, unexpended balances. For
example, there's $5 billion for public housing. Yet, we have close to
$7 billion in unexpended public housing balances.
Many of the proponents of this bill talk of the need to rebuild the
Nation's highway and bridge infrastructure, and speak of the job
creation potential of these activities. Yet, the highway portion of
this bill contains less than 4 percent of the total funding.
I am very supportive of legitimate stimulus that results in net
economic activity and job creation. For that reason, I offered an
amendment in the full committee designed to ensure that all stimulus
funds would produce net economic activity and not supplant existing
funds. I also cosponsored an amendment with Mr. Frelinghuysen that
would have moved some $60 billion to transportation, flood control, and
environmental restoration projects.
Ladies and gentlemen, our children and grandchildren are going to pay
for this debt.
Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 15 seconds. My friend from Iowa says that
this bill is too big. I will make a deal with him. I will be happy to
give him a smaller bill if he will show me a smaller problem.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Speaking of smaller problems, I might
mention I had hoped that the chairman put that Jefferson Memorial
problem in the 2009 bill, which is yet to be passed, through the whole
process.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson.)
Mrs. EMERSON. Let me say how pleased I am to be the ranking member of
the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee for the
111th Congress and look forward to working cooperatively with Chairman
Serrano.
Regarding the Financial Services section of the recovery bill we are
debating today, I am disappointed that neither I nor the minority's
committee staff were given an opportunity to consult with the majority
members or staff before the bill was produced and unveiled on the
Internet.
One percent. One percent sounds like a small amount but in this bill
even one-tenth of 1 percent is not trivial. Here's an example. This
bill includes $7.7 billion for the GSA to build and renovate new
Federal buildings and ports of entry. It's nearly 1 percent of the
bill. However, in fiscal year 2008, GSA received a total appropriation
of only $1.4 billion for construction and renovations.
Now, most of us know from personal experience that GSA construction
projects in our districts are hardly ever completed on time, and never
under budget. At its highest levels, this is an agency that needs a
wake-up call and a good scrubbing behind the ears. What it does not
need is 5\1/2\ years' worth of annual budget appropriations to spend in
120 days, a task it most certainly cannot accomplish with any semblance
of efficiency.
GSA lacks the contracting, program management and building
engineering expertise to go from $1.4 billion in appropriations to $7.7
billion in just 1 year. Giving GSA the keys to nearly 1 percent of the
stimulus package will result in gross mismanagement and future funding
liabilities.
Additionally, according to lists provided by GSA of the projects they
list that can be awarded within 120 days, 36 percent, or $2 billion,
are in Washington, DC. In a bill for the economic health of our entire
Nation, Washington is surely getting the lion's share.
I am also concerned with $600 million in the bill for the purchase of
vehicles for Federal agencies. The bill states that these are to be
primarily alternative fuel and plug-in hybrid vehicles, technologies I
greatly support. However, there's currently no U.S. production for
plug-in vehicles, and they won't be here until after the deadline of
this bill has passed.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield the gentlelady 30 additional
seconds.
Mrs. EMERSON. Additionally, the lack of fueling stations for these
vehicles could produce a fleet of cars and trucks in this country that
could create new obstacles for Federal agencies. Even David Brooks of
the New York Times noted that concerns such as this one ``were cast
aside with bland reassurances'' in our committee markup of this bill.
Mr. Chair, this is neither what we should be doing with the
taxpayers' money, nor how we should be doing it.
Mr. RANGEL. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. One way this bill promotes economic recovery is by
promoting educational opportunity. $13\1/2\ billion of targeted tax
relief to help young people and not so young people attend college.
Today, one out of five graduating high school students does not qualify
for this assistance. But, because we provided a refundable tax credit,
we help them, just as the appropriations section of this bill helps
with expanded Pell Grants and other direct aid.
For one of these, Brad Burnett at Austin Community College, he says,
``Getting a college education means breaking a generations' long cycle
of poverty within my family that lets me fulfill the American dream.''
For the first time, we cover textbooks and instructional materials
under this bill. As we provide this individual opportunity, we upgrade
the skills of our workforce and help climb out of this economic
recession. For students, this is a bill that provides hope we can
believe in. And for every one of these students who uses the
opportunities in this bill, it can provide a diploma that they can
count on.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the ranking member for the time. Everyone on
this floor agrees that something needs to be done in terms of
stimulating this economy. We all know that we are in difficult times. I
also agree with Speaker Pelosi that any stimulus plan needs to be
timely, temporary, and targeted.
It is timely. We need to do something. We know we need to do it
quickly. Targeted. This would be targeted if your weapon was a scatter
gun, because everything but the kitchen sink has been thrown into this
appropriation bill.

{time} 1745

Temporary? It would take a stretch of the imagination to believe that
this was temporary.
Today, President Obama came and spoke with us. He said that he didn't
want programs started that had what he called ``a long tail,'' and that
meant that it contributed to the long-term deficit of this country and
that they were going to have to cut in later years.

[[Page 1679]]

I will tell you that there is nothing as eternal on this earth as a
temporary government program. We all know that. I give you one example,
school construction. We are going to start a school construction
program. It has never been authorized before, but we are going to start
one here. Does anybody really believe that we will then end it after 3
or 4 or 5 years whenever this slowdown in our economy turns around? It
will be going on forever. We all know that.
We have a number of programs that have never been debated; I can't
remember the exact number, something like 32 new authorizations, that
have never been debated in committee. They may be appropriate, I don't
know, but we have never debated them to see if they should be
authorized and whether they can compete against other programs for the
limited amount of money. Well, the unlimited amount of money we
apparently have in this bill.
In other cases, the spend-out is 3 or 4 or 5 years down the road. And
I would ask you, why are we appropriating money for a program that will
spend out money in 4 or 5 years down the road when we all hope that
this economy has turned around? But yet, we are appropriating money now
for that spend-out. It just doesn't make sense.
Why don't we go through the regular appropriation process to do that?
I will give you one example dealing with the National Mall that we have
talked about here today.
The Tidal Basin work alone has had huge swings in cost estimates for
the very complicated and extensive work. In late December, the Park
Service told the subcommittee that the Mall work alone could cost $600
million, and now that number is $20 million. In late December, the Park
Service Budget Office told the subcommittee staff that they could use
only $15 million to $20 million for planning and design the next 2
years, which seemed honest and logical given the size of the plan. Now,
they claim they can spend over $200 million over the next 2 years.
Our problem is that these things should be going through the regular
appropriation process, and they are not. And there is a reason that
they are not: It is because every idea that anyone has ever had for
spending that they think is appropriate has been thrown into this bill
to avoid the PAYGO rules. We all know that is the case, and we need to
redo this bill and target it.
Mr. RANGEL. At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson), who will share his idea of a new America.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, the green stimulus
provisions in this bill will generate tens of thousands of jobs and
result in billions of dollars in economic investment.
Solar tax provisions that I authored will allow State and local
governments, like Sonoma County in my district, to help homeowners and
businesses more easily finance the purchase of solar. We are also
making other critical investments in solar by creating a grant program
to incentivize businesses to invest in renewable technology today,
instead of waiting until the economy improves. An additional $4 billion
in bonds for use in renewable energy projects will be available for
State and local governments as well.
These are just a few of the green stimulus provisions. Not only will
this bill create green jobs that our economy needs today, but it will
also enhance the long-term security and sustainability of our economy
by investing in a smart-energy future that helps free us from our
dependency on foreign oil. I encourage everyone to vote ``aye'' on this
bill.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
Let me say that a lot of people I hear say they want to oppose this
package because you really can't spend your way out of a recession;
and, therefore, if spending is the only answer, then why not spend
twice as much and get out of the problem twice as fast? But those same
people think that maybe you shouldn't do anything, and I think they are
just as wrong, to stand here and do nothing in the midst of this
tremendous economic crisis.
But I do think we have to put a test to anything we try to do. It was
pointed out earlier, and I have heard a lot of discussion: If you are
going to have a stimulus package, it ought to meet certain criteria. It
ought to be focused, targeted, if you will; it ought to be timely in
the sense that it ought to begin to act immediately; and it ought not
to last forever. And it seems to me, when I look at those three
criteria, this package fails on all three counts. It is not focused. It
is not targeted. It seems to be a hodgepodge, just kind of quickly
thrown together, 152 different appropriations. No strategic vision
involved, no underlying theme, just a little bit of spending on
everything you wanted to spend money on but were afraid to ask, until
now. And it, I think clearly, in so many cases doesn't pretend to be
timely. When you do research, when you do student special education,
how does that quickly kick-start the economy? It fails that test. And,
finally, if we badly design a package like this, it will continue on,
and the $1.2 trillion deficit becomes $2 trillion.
So I think there is a better way, and I think the Republicans have
put forward that; because if we go through with a poorly, badly
designed stimulus package, we are going to end up, in the words of
Tennessee Ernie Ford, his old song, when he said we will just end up
``another day older and deeper in debt.'' So I think there is a better
way.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to my friend
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Many of us in this body, including myself, have been
speaking about the perfect storm developing in this economy before 9/
11. The truth is, we should have taken this aggressive action years
ago. Today, we have finally constructed legislation which directly
invests in the good people of America.
Through middle-class tax cuts, direct aid to State and local
governments, and reinvestment in renewable energy, Congress is taking
an affirmative step to enable economic recovery.
Mr. Chairman, just think of how municipalities will be able to take
advantage of tax exempt bonds and tax credit bonds, and I speak as a
former mayor, in depressed areas throughout the United States to
provide municipalities with the wherewithal to really, really move this
economy and provide jobs to our American people.
To ensure our children can compete and succeed in the troubling
economy, we will renovate and modernize 10,000 schools. Who said it
didn't work back in the thirties? Who said it?
Through this bill we also make college affordable and provide a
$2,500 college tax credit to 4 million students, and triple the number
of fellowships in science to help spur the next generation of
innovation.
This legislation invests American tax dollars in real infrastructure
projects that are ready to go. Specifically, this plan allocates money
for the repairing and modernizing of thousands of miles of America's
roadways and providing new mass transit options for millions of
Americans.
I want to commend my colleagues for their leadership and commitment
to taking an explicit and aggressive lead in the creation of a
comprehensive economic recovery and reinvestment package.
I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take swift
and decisive action to pass this legislation.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, with this measure the new administration seems bound
and determined to continue the failed policy of the past
administration. It proves what I like to call McClintock's Second Law
of Political Physics, which is, the more we spend on our mistakes, the
less willing we are to admit them.
This policy has failed every time and every place it has been tried
for a simple reason: Government cannot inject a single dollar into the
economy that it has not first taken out of the same economy.
If I take a dollar from Peter and give it to Paul, it is true that
Paul now has

[[Page 1680]]

an extra dollar to spend; and, when he spends it, that dollar is going
to ripple through the economy. The gentleman is correct. But the
gentleman forgets that Peter now has one less dollar to spend in that
same economy. In short, it nets to zero. In fact, it nets to less than
zero, because we are shifting enormous resources away from investments
that would be based on economic calculations in favor of investments
that are being made on political ones.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the chairman, and rise in strong support of
this legislation because of the boost it will provide to our ailing
economy and the priority investments it makes in our Nation. To
struggling families and communities around the country, with the
passage of this bill we can say help is on the way.
We have heard from economists from all sides of the political
spectrum, and they all agree inaction and doing nothing is not an
option. We need to join together with our new President, President
Obama, and act boldly and decisively, and that is what this legislation
does, by directing $825 billion in stimulus where it is needed most,
ready-to-go projects to put people back to work, investing in clean
energy and the infrastructure we need for the 21st century, and middle-
class tax relief for struggling American families so they have a little
more breathing room in their budgets.
I am especially pleased with the provisions relating to energy
efficiency and renewable energy that we have worked on, on a bipartisan
basis, loan guarantees for renewable energy projects that are sidelined
because of the credit crunch, and new authority for homeowners to
retrofit their homes.
I urge passage of this legislation.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 1 minute
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I have a question for my Democratic colleagues: How would $50 million
for the National Endowment of the Arts possibly stimulate our economy?
It won't. And the thing is that this whole bill is actually a
steamroller of socialism that is being forced down our throats, and the
economy is going to choke to death on this steamroller of socialism
that you all are bringing forward.
It is a nonstimulus bill. It is not going to stimulate the economy.
It is going to create very few jobs, if any at all. For every dollar of
tax relief, you all are going to spend $4 to put new grass on the
Washington Mall. It is insane. It is absolutely insane the things that
are in this bill.
I am going to vote ``no,'' and I encourage my colleagues to vote
``no,'' and I encourage the American people to stand up and say we are
not going to tolerate this kind of stuff going on in this country.
We have got to slow down. We have got to look at alternatives that
really will stimulate the economy, that is by reducing taxes and
leaving dollars in the hands of the American public.
Mr. RANGEL. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms.
Berkley), a hardworking member of the committee.
Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the chairman for yielding.
I grew up in my congressional district of Las Vegas. By any standard
of measure, it has been a boomtown; record increases in population,
almost no unemployment, record home ownership.
What a difference an economic meltdown can make. Nevada's economy,
fueled by construction and tourism, has suffered beyond all imagination
in this financial crisis. Las Vegas has the highest mortgage
foreclosure rate in the Nation, drastic drops in home values, and
thousands of construction workers are without work. Casino workers, the
backbone of our economy, laid off. The number of visitors flying to Las
Vegas dropped 8 percent this past year, the largest drop in 25 years.
My State needs help, and we need it now.
This bill will create or save millions of jobs over the next 2 years.
In my district, thousands of construction workers will be put back to
work improving roads and highways, building renewable energy
facilities, improving aging school buildings and other infrastructure.
The bill will also provide for extended unemployment benefits for the
over 9 percent of my workforce out of work.
The bill will also provide extended unemployment benefits for the 9
percent of the workforce out of work and provide needed money for
medicaid to provide health care to the neediest among us.
Ninety-five percent of our fellow citizens will get a tax cut.
Nevada and our country need the jobs and other support provided by
this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, it is a sad day for the United States Congress. People
are hurting throughout this entire economy. And instead of bringing a
bill that would stimulate our economy, what we see before us is a bill
that will simply stimulate big government.
You know, most Americans, Mr. Chairman, believe that the reason that
we are in the problem economy that we have is because as a Nation we
borrowed and spent too much. And, instead, we have a bill theoretically
to solve our problem that borrows and spends too much. You cannot
borrow and spend your way into prosperity.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if we were all Keynesians, and I assure you I am
not, but if we were, all government spending is not created equal. The
Keynesians would tell you. You look at this bill, 4 percent of this is
spent on what most economists would call infrastructure, our roads and
bridges.
We need tax relief for small businesses. We need tax relief for
American families. And we need to do it in a way that doesn't send the
bill to future generations. The tax relief for small businesses is as
miniscule, less than 2 percent.

{time} 1800

Instead, what we have is over half of this bill is to inflate big
government. We have $50 million for the National Endowment for the
Arts, $726 million for an after-school snack program, office furniture
for the Public Health Service, $1 billion for the Census.
Mr. Chairman, the list goes on and on and on. And what we have is a
bill that when you add the debt service is $1.2 trillion.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a new member of the committee, but
a seasoned legislator.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I want to thank the chairman for yielding.
I rise in strong support of this legislation, and I do so because it
appears to me that it's actually tailor-made for my district and
tailor-made for areas throughout the country. Most impressive about it
for me is the fact that it provides the assistance to those at the very
bottom of the socioeconomic scale, dislocated workers, individuals who
have lost their jobs and individuals who are unemployed, money to
assist States with their Medicaid deals, individuals who without it
wouldn't know where to turn, wouldn't know what to do. It's interesting
to hear about great giveaways. But do you know that what is a giveaway
for some is a need for others?
There has never been more need for this legislation than right now. I
commend Chairman Rangel and all of the other chairpersons who have
worked on it. It's a great piece of legislation. I will proudly vote
for it.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 2 minutes remaining. The
gentleman from California has 64\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I will be yielding time, Mr. Chairman, to
others, so I will reserve my time for now.
Mr. RANGEL. I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Nye), and commend him for his hard work to expand the
work opportunity to encourage business to hire our beloved veterans.

[[Page 1681]]

Mr. NYE. I thank the chairman for his leadership and for giving me
the opportunity to work with him to make sure that our veterans and our
small businesses are included in this economic recovery package.
Mr. Chairman, helping businesses hire veterans makes good economic
sense. That is why I strongly support the provision of this bill that
would give substantial tax credits to businesses that hire unemployed
veterans.
This proposal will reduce taxes for small businesses. It will bring
more highly-trained workers into the workforce. And perhaps most
importantly, it will help us keep faith with the men and women who have
served our country in uniform.
In my home district, the Second District of Virginia, we're home to
the largest population of military personnel and veterans in the
country. And as the people of Hampton Roads can tell you, an investment
in our veterans and small businesses is a responsible investment in our
economy and a wise investment for our future.
I thank Chairman Rangel for his leadership. I know he shares my
commitment to standing up for all of our veterans, and I look forward
to working with him on this issue as we continue to rebuild our
economy.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, in order to ask a question,
let me yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman. I listened to the gentleman
from Virginia carefully, and I'm curious. I would be happy to yield
time to him.
When he talks about provisions that make economic sense, could he
explain how $50 million to the National Endowment for the Arts makes
economic sense for his congressional district? I would be happy to
yield to the gentleman.
Mr. OBEY. I would be happy to respond to that if the gentleman wants
to yield to me.
Mr. HENSARLING. The gentleman from Virginia was the one who spoke. So
I'm happy to yield time to him. I see the gentleman is not interested
in answering the question.
Mr. OBEY. I will be happy to respond to the gentleman if he wants,
since I am responsible for the money in the bill.
Mr. HENSARLING. Well, I appreciate the offer of the chairman. But I
have plenty of opportunities to speak with him.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. RANGEL. Well, this could be one of the roughest times our great
Nation has faced economically, but I think that history is going to
recall this as one of the proudest moments that our Congress would be
involved in. No, we're not taking care of banks or fiscal institutions
or those who buy the jets. But we are taking care of our middle class.
That is the heart of America. That is what pumps our economy. And that
is why we're trying to help them by expanding their disposable income,
helping the working families with kids, helping our veterans who are
unemployed, bringing some relief to those who feel the pain yet are
looking toward the future for new economies to make this a greener
America, getting involved in high tech and helping people out with
health.
In the final analysis, besides the flag, what makes us so great is
that this country is going to be healthy, educated and competitive. And
at the end of the day, it will be recalled that, yes, we got hit hard
economically, but the strong middle class and this United States House
of Representatives came forward, and we saved our country and we saved
our economy.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).
Mr. LINDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, we have all heard the proverb that if you give a man a
fish, he can eat for a day. If you teach him to fish, he can eat for a
lifetime. This bill is full of fish going to deserving people to eat
for 1 day. There is nothing in here for fishing rods. There is nothing
in here for training.
To get out of the slump, we need to get people who are unemployed
employed in real jobs with real companies. We have the second highest
tax on corporations in the world. Lowering that tax burden would help
get people hired. To hire people, most of whom will be hired by small
businesses, the owner of that business needs a predictable future. This
gives him none of that.
The other side is very proud to say that 95 percent are going to get
a tax cut. But that tax cut means a refundable tax credit for people
who do not pay taxes. Today, 15 million people get their income tax
rebated plus a payroll tax plus more from the taxpayer.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) is now
controlling 15 minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Members of Congress and those who are watching our deliberations
today, this is an important bill. We have 7 percent of the country
unemployed, and that number is going up. So in this legislation, we are
trying to put funds to help people get jobs and move our economy to a
stronger position.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce has three important areas where
we have made a contribution to this legislation. We have investments in
building out a new broadband infrastructure. This will allow rural and
other underserved areas to join the global economy. This legislation
also provides $27 billion to accelerate deployment of smart grid
technology, fund energy efficiency investments and establish a new loan
guarantee program for renewable energy. These will provide new jobs.
They will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And they will protect
our environment.
This bill contains important health provisions. The bill will help
those people who lose their jobs by providing temporary health
insurance. We do this in two ways. The COBRA program, which allows
people to keep their insurance from their former employer, will be
subsidized for those who want to hold on to that private insurance. It
will also have a component to provide funds under the Medicaid program
to cover the unemployed Americans who do not have COBRA coverage.
Secondly, the bill would accelerate the nationwide adoption of health
information technology. This investment will create high tech jobs,
reduce medical errors and improve care. And thirdly, the bill will
provide a temporary boost for State Medicaid programs facing surges in
caseloads at the same time that the State has fewer resources in
revenues. This is called the FMAP, the Federal Medicaid Assistance
Program, and it would provide additional funds for States with
particularly high unemployment.
In this bill, when it was reported out of committee, we had a
sensible provision to allow low-income women better access to family
planning services, one of the most important preventive health services
we can provide. It also would allow women to stay in the workforce.
Unfortunately, this provision has generated a firestorm of
misinformation and unfounded criticism from the Republican members. I
have spoken to President Obama about this provision. He strongly
supports this cost-saving policy. He is committed, as I am, to seeing
this provision become law. But we don't want this provision to become a
distraction from the other legislation.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself an additional 20 seconds.
So in order to keep the spotlight focused on the important task at
hand, this provision will be removed from the bill. We will get it into
the law in some other legislation later in the year.
We in this bill have an important down payment on programs that lead
us in the right direction.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I proudly yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank my good buddy for yielding.
Margaret Thatcher, the former Prime Minister of England, said that
the

[[Page 1682]]

problem with socialism is you eventually run out of somebody else's
money. And what I'm concerned about here is not just the money we're
spending today. We have spent $700 billion on the Wall Street bailout,
and we don't know where most of that money has gone. Now we're going to
put another $835 billion into this so-called economic stimulus bill.
President Obama said on January 16 that this plan is a significant
down payment on our most urgent challenges. Vice President Biden said
last Sunday that Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, will soon
recommend to President Obama whether more money is needed beyond the
$700 billion allocated to American banks. Lawrence Summers, the top
economic adviser to the President, said that the government can't
afford to spend more than $1 trillion to boost the economy and save
financial institutions.
My question is, where does it end? We're printing so much money and
we're going to spend so much money that we're going to put this whole
country and our future generations into a deep hole which will lead us,
in my opinion, to government control and socialism.
The thing that has made this country great is the free enterprise
system and private enterprise and private individuals making a profit,
creating jobs and making the economy flourish. What we're doing is
we're turning this whole economy over to the government with more and
more and more spending. And what we're doing today is just the
beginning. We're talking about $2 trillion, $3 trillion, $4 trillion
more down the road, and we can't afford it. We can't afford the
inflation, and we certainly can't afford socialism and more government
control.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased at this time to yield 1 minute
to the very distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space), a new member
of our committee who has played a very constructive and important role
in the development of this bill.
Mr. SPACE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and I would like to thank Chairman
Waxman and the leadership for including funds in this bill for improved
access to rural broadband. Put differently, it recognizes the
importance of access to high-speed Internet technology for all
communities, regardless of affluence or location.
This bill will help bridge the divide between rural America and urban
and suburban America when it comes to access not only to technology,
but what technology brings; better educational opportunities, better
health-care related opportunities and certainly better economic
development opportunities.
What we're saying in this bill is something that I have known for a
long time. High speed Internet access is not a luxury. It is a
necessity. And what we're saying with this bill today and with the
allocation of these funds for rural broadband is that our rural
communities will no longer be left behind and no longer be relegated to
the sidelines of advancing technology.
Today is not a small step. It is a massive leap that will bring
hundreds of thousands of Americans in Appalachian Ohio and in other
underserved areas into the new century.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

{time} 1815

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chair, I do not want to see any family face
unemployment or foreclosure, or any business experience a downturn, but
I fear we are suffering from a tyranny of worn-out ideas here.
This bill is called a stimulus bill, but I believe it is an
unsustainable spending bill.
Mr. Chairman, when did we decide that more Federal spending in itself
is economic stimulus? Since 2000, we have increased spending by about
60 percent in this country and the national debt has nearly doubled.
Despite these growing expenditures, our economy has worsened, and we
are left with an $11 trillion debt. And now we have a proposal that is
before us that would be the largest spending bill in the United States
history, and no plan to pay for it.
Will we continue to rely on foreign nations, such as China, already
bankrolling our spending habits? Or just defer responsibility to our
children and our grandchildren and future generations? We are delaying
tough choices and we are pushing reality down the road here. Much of
this assistance goes to subsidizing States. Some States, like Nebraska,
have thus far managed their budgets responsibly, even in tough times. I
won't ask Nebraskans to pay for poor governance elsewhere.
Mr. Chair, I don't want to give a speech simply to oppose. There are
some important, new bold ideas here, such as alternative energy for a
sustainable energy future, a modern electrical grid and health
information technology. But the entirety of the package puts us on a
path of aggressive spending, in the name of stimulus, that will be
nearly impossible to reverse.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the balance of our time be
managed by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Altmire). Without objection, the gentleman from
New Jersey will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Last year, 2.6 million jobs were lost, and on Monday alone four
American companies announced that they were laying off 37,000
employees. When workers lose their jobs, many also lose their health
insurance. And for those lucky enough to keep their coverage, many end
up delaying medical care because they choose to use their limited
resources on groceries and other basic necessities. These families need
help, and they will get it from this economic recovery package.
This bill makes important improvements to COBRA coverage so it is
more affordable for workers who have been laid off. In addition, for
those workers who have lost their job but are not eligible for COBRA
coverage, the bill creates a new temporary Medicaid option that will be
paid for entirely by the Federal Government. Combined, these provisions
will help provide health coverage to over 8 million Americans over the
next year.
In addition, this bill will provide States with urgent fiscal relief.
Right now, almost every State is experiencing a budget crisis.
Governors are struggling to find ways to close these budget gaps, and
many governors are starting to look at scaling back on their Medicaid
programs, just as more and more people are in need of Medicaid
services.
This bill provides critical financial assistance so States are not
forced to scale back their Medicaid programs and can continue to serve
those in need.
We also make a significant investment in our economic future by
investing $20 billion to help doctors and hospitals acquire and use
health information technology. For years we have all been talking about
the need to modernize our health care system, and this bill finally
provides the means to do so. Not only does this legislation invest in
our economy today, but it also makes our health care system safer and
more efficient for years to come.
The recovery package answers the pleas from economists who said that
we must act quickly and boldly, and it certainly deserves bipartisan
support.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
ranking member for yielding me this time, and I do rise, unfortunately,
in opposition to H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009, the so-called stimulus package.
Mr. Chairman, we spent 12 hours in the Energy and Commerce Committee
marking our portion of this bill up last week, and a few, a very few
Republican amendments were approved and summarily stripped out as we
see this new bill before us today.

[[Page 1683]]

But it is not really process that is my objection, it is just that I
have a great fear that instead of throwing water on a fire, as it has
been described, this economic problem that we have, we are about to
throw kerosene on the fire and make the matter a lot worse. We tried to
explain that to President Obama when he visited our conference today,
and we want him to show some changes in the bill that we Republicans
can accept, like more tax breaks for small businesses and entrepreneurs
who create jobs.
I regretfully oppose the bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, we are not launching just a stimulus
package here, we are launching a new, clean energy rocket. We know how
to launch revolutions in technology. We did it in the original Apollo
project that started right in this Chamber when John F. Kennedy
launched that project standing right behind me. In this bill today, we
are launching a similarly ambitious and similarly important clean
energy revolution.
The reason I say that is the next few years, when hundreds of people
go to work building lithium-ion batteries for our advanced electric
cars, like at the A123 Battery Company in Massachusetts, it is because
of this bill. When hundreds of people go to work doing advanced
photovoltaic panels, like at Nanosolar, a thin-film photovoltaic
company in California, it is going to be because of this bill. When
hundreds of people go to work making gasoline out of algae, like they
are doing in the deserts of Nevada, it is because of this bill. We are
launching a rocket, a revolution, today.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), a member of the
Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, the significance of what we face can only be
described as a generational challenge. Many of my colleagues seem to
believe that the only solution is to spend enormous amounts of taxpayer
money.
First we are told that we had to spend $700 billion to bail out Wall
Street. Then we were told that, despite the bailout's failure, we
needed another $350 billion. And now this Congress is told to approve
nearly $1 trillion in a taxpayer-funded giveaway.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps it is time to remind my colleagues that this
Nation is already facing unsustainable levels of government spending.
Responsible action today is not to spend more, but to reform the way we
do business and spend less. The current economic crisis should serve as
a warning, a powerful warning to this Congress: face your economic
demons, or be crushed by your political cowardice.
For years we have lived on borrowed time. We have continued to throw
money at unsustainable and broken programs like Social Security,
Medicare and Medicaid. These programs must be fixed.
On a more blunt point, our Nation's energy policy is an absolute
travesty. To put it simply, our policies are bizarre. We want abundant
energy, but we enact policies that do nothing but march us in the
opposite direction.
It is time for this Congress to face reality. We should permit more
oil development off Alaska and our coastlines. I know this is shocking
to hear, but we must also match the leadership of France and produce 80
percent of our electricity from nuclear reactors.
The bottom line is we need jobs. Energy development will create jobs.
I can assure you that throwing more and more money at the problem isn't
going to solve the crisis. Simply taking action to be seen as doing
something is denying reality and is an injustice to the American
people.
Tough choices need to be made. While they will not always be popular,
nor will they be easy, they are most certainly necessary.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, the chairman of the Environment and Energy Subcommittee,
Mr. Markey.
Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
This urgently-needed stimulus bill funds infrastructure projects that
are shovel-ready, while also supporting future-oriented projects that
are circuit-ready: broadband, electronic medical records, smart grid,
advanced battery technologies, and other vital priorities.
This package is a major downpayment on the clean, renewable energy
future this country has been waiting for and desperately needs.
But this legislation should not be characterized by what we spend,
but rather by what we save. These smart, clean energy investments will
save jobs, ensuring that windmills and solar panels are built here at
home. It will save energy through efficiency measures on schools and
buildings, and it will save consumers and businesses money on their
heating, gas and energy bills.
With the support included in this package, wind capacity will grow
from 25,000 megawatts today to 44,000 megawatts generated on a daily
basis in 2012. At 220 tons of steel per wind turbine, that is nearly 3
million tons of new steel demands. Those steel jobs are blue collar
jobs tinted green by the force of the clean energy revolution.
The massive investments in weatherization, State energy efficiency
grants, and Federal building efficiency are some of the safest and
smartest investments our country can make right now. They put money
into the pockets of American workers and pay for themselves in the form
of energy savings and lower energy prices.
This energy efficiency double dividend is a proven, reliable
phenomenon that our current weak economy must exploit. Working smarter,
not harder, that is what this bill is all about.
The bill provides $20 billion in new health IT infrastructure to
improve care, lower costs and reduce medical efforts. I am pleased that
the bill includes patient privacy safeguards that I have long
advocated, including a provision that I offered at the Energy and
Commerce Committee markup to ensure that patients' medical records are
made unreadable to unauthorized individuals. This was supported by
Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Barton. This is an issue that we all
agree on, the privacy and security of our medical records.
Today we have before us a balanced, well-thought out package that
provides tax relief for 95 percent of Americans and targets investments
in key areas to turn around the American economy. I strongly support
these measures and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to my colleague from Indiana, Mr. Buyer.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, in December as then President-elect Obama
was putting together his transition team, I turned to the staff on the
House Veterans' Affairs Committee on the Republican side and said I do
appreciate Mr. Obama's tone for bipartisanship, and I instructed the
staff to look at all of the construction projects and work with the
Bush administration. We sent a letter then to not only Speaker Pelosi
but also President-elect Obama. We asked for two things, in essence.
What I sought to do was complement then President-elect Obama with
regard to the extension of his hand in bipartisanship.
My letter asked to include veterans in the stimulus plan, and to do
two things. Since my Democrat colleagues love to do public works, we
would do that for them. We would do public works, and we will also do
job creation and entrepreneurship to satisfy Republicans. We would be
bipartisan in regard to our letter to the transition team and to the
Speaker of the House.
Well, what do you think happened? My gesture was half met. So as the
ranking Republican on Veterans' Affairs, I asked for a billion dollars
with regard to $950 million for hospital nonrecurring maintenance, i.e.
construction, and then $500 million for cemeteries, recurring
maintenance, and then a billion dollars for small business loan
guarantees.
Oh, we are not going to take creation of jobs and entrepreneurship.
That was rejected. What they took were the public works side. Let's
create jobs. Well,

[[Page 1684]]

excuse me, strike that. We are going to create work. See, there is a
difference between creation of work and creation of a job.
So what I am hopeful is here, I have gone to the Rules Committee and
I have offered four amendments to the Rules Committee, and I am hopeful
that they will adopt this. Entrepreneurship is important.
The CHAIR. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chair, the balance of my remarks I submit for the
Record.
Mr. Chair, today, the headline in the State's largest newspaper noted
an additional 50,000 job losses across the country. Indiana's
unemployment rate jumped a full 1% last month to 8.2%. Hoosiers are
worried about their economic future, wondering if they can afford to
send their kids to college or afford retirement.
The stimulus bill being rammed through Congress is not the medicine
to meet the economic challenges we face in the short term or the long
term. Business owners, workers and employers tell me they believe we
need a short term stimulus to get the economy moving again, real tools
to help them stay solvent.
However, the bill before us is a political tool geared more toward
2012 than 2009. Very little of this stimulus bill will do anything to
grow the economy or expand our job base. Not to mention the cost on
future generations. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO),
the federal deficit will rise to a record $1.2 trillion in 2009, and
that does not even include the near $1 trillion included in this
massive spending bill.
Most of the discretionary spending in this bill will not actually be
spent until after 2010--only 8% of the spending will take place this
year.
This legislation alone increases the national debt by $6,700 for
every American household. It doles out enough money to give every man,
woman and child in the Nation $2,700 each. How can I explain that as
responsible and rational government spending to the Hoosiers that I
represent back home in Indiana?
This is only the first shot. Watch out America. The increased debt
caused by this legislation will be used as a further rationale for
raising taxes and continued government spending in the future.
The Federal Government cannot spend its way out of this recession.
History tells us that to expand the economy the private sector must
grow. We need to pass policies that promote growth and economic
expansion, not policies that give handouts. Instead of a handout, we
must give Americans a hand through short-term stimulus and long-term
tax policies which will allow the real job makers--the private sector--
to grow our economy.
This legislation is not the appropriate means to revitalize the
economy. Instead of creating higher taxes for American families by
increasing government spending, we should make permanent the 2001 and
2003 tax reductions and reduce individual, small business and corporate
taxes. Extending these tax cuts and further reducing taxes would
stimulate long-term job production and increase the gross domestic
product, thereby improving our economy and shortening the length of the
recession. This bill creates a lot of work, not the desperately needed
jobs that help bolster the long-term growth of this Nation's economy.

{time} 1830

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank you for yielding.
I rise today in strong support of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Plan and to give you just 10 of the many good reasons to
support this particular bill.
One, it will save and create three to four million jobs;
Two, it provides a critical boost in Medicaid assistance to States so
that budget shortfalls don't harm access to health care;
Three, it will help those who lose their jobs maintain health
insurance;
Four, it invests in renewable energy technologies and research;
Five, it provides a 100 percent increase in weatherization funding to
help make homes and businesses energy efficient;
Six, it extends unemployment insurance coverage through the end of
the year and increases the benefit by $25 a week;
Seven, it increases the maximum Pell Grant to help more people go to
college;
Eight, it helps rebuild our schools and gives them financial support;
Nine, it increases funding for affordable housing and homelessness
prevention programs;
Ten, it will give a tax credit to 95 percent of American workers, a
credit worth up to $1,000.
This is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentleman.
This debate is really about two dollars. This is the dollar that's in
the hands of the American people tonight, and this is the dollar, what
it looks like when we give it to the Federal Government. You know, it
shrinks because we don't spend it wisely.
Tonight we're being asked to consider a bill for $825 billion. And
you know what? We don't have $825 billion. You know what we're going to
have to do? We're going to have to print these. And guess what? In
order to issue them, we're going to have to borrow the money from
countries like China.
The question is, are we going to try and spend and borrow our way out
of this economic downturn? The American people know that's not the
answer. They also know that it's better for them to invest this dollar
in the American economy than let the Federal Government go spend this
dollar in our economy.
Mr. Chair, I'm disappointed that we are considering a bill tonight
that's almost equal to the entire discretionary budget that would
normally go through the appropriation process. Oh, no, we didn't go
through any process, we were brought a bill and said this is what we
should do.
The American people want us to leave this dollar in their pocket.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, today this House will vote on the largest economic
recovery package in this Nation's history. After weeks of discussion
and debate, we have come to a compromise bill that incorporates
different points of view and makes the necessary hard choices.
Funding in this bill rebuilds crumbling roads and bridges, locks and
dams, it improves security on our borders and our ports, it repairs and
maintains our VA and DOD health facilities, modernizes our schools,
laboratories and classrooms. But, most important, this economic
recovery package will put people back to work and put money back in
their pockets with a tax cut for 95 percent of working families in
America. It will create jobs, get the economy moving again, and leave
this country with items of lasting significance to show for it.
Mr. Chairman, we simply cannot wait any longer to help our economy
and get this country moving again. Passage of this bill is a necessary
step in that direction.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the
amount of time that's remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 53\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 88, I
yield the balance of my time to the ranking member of the Ways and
Means Committee, Mr. Camp.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan will control the balance of
the time.
Mr. CAMP. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished ranking member of the House Budget Committee and member
of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, we can do better than this. We're losing tens of
thousands of jobs a week in this economy. This is the worst recession
we've seen in generations. And what are we about to vote on? We are
about to vote on a trillion dollar spending package--yes, a trillion
dollars, because the Congressional Budget Office just told us today
just to pay for the interest on this bill

[[Page 1685]]

is another $350 billion. We're going to vote on a trillion dollar
spending package that amounts to basically a spending wish list for all
the special interest groups out there. In fact, for those who are into
all of this spending, half of the spending doesn't even occur for 2
more years. But the spending that occurs quickly are things like $15
million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $6 billion for arts
and culture, $600 million to buy new cars for Federal employees. Is
this the way toward prosperity? Toward jobs?
I want you to take a look at the tax policy in this bill. The big
idea is let's give everybody a rebate that's 10 bucks a week per
individual or a whopping $20 a week for couples. Do you really think
that's going to turn this economy around?
2.7 percent of this bill is aimed at encouraging businesses to retain
and create jobs; 2.7 percent of this entire $1 trillion bill to help
businesses create jobs. I think we need a little more than that. We
need to help the small businesses, the self-employed, the entrepreneurs
get out there and create jobs. We had a major manufacturer in the
Midwest just announce 20,000 layoffs yesterday. There is hardly
anything in this bill that will do anything to help those manufacturers
get those jobs back.
What's worse is that after we go on this spending binge, this will
lead to higher taxes. The Congressional Budget Office is saying we're
going to have the highest unemployment we've seen in 25 years for the
next 4 years. And what this bill will do is it will lead us to higher
taxes; higher taxes on small businesses, higher taxes on capital,
higher taxes on investment, on our savings portfolios, on our
retirement, on our college savings plans. That's what is in store right
around the corner at the end of next year.
My fear is this: we need to come together with an economic rescue
package that actually helps the economy. This bill is not worthy of our
new President's signature. We can do better than this. This is not
something that should come to the floor. I understand the majority can
do as they please. They can shut the minority out--and that's fine,
they did that, and that is their choice and their prerogative--but what
really matters is whether this creates jobs, and it doesn't.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, let me just take up where my good
friend from the other side left off. I take great umbrage with what he
has said.
This is a very good measure that is timed for this extraordinary time
that we're in now. We are in the worst economic crisis in the history
of this country, many say since the Depression. But from what I
understand, at the rate of losing 6,000 homes to foreclosures every
day, we're losing 7,200 jobs every day since the beginning of this
year, there has been nothing like that in the history of this country.
The American people are expecting us to act and move with boldness,
with confidence, not whining, not saying, oh, woe is me.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me tell you that these are, indeed, the times
that try men's souls. In the history of this country we've had those
moments. When the history is written on this moment, what do we want
them to say about what the Congress did when we faced the greatest
economic crisis of our time? Do we want to say we whined and said no
and did nothing? Or do they want to see where we did the practical
thing of stimulating the economy by investing in its infrastructure, in
its schools, in its health care, that not only creates jobs, but
creates wealth and gets our economy well?
And, yes, we understand there's another way to stimulate the economy
through selective tax cuts, but Mr. Chairman, those tax cuts needed to
be targeted down at the level of the people at the lower incomes and
the middle incomes that are going to be most likely to spend the money.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we've taken care of the banks; let's take care of
the American people and pass this measure.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished member
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Herger).
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill
with the firm belief and hope that we can do better.
We are currently undergoing a severe economic downturn. My own State
and district have been badly impacted. And I share our new President's
desire to move quickly on an economic recovery measure. However, I
cannot support a bill that claims to provide $275 billion in tax relief
when $80 billion of that is going to people with no income tax
liability. You can't cut taxes for someone who doesn't pay taxes. Mr.
Chairman, we can do better by focusing on tax relief that creates
incentives for economic activity.
Nor can I support a bill that spends hundreds of billions on big
government programs like the National Endowment for the Arts or new
cars for Federal workers. We do need to make long-term investments in
infrastructure and health information technology, but long-term
investments require careful planning. We can do better by taking the
time to get infrastructure and health IT right, and by eliminating
wasteful spending.
Nor can I support a bill that would lead employers to cut jobs or
drop health coverage in the middle of a recession. Allowing workers to
stay on COBRA longer--more than 30 years in some cases--could impose an
unfunded mandate on employers of $40 billion or more. In the Ways and
Means Committee, the majority refused even to study the effect of this
provision on coverage. We can do better by expanding eligibility for
health insurance tax relief, and by providing more funding for high-
risk pools for those who can't get coverage elsewhere.
Finally, I can't support an $825 billion bill that won't fully take
effect until 18 months or 2 years down the road, or even longer. Mr.
Chairman, people in my district need help today. We can do better by
passing fast-acting tax relief that will create jobs this year, plus
extended unemployment benefits for those out of work.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Chairman, we can and must do
better.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. I would yield that remaining time to Mr. Obey.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. I know that our new President is sincere in
trying to get the economy moving. Unfortunately, I think the only
winners in this bill are the special interests who are swarming the
Capitol looking for their piece of the pie. And the losers will be the
American taxpayers, who ultimately are going to see their taxes
increased to pay for all this spending. There's a right way to spur the
economy. This isn't it. And again, it will lead to higher tax
increases.
Proponents claim that this will help spur demand for families, but
the average worker will only take home an extra $1.35 a day. I can't
imagine them rushing to the mall with that small of a windfall. This is
supposed to help small businesses create jobs, but in truth, there's
more money allocated to buy new art in America than there is to help
small businesses expense new equipment and computers.
This is designed to create jobs, but each job would cost $225,000 to
create a smaller $50,000 job. This is supposed to be about
infrastructure, but only about a tiny part, 3\1/2\ percent, will go to
new roads. And school construction is just a tiny part of a massive
education bill. And what's frustrating is there is no free money, there
is no free money in Washington; someone sometime is going to have to
pay for this. And at a time when we are seeing record debt, the highest
debt in peacetime since 1930, it is the American public who ultimately
will have to pay this bill.
To put it in perspective so that every taxpayer understands, the cost
of this

[[Page 1686]]

measure is equal to doubling all the income taxes every American pays
for 1 year; not just the wealthy, not just the middle class, every
taxpayer would have to double their taxes in order to pay for this
spending spree.
Mr. President, I would urge you to veto this bill. It is not targeted
or timely. It is not an era of new responsibility. This is a tax
increase, a stimulus that will fail, unfortunately, and we have a
better idea.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized and controls
10 minutes.

{time} 1845

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for the purpose of entering
into a colloquy.
Mr. POLIS of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage Chairman
Miller in a colloquy for purposes of illuminating the intent of the job
training and worker diversification provisions of H.R. 1, the Economic
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Earlier in the month, I, along with 12 of my colleagues, sent a
letter to then President-elect Obama seeking to promote gender equity
in the infrastructure job creation spurred by the economic recovery
funding. With women holding less than 10 percent of construction jobs,
the letter asked for additional funding for the Department of Labor
program known as WANTO, which trains women for higher-wage
nontraditional jobs, and to strengthen the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs so it can effectively enforce current laws that
require contractors to reach out and recruit women into jobs in which
they're underrepresented.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If the gentleman would yield, I want
to say to the gentleman I share your concern that women receive equal
opportunity to be trained and hired in the types of higher-paid
positions that are traditionally occupied by men. The bill provides
approximately $4 billion to train workers who need new or additional
skills. Job training to train women in nontraditional job retains its
priority recognition as under current law.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman
an additional 30 seconds.
The bill also provides $80 million to enhance worker protections on
those jobs including through the Office of Federal Contract Compliance,
Health and Safety, and wage and hour enforcement.
Mr. POLIS of Colorado. I thank the chairman for his explanation. I
appreciate the consideration that this Chamber has given to improving
the protections and opportunities afforded to women seeking to take
care of their families in this very challenging economic time.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes at this time to the
distinguished gentleman of the Ways and Means Committee from Washington
State (Mr. Reichert).
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, just last week the Joint Committee on
Taxation could not say whether any jobs would be created by the nearly
$1 trillion package before us.
We cannot let calls for swift action overrun common sense, thorough
consideration, and healthy debate. The bailout showed us the mistakes
that can happen when government rushes to action.
We are united, however, Democrats and Republicans, together in
recognizing the need for action. This is a time for smart, accountable,
and targeted investments to get our economy back on track, not more of
the same shotgun spending that mortgages our children's futures.
There are clearly provisions in this bill that I support and I think
every Member in the House has something in this bill they support. But
we are here to pass an emergency stimulus package that creates jobs,
not another spending bill.
To stimulate the economy and preserve, promote, and create jobs, we
must enact proven measures like broad-based tax relief for families and
small businesses, opening new markets to trade, and investing wisely in
infrastructure. Those are the things that will get our economy moving
and create jobs for people in our Nation.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure so that we can work
together with President Obama, who has reached out to the Republican
side and encouraged us to provide our input, our ideas, and our
thoughts to craft effective legislation that gets our economy back on
track.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation.
Our economy is falling apart. We have millions of people out of work.
We have millions of people who are out of work that don't even have
unemployment benefits anymore. We have got to respond to the immediate
needs of the American people.
I don't agree with everything in this legislation, but I know one
thing: If we don't move quickly to try to take steps to stimulate this
economy, we are only going to go down faster. I see this legislation as
being an appropriate first step that will help bring needed money and
put it in the hands of the American people.
We're going to have to do more, though. I have bills to create a
universal pre-kindergarten program that will help American families
relieve a lot of financial burden; a bill with John Conyers to create a
not-for-profit health care system, universal health care, that will
solve a major problem for business and industry and give all Americans
health care.
Congress must make a beginning. That's what we were elected to do. We
need to work together, Democrats and Republicans, and put aside our
differences on some of the issues that are in this package in order to
look for the higher good of the American people.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman
an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. KUCINICH. So I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, we see things in this package we don't like. We don't like the
fact that some of the benefits aren't getting to people quickly enough.
I am concerned about that as well. But the fact of the matter is we
have to realize this is our first step, and that first step has to be
in the direction of relieving the economic crisis for the American
family.
I stood with Members on the other side of the aisle in challenging
the bailout. But it's time that we start to give benefits to the
American people, and this legislation does that. I urge its support.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr.
Boustany.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, both sides can agree that our national
economy is in trouble as tens of thousands of Americans are without
work. But the question remains, are we going to get this right? The
bill before us falls far short of the goals that we are hoping to
achieve.
In 2005 my home State of Louisiana saw economic devastation as the
result of two hurricanes. During that recovery effort, we learned many
things about what government can and can't do effectively and quickly.
Tax relief for small businesses and families enable businesses across
the Gulf Coast to rebuild, expand, and create good-paying, long-lasting
jobs. As a result, thousands of Louisiana families found security they
desperately needed following these two storms.
Government direct spending was also attempted. However, 3 years
later, 3 years later, much of that money is still tied up in
bureaucratic entanglement.
There's a lesson here. There is clearly a lesson. There are many
different solutions to a problem, and this economic crisis, as complex
as it is, certainly proves this. But secondly and more importantly, we
must look for solutions that will produce results.
We need to spur job creation to get Americans working again, and the
best

[[Page 1687]]

way to achieve that job creation is by reducing taxes on small
businesses, entrepreneurs, and companies who can put people to work
now.
We are willing to work with the administration and with our friends
across the aisle to accomplish these goals. Together I believe we could
craft a bill that would stimulate private sector job growth, which is
what's desperately needed. That will make this country competitive
again. This bill will not accomplish those goals.
I would urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and let's come up with a
better way to do this.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I must say that I truly admire
the courage of my friends on the other side of the aisle. In the middle
of the worst economic downturn that any of us can remember, our parents
told us about the Depression, an unprecedented and accelerating job
loss all across the American economy in every sector, our friends on
the other side of the aisle ask us just for one last time to do what
they've been doing the last 8 years; to just one more time give the tax
cuts to the richest people in the country; to just one more time dive
into the tank of fiscal irresponsibility.
They inherited a $5 trillion surplus, and they squandered it to an $8
trillion deficit. They created the slowest job creation since World War
II, the slowest job creation since World War II in a recovery. They
held middle income wages stagnate. In fact, many families lost ground.
The wealthy did the best.
They stood by while banks created liar loans, while banks created no-
doc loans, while people on Wall Street played fast and easy with
hardworking Americans' money in their pension plans. And what do we get
for their 8 years? We see people now getting their returns on their
pensions, their 401(k) plans, and 30, 40, 50 percent of their assets
are gone and those who are over 55 living in panic about how will they
have a retirement. And yet they stand here day after day and say just
let us have more of what we were doing in the past.
You know, when that helicopter took off outside here in this plaza,
millions of Americans gave that President a wave good-bye because in
the middle of this historic downturn, millions and millions of
Americans made a decision to go in another direction because what you
were doing hadn't worked for them or for their families, hadn't worked
for them or their families, because that was your policy.
Mr. Chairman, that was their policy, crude and rude with respect to
working Americans in this country and their families.
So what do we have now? We have an incredible consensus of economists
who are on the left, who are on the right, who advised Republican
candidates in the past, Ronald Reagan, John McCain, and they have said
you have got to put together a recovery act where the government spends
this money on projects to put people back to work to create jobs. It
will not stop unemployment, but it will help. It will help. And that's
what we're doing here. That's what we're doing here.
They also said from the right and the left, as they told us that the
American economy is shutting down while you're asking to do more of the
same, they said don't forget education. We cannot have young people
lose a year or 2 years of education because of an economic downturn.
You must support education at the local level. Why? Because the States
and local governments are hemorrhaging, hemorrhaging the loss of
revenues. Because people can't afford to buy a car, they're not buying
a car. Because home price values are dropping so fast that they're
going in and getting their property taxes reestablished because of the
loss of value in homes, and that's costing local governments and school
districts money from sales tax and property tax. So we're trying to
make sure that those students don't lose that educational opportunity.
We see a number of students are now starting to forego college who
are in the middle of their college education because of costs. Yes,
we're going to increase the Pell grant so they can stay. We're going to
give an income tax credit so they can stay in school. We're going to
give them work opportunities on campus so they can stay in school.
Because that's what the economists, that's what the venture capitalists
said, that's the captains of industry said needs to be done. Don't lose
that, because when this economy re-emerges, we need those people to be
competitive with the rest of the world.
Yes, we're going to help school districts and school construction so
that young students can go to school in a cleaner, better environment,
so they'll be connected to the latest technology, so they'll have the
educational opportunities. And it will be a safe school. It will be a
modern school. Yes, we're going to help them out and do that because
they don't have the ability to do that because your economic policies
froze municipal bonds and school bonds where people voted to impose
taxes on themselves to improve their schools, to improve their cities.
But the credit markets are seized; so we're trying to help them out for
the time being until those markets unfreeze.
And, yes, $300 billion was given to the Bush administration and
Secretary Paulson, and so far it appears it was given without
conditions in terms of any effort by the big banks to unfreeze the
credit markets to lend to small businesses, to lend to families in
need.
Yes, we're changing policy. And we're doing it at the direction of
the American people because the policy you gave them for 8 years was a
disaster for them, their families, their retirements, their wages,
their health care. They want to go in a different direction, and we
will take them in a different direction. We will take them to job
creation. We'll take them to better education. And, hopefully, we'll
take them to a stronger economy on the advice, on the advice, with all
due respect, of not the other side of the aisle, but of economists from
the left to the right of impeccable credentials who said the only
question about this package really is, is it large enough?

Announcement by the Chair

The CHAIR. All Members are reminded to address the Chair with their
remarks.

{time} 1900

Mr. CAMP. I thank the Chair for that statement.
At this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the
Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
So much material and so little time. You know, we heard the President
in his speech talking about putting aside petty recriminations, and he
characterized that as, actually, childish arguments. And I think that
some of the tone that I have heard tonight, we can rise above.
You know, I find it ironic that the gentleman from California
referred favorably, maybe for the first time in his career, the first
time in my hearing, favorably quoting and referring to Republican
economists as ``persuasive.'' I had never heard that from him before,
Mr. Chairman.
But I would like to quote from our President. In his State of the
Union Message, he said something that I think actually brings us all
together, it's really poignant, and I think it's beautiful. In fact, it
says it has been risk takers, the doers, the makers of things who have
carried us up the long rugged path towards prosperity and freedom. The
market's power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched.
Here we are, on the verge of the majority spending $825 billion in a
spending plan, the likes of which we have not seen before, with only
$40 million in tax relief for small business. When the President came
in, he seemed surprised at those numbers, by comparison, $40 million to
the risk takers that we all say are the economic engine that are going
to move us into the future.
We can do better, and I think it's incumbent upon us to take up that
challenge.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is recognized
and controls 10 minutes.

[[Page 1688]]

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Our committee's portion, the infrastructure recovery program is
targeted. It will be transparent and recipients will be held
accountable, and the investments are desperately needed. The
construction sector is suffering the highest unemployment rate of any
industrial sector, 15.3 percent, 1.4 million construction workers out
of a job.
Fully implemented, as our committee proposes, we can have a million
workers on a construction site in June of this year and generate $325
billion in total economic activity when fully implemented, jobs that
cannot be outsourced to other countries, using materials that are made
in America, not outsourced beyond our shores.
Transparency, we require reporting by every State DOT, every transit
agency, every airport authority, every 30 days on the contract awarded,
by contract, on the specific jobs, job description and payroll, which
we will receive and make public through hearings that we will conduct
30 days after the funding is allocated to the States and every 60 days
thereafter.
Accountability, an amendment which I expect or hope to offer tomorrow
made in order by the Rules Committee, will have a requirement that
funds be committed in 90 days, use it or lose it.
I am pleased to rise in strong support of H.R. 1, the ``American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009''.
With more than 1.4 million construction workers out of work, and the
construction industry suffering the highest unemployment rate (15.3
percent) of any industrial sector, this bill is urgently needed to put
America back to work. The infrastructure investments funded by this
bill will create good, family-wage jobs--jobs that cannot be outsourced
to another country, because the work must be done here in the U.S. on
our roads, bridges, transit and rail systems, airports, waterways,
wastewater treatment facilities, and Federal buildings.
For more than a year now, I have worked to ensure that infrastructure
investment plays a key role in our Nation's economic recovery.
I thank Chairman Obey for working with me in this effort. We
consulted extensively on the transportation and infrastructure
provisions in the bill. Although the legislation before us today does
not include everything I had proposed, it is a very good start, and I
am hopeful it can be improved and fine-tuned as deliberations continue.
In December 2008, I proposed to House Leadership that the economic
recovery legislation include at least $85 billion for transportation,
environmental, and other public infrastructure investments. H.R. 1
includes approximately $63 billion for these programs.
My proposal adhered to the following six principles:
Funds must be invested in ready-to-go projects. I believe we need an
aggressive timetable for the use of funds, including a 90-day, ``use-
it-or-lose-it'' requirement for 50 percent of the funds, which will
produce a ``quick hit'' that will jump-start our economy and create a
substantial number of new construction jobs by June.
2. Funds must be used to create green-collar jobs and invest in
projects that decrease our dependence on foreign oil and address global
climate change.
3. The steel, iron, and manufactured goods required for these
projects must be manufactured in the United States.
4. Wherever possible, funds must be distributed by existing statutory
formulas, with no earmarks, to expedite the flow of funds.
5. Transparency and accountability in the use of funds must be
achieved.
6. States and other recipients of formula funds must maintain their
effort in terms of current State and local investment levels.
These principles are, in large measure, reflected in the legislation
before us today.
Although the use-it-or-lose-it deadline in the bill is currently set
at 180 days, I am hopeful it can be shortened to 90 days, and I will be
offering an amendment to do so.
On December 18, I had a lengthy conference call with 14 State
Secretaries of Transportation and Chief Executive Officers of public
transit agencies. I outlined for them my 90-day, use-it-or-lose-it
proposal, which would require them to obligate 50 percent of the funds
allocated to them within 90 days.
Every one of the participants on the conference call enthusiastically
affirmed that they are ready to go within 90 days and can meet the use-
it-or-lose-it requirement.
In another conference call earlier this month and at a Committee
hearing last week, we were again assured that State and local grant
recipients are proactively preparing to meet tight deadlines and will
be able use these funds quickly.
Despite these assurances from State and local officials, some here in
Washington are skeptical that a 90-day deadline can be met. This
skepticism is why the use-it-or-lose-it deadline was extended to 180
days in last week's Appropriations Committee mark-up.
Ninety days is a tight deadline, but that is exactly what we need.
Business as usual is not good enough anymore. If the purpose of this
legislation is to be achieved, then we must set tight deadlines, and
hold everyone--from Federal agencies to State and local grant
recipients--accountable to them.
I firmly believe that the infrastructure funds provided by this bill
can--with the right incentives--produce a substantial number of jobs by
June, while also improving our deteriorating infrastructure and laying
the foundation for our future economic growth.
I thank Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Obey, Chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, and Chairman Olver, Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies, for working with me throughout the development of this
legislation. I strongly urge your support for H.R. 1, a true investment
in America's future.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy).
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, with 11 million
Americans out of work, we indeed should be concerned about Americans
out of work and helping Americans to have jobs.
Tomorrow the House will vote on a bill of some $835 billion as an
economic stimulus and spending package. Thirty billion dollars of that
will be for infrastructure spending for roads and bridges, some $20
million for electronic medical reports, both worthy causes, which
perhaps should be put into the highway section, but that's as it is.
What's key here is are these really for American jobs?
The electronic medical records is important because it allows
hospitals to have their records on computers so doctors can access them
from everywhere competently and confidently, and can help reduce
millions of dollars of waste and deaths that occur from hospital
errors.
However, in the Energy and Commerce Committee a few days ago I
offered an amendment to say let's guarantee that the software work and
the applications of that technology be done in America. It's too easy,
at the stroke of a keyboard, to send electronic data across the globe
where these software applications for hospitals could be done.
So we put an amendment in. The chairman agreed to it. The committee
unanimously agreed to, but, mysteriously, when the bill was printed,
that and a few other Republican amendments were omitted.
Tonight I was at the Rules Committee asking them to please restore
this amendment to say if we are going to spend $20 billion to help
American jobs, let's make sure we have a clause in this bill that helps
American jobs.
There's another amendment I offered too that says for construction
and other parts of this bill let's also use that for American jobs.
Let's not have the same mistake that occurred when we approved building
a fence line at the border with Mexico, and it turned out it was done
using a loophole with Chinese steel. Our concrete, our rebar, the cars
that are going to be bought supposedly with this bill ought to be made
in America.
From the iron mines to the manufacturers, to the mills, let's use it
to buy America. Let's return those amendments to this bill. If we
really are going to be serious about American jobs, let's make this
American jobs.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
Chair of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
For 8 long years our Republican colleagues stood shoulder-to-shoulder
with George Bush as our country accelerated its slide toward a third
world infrastructure. The collapse of the bridge

[[Page 1689]]

in Minnesota is perhaps the signal moment of the Bush administration.
What did they do before and what have they done after for our
infrastructure? Nothing.
They didn't believe in investing in our public infrastructure. Tax
cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. Tax cuts never built a single highway. Tax
cuts never built a transit system. Tax cuts never replaced a bridge.
Tax cuts are not the answer to all of America's problems. We need to
invest in our public infrastructure in this country. The most solid
core point of this bill is what we are debating right now, more than
$40 billion of investment in the future of America putting our highways
and our bridges back in good repair, rebuilding our transit systems,
beginning to provide new capacity, to get people more efficiently to
work, to avoid the costs of congestion, the costs of the deficient
services we suffer.
These are jobs. I heard someone, some bizarre Republican stand up
earlier and say something about the difference between work and jobs.
This is work that puts Americans to work, and it's jobs, and it
rebuilds our country. I don't quite get what point that person was
making. And it's not a tax cut. It's real investment.
I can justify borrowing money to build a bridge or a transit system
that will serve the next two or three or four or five generations of
Americans a lot more than I can justify a tax cut which is gone
tomorrow and did nothing to rebuild our future.
They lack vision. In this we will buy American products. ``Buy
American'' is the theme of transportation policy in this country. We
will buy buses made in America. We will even start buying street cars
for the first time made in America.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. DeFAZIO. We are going to rebuild our bridges made with steel in
America, concrete sourced in America, labor of American workers. This
is the core of this bill. It's not enough, in my opinion, and I have
made that clear and made some angry by saying that, as has the
chairman.
But it is a good, solid down payment and a solid core for an American
recovery with these investments. Stop talking just about one-note tax
cuts. They didn't work for George Bush. They are not going to work
today. We need to begin real investment and rebuilding our future,
transportation infrastructure. This is the core of this bill.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the distinguished
member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. I would point out that it was a Democrat Congress
that for decades robbed from the highway trust fund, and it was the
Republican Congress, with the Republican President, who insisted for
the first time that all the highway fuel dollars would go to actually
building highways and bridges in America.
I would note too, Republicans doubled the research and development
budget of America, not Democrats.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
chairman of the Republican Conference, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Pence).
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, it should be evident to anyone looking on
tonight, from the passion that's displayed on both sides of the aisle,
this is a serious debate. The American people are hurting. Many
millions of Americans have lost their jobs and many more are worried
that they will be next.
And so we come to this floor tonight to begin a debate on legislation
that should, in the best of worlds, be a result of a thorough vetting
and a thorough and bipartisan negotiation over what would be, on
balance, in the best interests of the American people. But this
legislation falls far short of that standard, and I rise to oppose it.
I commend the President of the United States today for coming to
Capitol Hill and meeting with House Republicans. It was a frank and
cordial discussion. The conversation is not compromised, and the
American people deserve to know that Democrats in Congress have
completely ignored our new President's call for bipartisanship in the
formation of this stimulus bill.
In reality, House Democrats have used this moment of national
economic crisis to fund big government priorities under the guise of
stimulating the economy. As I told President Obama today, we take him
at his word, but we urge him to make good on his pledge to challenge
his party to set aside partisan differences and to bring the best ideas
from both parties to the table, and this bill does not accomplish that.
The promises of change and bipartisanship ring hollow in the face of
a stimulus bill that does little more than fund a wish list of long-
standing liberal spending priorities.
I ask, Mr. Chairman, what is $50 million for the National Endowment
for the Arts going to do to create jobs in Indiana? What does $200
million to plant sod on the National Mall going to do to put people
back to work in your State, or $400 million for climate change research
going to do to get America working again.
The truth is the bill that we will consider tomorrow, fashioned
entirely by the majority in this House, won't stimulate anything but
more government and more debt. The slow and wasteful spending of the
House Democrat bill is a disservice to millions of Americans, and
Republicans are disappointed, but the American people should be
disappointed as well. These are serious times, and what will come to
the floor tomorrow is not a serious effort to address this crisis with
reform.
Republicans have a plan. We don't claim to have the exclusive right
to all the best ideas in the world, but the time-honored tradition of
stimulus from this Chamber has always included real and immediate and
significant tax relief for working families, small businesses and
family farms. Handing out rebate checks this year, like we did last
year, will likely have as little result stimulating our economy as it
did before.
And so we will take our case to the American people. We may lose on
the floor tomorrow, but the American people will have a choice between
slow and wasteful government spending and a plan that will bring tax
relief to working families and small businesses.
I urge opposition to the bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds simply to point
out that on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure the
Republicans have been engaged fully from 2007 all through 2008 in
fashioning a stimulus initiative. Their ideas have been fully engaged
and they have participated in hearings and in the crafting of our
portion of this bill.
So whatever criticism there may be of other committees, I say it
doesn't apply in our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In
fact, Mr. Mica, my good friend, said our portion is a very good bill.
I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson), Chair of the Water Resources Subcommittee.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I want to thank the Chair of
Transportation, as well as the Chair of Appropriations, for the hard
work they put into this.
Mr. Chairman, you know I strongly support the underlying bill. I know
that I understand it differently than some others here. But if we keep
doing the same thing that we have been doing for the last 8 years, we
will get the same results. You can't do the same thing and expect the
results to change.
The needed funds for our Nation's roads, bridges, transit systems,
airport and water-related infrastructure are very much needed. Over the
past 2 years, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment has
held numerous hearings on the Nation's water-related infrastructure
needs, whether it is the $300 billion to $400 billion investment needed
to restore and upgrade our Nation's network of wastewater treatment
infrastructure, or the projection of $50 billion to $60 billion for
vital projects of the Corps of Engineers.
The water-related infrastructure needs of this Nation are struggling
and

[[Page 1690]]

growing ever longer, and the longer it is put off, the more it will
cost.

{time} 1915

Each $1 billion of Federal funds invested in infrastructure creates
and sustains approximately 34,000 to 47,000 jobs and $6.2 billion in
economic activities. The $3 billion in infrastructure investment
funding in the bill for the State of Texas will provide a real tangible
benefit to the 700,000 individuals currently unemployed in our State,
whether as a paycheck for those responsible for constructing these
vital projects or through increased productivity for small businesses
that produce the materials needed for these vital infrastructure
projects.
These people cannot pay taxes. They don't have jobs.
However, unlike other economic recovery proposals, infrastructure
investment provides not only a short-term benefit to American families,
it also provides a long-term benefit in terms of sustainable and
reliable infrastructure, as well as the potential for increased
productivity for the Nation's economy through the efficient movement of
goods and services.
It also can enhance the overall quality of the Nation's water-related
environment through the implementation of environmental restoration
projects by the Corps of Engineers, and through the control of
pollutant discharges from combined sewer and sanitary sewer upgrades.
Finally, infrastructure investment provides one of the only benefits
that cannot be shipped off to foreign lands. The direct beneficiaries
of domestic infrastructure projects are our towns, our local
communities, our constituents.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank the ranking member for generously
yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, here are a half dozen of many reasons to oppose this
legislation. We should wait and gauge the impact of the $350 billion in
TARP funds already approved before spending even more. Spending another
$825 billion--$6,000 for every taxpayer in America--will inevitably
hike inflation and increase taxes, further damaging the economy.
Much of the money will be used to bail out States that have overspent
their budget. This rewards bad behavior. What happened to the ``era of
responsibility?''
This is not free money. It's a nonsecure loan extracted from the
American people. Let them keep the dollars and decide how to spend
them. It would be far better to provide tax incentives and investment
credits to the small businesses that create 70 percent of all new jobs
in America. This massive monstrosity of spending is the wrong kind of
change. It will only make the economic crisis wider, deeper, and
longer.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the Chair of our
Economic Development Subcommittee, the distinguished gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his very
important and brilliant work on this bill. I thought I heard my friend
talk about putting money in people's pockets. Have you forgotten that
is exactly what we did with the last stimulus bill? And, guess what? It
went to pay the Saudis, who are now enjoying that. People paid off
their high gas bills, they paid down their credit cards. Understand
that people are afraid to spend money.
What does this bill do? This is not about ``the economy,'' it's not
about ``the bailout.'' This bill is about jobs. What it says is if you
give a person not money in his pocket, but a job, you have a better
chance of reviving your economy.
The GAO says, indeed, if done properly, a public infrastructure
program will pay for itself, and more, over time, by increasing
productivity. That is the reason we focus on infrastructure and it's
interesting to know that many on the other side are pointing in that
direction as well.
I am not against some of the tax cuts, if properly done. But the
reason we focus on infrastructure is that it alone has a track record
of waking up other parts of the economy. That's what we want to do.
This is about jobs. This is not about some generic economy. It is the
multiplier effect that we are after. We are after jobs that then create
support jobs on down the line. And there is no other expenditure that
has been shown to do that as well as infrastructure.
We've got a job to do to make sure, as the chairman says, that this
gets done, and gets done quickly. But there can be no debate. Even as
we heard testimony, investments in infrastructure have a broader effect
and a bigger benefit on the economy than, for example, tax cuts, or any
form of tax relief.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Paulsen).
Mr. PAULSEN. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the President has asked for swift
action to spur the economy in the need to usher in a new era of
responsibility. I also agree that Congress must act immediately to help
get our economy back on track.
My concern with the bill that we are addressing here tonight is that
it is acting irresponsibly. This stimulus bill has essentially now
turned into a supplemental spending bill. The budget deficit is already
more than $1 trillion this year alone. What is Congress proposing? More
borrowing and more spending.
After this bill passes, Mr. Chairman, the annual budget deficit will
surpass $2 trillion in just 1 year. Just this 1 year. An economic
stimulus should be quick and it should be immediate. However, the
recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office shows that only 7 to
8 percent of the infrastructure spending, which is valuable in this
plan, will be delivered in the economy in the first year alone, and
less than half will be spent in the first 2 years.
Mr. Chair, a real fiscal stimulus is one that will put people back to
work and focuses like a laser beam to help protect and preserve and,
most importantly, create jobs. Why aren't we focusing tonight on
helping small businesses do what they do best?
We need to make sure that we are allowing those small businesses, the
entrepreneurs, the risk-takers, the innovators, and the self-employed,
do what they do best, and that is create jobs. Unfortunately, this bill
has become a grab bag of special interest spending, and many of these
may be some worthwhile projects, but they should not be snuck into a
stimulus bill.
Instead, let's focus on changing politics as usual and working
together and finding real solutions to put people back to work.
Mr. OBERSTAR. How much time remains?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield the remaining time to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. As a new Member of this body, this is going
to be one of the most important votes I cast. And to hear some of the
rhetoric tonight from the other side makes one think of Charles
Dickens. Are there no workhouses?
We are in the worst economic meltdown in 76 years. The middle class
is crying for relief. We are on a precipice, and this body must act. I
feel duty-bound to cast my vote in favor of this legislation because it
is action. It is designed to spur infrastructure. It is designed to
provide middle-class tax relief.
And when I hear language of special interest, I wonder if we mean by
that our State and local governments that are hemorrhaging red ink and
need the relief contained in this legislation. As someone who's just
come from local government, I know firsthand how every State and every
locality in this country is hurting.
I intend to support this legislation, especially the infrastructure
provisions in it that will get people back to work and spur local
economies.
Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am
interested in the comment just made by the

[[Page 1691]]

gentleman from Northern Virginia, Mr. Connolly. If the gentleman would
take a question, I'd be pleased to yield to him for an answer.
Mr. Connolly, would you be interested in taking a question? I was
interested in your comments, because you said, Mr. Connolly from
Northern Virginia----
The CHAIR. The gentleman will address the Chair, please.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, the gentleman said these are the
worst economic times, and this will stimulate infrastructure. I was
wondering if the gentleman was aware that only 7 percent, or $26
billion of the $274 billion in infrastructure money, will be spent by
the end of this budget year. And adding the interest, this stimulus,
which will exceed $1.1 trillion, will cost each and every American
$3,300 in this economy.
Does the gentleman think that that is a wise idea? I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chair, if I understand the gentleman's
question, first of all, I think his numbers are not correct, if I look
at the Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I
think it's considerably more than the number the gentleman has cited.
I also think the gentleman fails to recognize that there's
cumulatively $120 billion of relief for State and local governments. I
would also point out to him that every State and every locality
virtually in this country is hemorrhaging red ink.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, and I would
ask the gentleman to tell the House if he believes that in this worst
economy that it's appropriate to put in place a policy that makes it so
that each and every American is liable for $3,300 more; $3,300 more for
each and every single American. Is that an appropriate policy to be put
in place at this time, I would ask the gentleman.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I don't believe that is the
appropriate question.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. That is
indeed the appropriate question. And that is why you hear individuals
on our side of the aisle fighting on behalf of the American taxpayer,
fighting on behalf of American jobs, fighting on behalf of appropriate
policy that will in fact stimulate the economy.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I think the opposite is true.
I think the gentleman is fighting for policies that prove to be a
failure.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has control of the time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. We all want our economy to turn around. The
question really isn't is this too much or too big, although I believe
it to be. The question is, Will it work, and, What else is in this
bill?
I want to highlight an item that is buried in this bill. The
Comparative Effectiveness Research Council. $1.1 billion for this
board. In the language, it states, regarding health care, ``Those
items, procedures and interventions that are most effective to prevent,
control, and treat health conditions will be utilized, while those no
longer found to be effective and, in some cases, more expensive, will
no longer be prescribed.''
Mr. Chairman, this is the beginning and the foundation of
nationalized health care.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman. In fact, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services said in his book that this body would have
recommendations that may not have teeth because all Federal health
programs would have to abide by them. But Congress would go back and
further the board's recommendations. It could, for example, link the
tax exclusion for health insurance to insurance companies that comply
with the board's recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, this is indeed the foundation of rationing of American
health care for each and every American. Not only will there be no
stimulus in this bill, there will be major policy changes to health
care; nationalized health care on its way, courtesy of the majority
party.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords) now controls 5
minutes of the time.
Ms. GIFFORDS. I'd like to thank Chairman Obey as well for all his
work, and members of the committee on both sides of this bill, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
As a member of the Science and Technology Committee, it's my great
privilege to work with Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall to
advance our Nation's capabilities in scientific research and
technological innovation.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act contains critical funding
for the National Science Foundation, the Office of Science at the
Department of Energy, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and
NASA. It also includes significant funding for research and development
in advanced energy technologies.
These critical investments will create high-quality jobs, strengthen
our economic competitiveness, and improve access to clean, affordable
energy.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. I'd like to inquire of the Chair the time remaining.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 28 minutes remaining.
Mr. CAMP. And on the other side?
The CHAIR. The gentleman has 51 minutes.
Mr. CAMP. At this time we will reserve our time until it becomes a
little more balanced, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. GIFFORDS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Wu).

{time} 1930

Mr. WU. I thank the gentlelady, and I rise in support of the
underlying legislation.
I want to commend President Obama, his administration, Speaker
Pelosi, Chairman Obey and Chairman Gordon for their leadership and
commitment to ensure that this bill provides strong funding for
science, technology, and long-term economic growth in order to get our
economy back on track. We need to rebuild from the ground up. We need
to invest in research that will create the jobs of the 21st century,
including those jobs in health information technology.
Health IT has the potential to reduce medical errors, decrease
inefficient, unnecessary, duplicative treatments that cost our health
care system $300 billion annually. Health IT should lower our health
care costs while improving the quality and safety of care. Health IT is
economic stimulus.
However, one study states that more than 40,000 health care IT
workers will be needed in health care facilities, and jobs already
exist in this field. We just need qualified workers. Without the staff
needed, our investments in health IT will do little to meet the
potential of this field. That is why I am happy to see the provisions
of the 10,000 Trained by 2010 Act, a bill that I introduced, are
included as part of this legislation. My legislation helps train
individuals in health IT, and provides the seed corn to create the jobs
of our new economy in a field that will help curb the cost of health
care for years to come. I urge my colleagues to support the provision
and the legislation.
Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think when I yielded time earlier in the
day, I shortchanged the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords) by 5
minutes. I would like to yield an additional 5 minutes of my time to
her.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman will control an additional 5 minutes of
the time.
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009.
We are entering a new era of job creation through science, research,
and technology, and this bill makes timely targeted investments to
create high-quality jobs, strengthen American

[[Page 1692]]

competitiveness, and improve access to clean affordable energy.
The bill allocates funds to the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, which is in my congressional district in Maryland, for
competitive construction grants for research science buildings at
colleges, universities, and other research organizations and to
coordinate research efforts of laboratories and national research
facilities by setting standards for manufacturing.
The bill also allocates funds to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration to put more scientists to work doing climate change,
important climate change research, including earth science recommended
by the National Academies, satellite sensors that measure solar
radiation critical to understanding climate change.
I am proud that this bill includes $10 billion for science research
facilities and instrumentation, to focus American brain power and
education on solving the energy and climate challenges.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. GIFFORDS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. This is an investment for the 21st century.
It is for our children, it is for our grandchildren. I applaud Chairman
Gordon and the House leadership for making these investments, and I
urge my colleagues to support this bill. This is about the future.
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Tonko).
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I represent the capital region of New York
State, an area which, led by Thomas Edison, pioneered a revolution in
electricity which changed our society a century ago. I believe it is
with that spirit that we look to take bold action with the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
This package contains some $4 billion for job training, which is
essential to preparing the American workers to compete for the jobs of
the future. It also contains $2 billion for alternative energy
research, and $11 billion to develop and build the next generation
energy grid. These are crucial investments that will create high-paying
jobs right now and make our country more secure and energy efficient
into the future.
In these difficult economic times, we must not forget our commitment
to our children and grandchildren. The stimulus bill will provide over
$140 billion to make sure that our education system can move forward
into the 21st century. We must act now and boldly to move our country
in the right direction and to provide relief for our overburdened
working families.
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time we have
remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri).
Mr. BOCCIERI. Mr. Chairman, the people of Ohio's 16th district
elected me to fight for them and their tax dollars. The American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act is about putting America first. It is
about investing in our country. Some on the other side didn't bat an
eye when they voted to use American tax dollars to rebuild Iraq,
spending billions on new roads and bridges there. There was no outrage
during those spending days.
Our people are hurting. Our people are struggling and asking us for
leadership. It is time to put partisanship aside. In this time of great
need, investing in our schools, our roads, our bridges is about making
America stronger. Ohio will receive a much-needed economic boost with
these resources, and we will invest in the future of our country. Ohio
needs the estimated $1.5 billion in infrastructure improvements to help
create jobs. Creating jobs in alternative energy like fuel cells or
plug-in hybrids being researched in my district will move us away from
the dependence on foreign oil. This bill will help America innovate and
invest in the jobs of tomorrow.
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Peters).
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1. This recovery
package supports the development of new, advanced vehicle technologies
that will lower emissions, improve fuel economy, and create new jobs
across the country. This bill includes $2 billion to build new
manufacturing facilities for the kinds of advanced vehicle batteries
and battery components that will power the next generation of vehicles.
We are facing a global credit crisis, and auto companies around the
world are struggling. Foreign governments are taking dramatic steps to
help their own auto companies. If we are going to ensure the next
generation of green manufacturing jobs are created here in the United
States, we have to invest now in these advanced technologies. This bill
helps ensure that we do not trade our dependence on foreign oil for a
dependence on foreign batteries and other technologies.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is good for Michigan and
it is good for America. I urge its passage here today.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton).
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so-
called stimulus bill for a number of reasons, both process and
procedural. On the process, we had 1 day to consider 270 pages of text
in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Five Republican amendments were
accepted during the markup; three of those five were stricken from the
bill before it came to the floor, and the fourth one, which is in the
bill, is in the bill in a different form than which it was agreed upon
during the negotiations during the markup. I don't think that is really
good form.
On the substance of the bill, most of the Energy and Commerce title
is really social program policy and spending. It may be good, but it is
not stimulative in and of itself in terms of what we are here to do.
There is one title in the energy section which I think my friends on
the majority side need to know about; it is something called
decoupling. It gives a utility the right to petition a State that if
the consumers in that State do all these energy efficient measures and
they decrease their use of electricity, by decoupling what the
consumers pay for it the utility has a revenue guarantee: Use less, pay
more. I mean, as insane as that sounds, it is in this bill. I offered
an amendment to strike that from the bill in the committee and it was
on a party line vote rejected. Every Democrat voted to keep that in the
bill; every Republican voted to remove it.
So if this actually becomes law, if a governor of a State acts
positively on a petition from a utility in that State, the utility can
decouple what it charges your voters for what you pay for electricity
regardless of how much you use. If somebody cuts their electricity use
20 percent, they pay the same. Now, I don't know about most voters, but
I know my voters, if they conserve and consume less electricity, they
want to pay less; but under this bill, they are going to pay more. How
is that stimulative to the economy? I think that is actually
destructive of the economy.
So, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, while there is some good in
this bill, there is so much that is really not stimulative, and there
is some stuff that is just really harmful that we should vote ``no.''
There is one other thing. Under this bill, they struck the amendment
by Mr. Stearns that says if a millionaire wants to get on COBRA and get
his health care paid for two-thirds of the premium, he has got to prove
that he is not a millionaire, that he doesn't have income and he
doesn't have assets. They accepted that on a voice vote in the
committee, but they struck it out. So there is no income test, there is
no means test. Basically, Mr. Madoff, who just defrauded billions and
billions of dollars, is going to be eligible for COBRA assistance under
this bill. Vote ``no.''

[[Page 1693]]

Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I now yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As a Representative from the State of Arizona, the State that is the
most abundant State in terms of sunshine, I would like to take the
remainder of the time to talk about my support for solar power.
A strong solar power industry is going to create good jobs, it is
going to increase our competitiveness internationally, and it is also
going to help us reduce the threat of climate change. This form of
renewable energy is going to be good for our economy, it is absolutely
going to create much-needed jobs, and it is really going to focus on
that next 21st century economy. It is going to really focus on our
future. So I am pleased that this legislation includes some solar
investments such as research and basic science, basic energy science,
as well as applied research and development. The bill also includes
critical funding for critical research into advanced transmission and
energy storage technologies, what Representative Peters from Michigan
spoke of earlier.
Innovation in these two areas is essential to unlocking solar power's
full potential. But that is not all that is included in this bill. We
also are looking at language that contains critical financial
incentives to support the development of solar power generating
facilities. These provisions offer direct grants to qualified renewable
energy products in lieu of the investment tax credits, also known as
the ITC.
In the current economic downturn, the ITC cannot achieve its full
potential, because many entities that would like to invest in solar
power do not have taxable income. Therefore, this grant program is
essential.
Unfortunately, the grant programs application is limited. It falls
short of supporting large-scale solar projects with long lead times. We
have seen many of these projects proposed throughout the Southwest and
in other areas. That is why I have offered an amendment to expand this
provision to include the large solar projects with the greatest
potential to boost our economy. They are going to maximize job
creation, foster greater investments and dramatically expand the amount
of power our Nation gets from solar energy.
So as this bill moves forward, I urge the House and Senate to
consider this amendment. We have this opportunity to take advantage and
facilitate large and small scale projects. I would like us to help
achieve President Obama's goal of doubling our Nation's renewable power
capacity over the next 3 years. We are looking at 40,000 new jobs and
$8 billion in investment. This is exactly the kind of bold action our
Nation needs.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the
chairwoman of the Small Business Administration, now controls 5 minutes
of the time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in support of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009, which will help restore stability to our weakened economy and
drive growth within the small business community.
Mr. Chairman, in a recent hearing my committee met an entrepreneur,
Thomas Rankin, whose 83-year-old family business, Ramer Lumber, had
managed to weather the great Depression but wasn't able to survive the
current downturn. This past November, his business closed its door for
good.
All across the country, countless small business firms are facing the
same fate. Recovery efforts enacted last fall have not trickled down to
Main Street. From Mom and Pop restaurants to technology startups, small
firms of every kind are suffering. What we need now are solutions that
work for entrepreneurs. After all, they are the ones that are promoting
growth and they are the ones with a proven track record of creating
jobs.

{time} 1945

But, unfortunately, a combination of restrictive lending and
tightening credit has stunted small business growth, preventing
entrepreneurs from playing their historic role of economic catalyst.
The Recovery and Reinvestment Act will help turn the tide. To begin
with, $30 billion in targeted tax measures would allow struggling
startups to stay afloat. For example, the bill will repeal the
burdensome 3 percent withholding requirement for government contractors
and allow for enhanced expensing for small businesses' purchases. For
cash-strapped entrepreneurs, these initiatives could make the
difference between meeting payroll and making layoffs.
The Recovery and Reinvestment Act also promises to thaw frozen small
business lending and increase guaranties for new loans. At the same
time, it will reopen the secondary market which has ground to a halt.
Taken all together, these initiatives will put $13 billion into the
hands of small businesses immediately, allowing entrepreneurs to do
what they do best, create jobs. Small business lending provisions
within the Recovery and Reinvestment Act will keep and create over
400,000 jobs. And at the end of the day, that is what small businesses
do best, create jobs.
With unemployment at a 16-year high, let's not kid ourselves. There
can be no recovery without job creation. That is why it is so critical
that entrepreneurs have the resources they need to not just survive the
downturn but to emerge from it stronger and ready to bring our economy
back on track.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to say thank you to my
colleagues who are joining me on the floor to fight this stimulus bill
that we have before us. Actually, using ``stimulus'' on this piece of
legislation is an incorrect term, because when we look at this, what we
have learned today is primarily that this is just another spending
bill.
I find it so interesting. I don't know if my colleagues have had the
opportunity to look at what the information we've had from the
Congressional Budget Office, the CBO. And I know time and again, when
we were in the majority, you all would take the CBO figures as the
gospel. So it's a little bit of a head scratcher to us. You want to say
you have a stimulus bill. But it's a spending bill. It's going to cost
$1.1 trillion when you add the interest. But, interestingly enough, Mr.
Chairman, that money doesn't go into the economy quickly. And I think
that is what our constituents are so interested to learn.
Out of this $836 billion, and you add the interest in and you are at
$1.16 trillion, now, $92 billion of that is released within the next 12
months. That is 2009 money. And then in 2010 you get another $225
billion, and in 2011 you get $159 billion.
Well, Mr. Chairman, ``stimulus'' means something immediate that is
targeted, that is focused and that is going to address a problem. And
we don't see that in this piece of legislation.
It is more spending on top of more spending. It is $50 million for
the National Endowment for the Arts. It is $16 billion for Pell Grants.
It is $2.1 billion for Head Start. It is $200 million for the National
Mall. That is not stimulus.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. That is not stimulus. That is government spending.
That is growth of government problems. If you want to stimulate the
economy, reduce taxes and leave money with the taxpayers, pay attention
to small business and listen to their needs.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, the Democrats in Congress are building a
``Bridge to Bankruptcy'' for a lot of small businesses, for a lot of
American families and for the U.S. government.
I urge my colleagues to stand strongly against H.R. 1.

[[Page 1694]]

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from
Illinois (Mrs. Halvorson).
Mrs. HALVORSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairwoman
Velazquez for the opportunity to speak on this matter of utmost
importance to the American people. Nothing is more critical at this
moment in time than creating jobs. Days ago I learned that an important
employer in my district is cutting 20,000 jobs. This is terrifying news
to many of my constituents because each lost job forces a family to
make difficult decisions. Health insurance becomes more difficult to
maintain. College costs become more overwhelming. Mortgage payments
become impossible to meet. It's clear we must act decisively,
immediately, and on a scale that is bold, innovative and that will
create new jobs to grow our economy.
It's critical that we invest in American infrastructure, including
schools, energy, technology and small businesses. The American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act will do exactly that.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York has 1 minute remaining.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, as a result of restricting lending and
vanishing credit, small firms spanning every sector are folding at
alarming rates. This is particularly troubling because they comprise 95
percent of American industry and employ half of the private sector
workforce.
When these businesses disappear, so do many millions of American
jobs. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act offers an opportunity
to keep the jobs we still have and to create hundreds of thousands
more. Just as importantly, it is an investment in our Nation's
entrepreneurs, the people creating jobs, driving innovation and
strengthening the backbone of our economy.
I urge the adoption of this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) controls
the next 5 minutes.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we can debate this bill endlessly tonight, but no one
can contest this point, this fact; we are in the midst of the greatest,
longest and deepest recession since the Great Depression.
The question before us is simply this: Will we act, act now and act
boldly in an effort to restore our economy to a healthy status, or will
we run the risk that this recession will become even deeper and longer?
Now, I know that some doubt or disdain the steps taken so far by the
government. Let me say up until a week ago that government was the Bush
administration. I know that some question whether or not these steps
have done any good. But let's go back to September and October. We
witnessed a complete collapse of confidence in the global financial
system and a wrenching credit crunch for corporate and consumer
borrowers both. The spread between the 3-month LIBOR, the London
Interbank Lending Rate, and 3-month Treasuries, which is a proxy for
the willingness of banks to lend money, reached 360 basis points, 3.6
percent. Many feared, with good reason, that we would soon be in a
cash-and-carry economy.
We passed the bill which provided additional liquidity. It hasn't
accomplished all we hoped it would. But the spread that I just
mentioned has fallen from 360 basis points to 100 basis points, still
double the normal spread, but that is a big improvement and one clear
indication that government actions have produced some good effect.
Sure, they are not lending as much as we would like. Financing for
consumer durables like autos and homes is not where we'd like it to be.
But we are a lot better off than we would have been if the government
had not intervened.
Now, I know some recoil at the enormous costs we are incurring. And
I'll be frank with you, I find it stunning. $825 billion. But the cost
of doing nothing is not zero. Far from it. What is the cost of doing
nothing? Well, the CBO tells us that the cost of doing nothing, nothing
tonight, nothing further, could be as much as a 2.2 percent contraction
in GDP over 2009, the current year, and an unemployment rate climbing
to 9 to 10 percent. Other forecasters predict even worse. We had
several before our committee today. Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.Com
forecasted today a 3.4 percent contraction in the economy in 2009 with
unemployment soaring to 11 percent next year.
Still people say, well, why does the government need to respond? Why
can't we let this recession, like others in the past, run its course
and self-correct? Well, our economy is up against some major head
winds. Consumers have cut spending because their principal asset, their
home, has plummeted in value by 20 percent, and some say it may go 20
percent more before we reach a reasonable trend line. There are huge
overhangs in the real estate market. Real estate may have led us out of
past recessions, but not this one. Nor will automotives. If anything,
they are in deeper doldrums. With credit shrinking and retail sales
falling, it is unlikely that the manufacturing sector will step up the
production of goods for which there is little market. Finally, with the
Fed fund rates at virtually zero, monetary policy is at the end of its
tether.
What is left, if we were to do something, if we were to intervene, if
we were to restore health to our economy? A major fiscal response by
the government is the only viable option left on the table.
Now, what could a $825 billion stimulus bill accomplish? CBO
forecasts an economy in 2009 or GDP equal to $14.2 trillion if we don't
act. That is an economy operating at 6.8 percent less than its
reasonable capacity, its potential. CBO predicts the same for 2010. My
friend, that is a gap of nearly $1 trillion in potential production,
goods and services that people in this country could enjoy and use, $1
trillion a year if we don't act.
According to CBO, the recovery bill will raise output between 1.3
percent and 3.6 percent by the end of this year. If we take the middle
of that range, 2.5 percent, that is an additional $350 billion worth of
goods and services purchased which businesses will then generate into
several million badly-needed jobs.
A recovery bill that invests in America and begins to repair our
stock of capital will yield dividends down the road. If investing in
our schools, our children, our workforce, our roads, our bridges, our
ports, our schools, our waterways, our transit and our scientific and
technological base did not produce solid economic returns, how would
our Nation have ever emerged to lead the world.
I urge everyone to support H.R. 1, the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs.
Bachmann).
Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding and for the fine work that he is doing on these moments that
we have together.
One guarantee that we do have from the stimulus bill that we can
count on, that we can take to the bank, on which there will be no
disagreement and no dissent is this: If we pass this $825 billion
stimulus tomorrow, and it seems to be a certain thing because the
majority has the votes, and if we add to that the debt service which
would be over $300 billion added on top of that, bringing us to a total
of over $1.1 trillion, the certainty, the guarantee that we will take
to the bank, that we will need to look at the American people straight
in the eye and be four square honest in telling them is this: You will
encounter punishingly high tax increases at every level of the economic
spectrum. It's a given. We have to.
Why can we say this with certainty? Because someone has to pay this
bill. When you go out to eat, the check comes and someone has to pay
for it. Maybe a nice person at the other table will pay for your check.
But at the end of the day, someone is paying that check. And it's the
American people that are paying for this party.

[[Page 1695]]

Make no mistake. This stimulus bill has very little to do with
stimulating the economy and helping the average American. This is a
bailout for big government. And let's get ready. We are looking at
massive tax increases and we are looking at massive inflation or both.
In fact, we could be looking at hyperinflation.
I don't want to be ``Debbie Downer'' bringing bad news to the
American public, but it's a certainty. If you spend money at this
level, and consider we are spending almost as much money on this
stimulus bill as we will spend in our discretionary spending, take it
to the bank. That is our future.
Mr. Chairman, the legislation under consideration today will saddle
generations of taxpayers with hundreds of billions of dollars of debt
and will, I fear, not lead this country to real economic recovery.
The Democrats' bill has a starting price of $825 billion--enough
money to give every person living in poverty in the United States
$22,000.
In fact, the total cost of this one piece of legislation is almost as
much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire Federal
Government.
To make matters worse, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) estimates that the real cost of the legislation will be more than
$1 trillion.
CBO reports that if Congress borrows more than $800 billion, it will
burden future generations with an additional $347 billion in interest
payments. That totals more than $1.1 trillion.
And, regrettably, that total includes frivolous spending on items
such as $600 million for new cars for the Federal Government and $21
million for sod to fill in the mall after the inauguration.
We must not forget our responsibility to the taxpayer simply because
we label something a crisis or even a response to a crisis.
The Democrats' have tried to sell this proposal as a transportation
and infrastructure investment package. And, I'm all for investing in
rebuilding our Nation's roads and bridges and believe that government
spending on transportation infrastructure projects is absolutely
important.
However, only $30 billion of the bill--or three percent--is for road
and highway spending. And, CBO states that much of this spending will
take several years to make any stimulative impact.
My constituents understand that we cannot spend our way to prosperity
and that serious consequences lie ahead if Congress goes down this
irresponsible borrow-and-spend path.
What the American people really need are long-term, permanent tax
cuts which will impact families twice as fast as the Democrats'
government spending in this bill. These tax cuts will spur job creation
and help stabilize the economy over the long run.
I support much-needed, incentive-based relief for small businesses,
the job-creators and the backbone of our economy, and I believe we must
reduce the financial burden that the Federal Government imposes on
middle-class families.
I'm a cosponsor of the Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief
Act, which is a real economic recovery plan that has NO welfare
spending, NO pork-barrel spending, and NO bailouts.
This package would immediately inject private capital into our
economy and at the same time, it would lay the groundwork for sustained
economic growth.
It includes a permanent 5 percent across-the-board income tax cut. It
increases, and makes permanent, the child tax credit to $5,000 and
makes the lower 15 percent capital gains and dividends rates permanent.
It repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, on individuals--a
punitive and outdated relic of a tax which will hit more than 30
million people in 2009.
It permanently repeals required distributions on retirement accounts
and makes all withdrawals from IRAs tax- and penalty-free during 2009.
And, it increases by 50 percent the tax deduction on student loans and
on qualified higher education expenses.
These are just some of the key initiatives of this legislation.
We have seen the mistakes of tax-and-spend government policies in the
past and know that they will not lead to long-term economic growth and
recovery.
We must implement real, permanent tax relief for American families
and stop this Washington spending spree that will burden many
generations to come.

{time} 2000

Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Walden).
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this spending
bill that is before us.
I spent 12 hours in the Energy and Commerce Committee where we marked
up our portion of this legislation, and I think there were some real
amazing things in this bill that maybe some people on this floor don't
know about. I was going to ask the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs.
Halvorson) about it because she mentioned insurance. In here is a
provision for the taxpayers in my district who are still working to
support insurance payments up to 65 percent for those who may lose
their jobs.
In the Energy and Commerce Committee, we passed an amendment in a
bipartisan way to say that millionaires who made a million bucks last
year, you don't have to have my taxpayers support your COBRA payments.
Unfortunately, somewhere along the mystical way that this bill came to
the floor, that bipartisan amendment got stripped out. So now you could
be Madoff, I suppose, and get your COBRA paid for.
There is a recoupling provision in here on energy that I think is one
of the most perverse things I have ever heard of; that if my
constituents invest in energy conservation in their homes to reduce
their energy consumption, which is good for the environment and good
for their wallets, if you vote for this, you are going to vote to say
the utility companies can raise their rates to make up the lost
revenue. So this puts utility company revenues ahead of consumers in
States, Massachusetts, Oregon, the other 48 States and the territories.
You are going to encourage them on the one hand to conserve on energy,
and on the other hand you are going to grant this new authority so the
utility companies can raise their electricity or gas rates.
This is an enormous borrowing bill. This is making the Federal
Government the next subprime lender. Why else is it for the first time
I believe in our country's history there is now an insurance product
available on U.S. securities? Why? Because people are starting around
the world to say we are not so sure about America.
I am trying to figure out, and maybe the gentleman on the other side
of the aisle can answer, who is going to loan us this money? Have we
ever gone to the market for $2 trillion to $3 trillion?
The CHAIR. The Chair understands the gentleman from Michigan is the
remaining speaker on this side. The gentleman from Wisconsin has the
right to close.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, we have one remaining speaker in addition to
myself.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have two remaining speakers on this side.
First, I would like to redesignate the time previously allocated to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to the gentlewoman
from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) of the Education and Labor
Committee, 2 minutes.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This legislation is necessary
to rebuild our economy. Like other States, my State of New Hampshire
has been hit hard by the Nation's economic crisis. Our unemployment
rate has risen, foreclosures have increased, and the State is facing a
very serious budget shortfall.
Over the past few weeks, I have traveled throughout my district
talking to local officials, business owners, and other constituents. In
each meeting I have attended, the main theme is the same:
infrastructure and jobs, infrastructure and jobs.
In Dover, we talked about the need to replace some of the water and
sewer piping of a system that has been in existence since the late 19th
century.
In Portsmouth, we discovered the need to invest in the water
treatment plant to guarantee safe drinking water into the future.
In Manchester, the largest city in New Hampshire, I heard from the
board of aldermen about the crucial need for transportation funding.
In North Conway, I heard from town officials whose projects were not
only

[[Page 1696]]

necessary for public safety, but were forward-thinking, incorporating
green energy technology.
The infrastructure investments in this bill are essential for the
current and future health of our economy. We cannot fund every worthy
project, but we will create and save jobs in New Hampshire and across
the Nation.
I am very hopeful that these funds, like the investment that was made
in Dover more than a century ago, will be used to make investments and
infrastructure improvements that will leave real, meaningful and
lasting results for our communities. After all, we are borrowing money,
money that future generations of Americans will have to pay back. I
hope that they will be able to see tangible benefits for their money.
So many Americans families are hurting. We must not only acknowledge
their pain, we must help them recover. This package will help them
recover. This package will help America recover. I urge my colleagues
to support this bill.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Roe).
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
enormous economic stimulus package. To put its size in perspective,
one-tenth of 1 percent of the stimulus would solve Tennessee's State
budget deficit.
To quote one of my favorite baseball philosophers, Yogi Berra, if you
don't know where you're going, you might end up someplace else. I think
with this bill we are going to end up someplace else.
We know that this spending is enormous. The question is, is it going
to work? This past week the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
cast doubt on whether this is going to be effective when it said only 7
percent of the plan's infrastructure spending would be spent by the end
of the first fiscal year, and only 65 percent of the total package
would be spent by 2010. I as a previous mayor support infrastructure
spending.
Even more troubling for taxpayers is where their money is going. We
were about to spend $50 million on the National Endowment of the Arts.
Whatever one believes about spending taxpayer dollars on the arts,
shouldn't we all be able to agree it should not be done when the
country is facing a trillion dollar deficit and that it is not economic
stimulus.
Until it was exposed, this so-called economic stimulus bill was
spending millions on birth control.
People back in Tennessee are adapting to this troubling economic
climate by tightening their belts and clamping down on unnecessary
spending, and so they are understandably upset that the Federal
Government's reaction is exactly the opposite. They are amazed that we
preparing to spend an additional $825 billion of their money after a
$700 billion bailout was spent without anybody being able to give a
straight answer as to where the money went. They are skeptical of the
results we are getting, and so am I. An economic stimulus project
should fund projects that stimulate the economy, create jobs with long-
term economic growth, not as a short-term fix.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, the American people have been paying for
the Republicans' party for the last 8 years. It is time now to get back
to America's middle class. I rise in support of this economic recovery
plan. It is a bold plan. It creates jobs and moves to long-term growth.
We must act now to help a middle class hit hard by job insecurity,
stagnant wages, rising health care costs, and a financial market in
crisis. We have an urgent responsibility to invest wisely, target
limited resources to proven initiatives that we know will boost
employment, support economic growth, and provide critical relief.
That means expanding eligibility of the child tax credit by reducing
the threshold from $12,000 to zero. Over 16 million children would
benefit. It means child care, Head Start, a serious infusion of
resources to No Child Left Behind, and IDEA, investing in our long-term
growth so future generations can compete. There is $40 billion for
infrastructure funding, transit funding, additional billions for water,
housing and school projects to put Americans back to work at a time
when we are facing staggering unemployment.
We need to put the resources in the hands of people most likely to
spend them quickly. There is $100 billion in unemployment benefits and
job training, $27 billion for rural development through health care,
public safety services, and an additional $150 million for the
Emergency Food Assistance Program, supporting food banks stretched thin
by rising food prices and surging demands.
Anyone looking for immediate and significant impact need look no
further than Food Stamps, which generate $1.73 in new economic activity
for every dollar invested.
This bill provides $20 billion to increase the Food Stamp benefit
which could reach 14 million households less than a month after the
bill is enacted. Leading economists have said that increasing Food
Stamps is one of the most efficient ways to prime the economy's pump,
and it also helps part-time workers.
No investments are more critical than those we have to make in human
capital. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, our economy is in a recession and we must act. The
question, however, is what action do we take. The President has
directly challenged us to put aside partisanship and find an American
solution.
I was pleased to meet with the President today and ask about
including new provisions in this bill. Frankly, what we saw from the
President today was a greater effort to reach out to Republicans than
we have seen from the House majority.
Mr. Chairman, the American people know we cannot spend our way to
prosperity. What was once an $825 billion ``stimulus'' bill has now
grown to be $1.1 trillion.
The American people know that adding $1.1 trillion to the deficit for
new spending on old government programs will not create jobs. They know
small businesses create jobs, not the Federal Government. And they know
families can better manage their budgets than the Federal Government.
So as we go through this debate, we will point out some very simple
facts about how effective Federal spending is versus tax cuts in
creating real private sector job growth.
Just yesterday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released
its review of the spending in the House Democrats' proposed ``economic
stimulus'' legislation. This CBO review confirms what Republicans have
been saying all along: the Democrat package won't stimulate the economy
now when it needs it most.
The primary reason is, the Democrat plan relies too heavily on slow
government spending initiatives, not tax cuts to do the job. As seen in
the chart next to me, even the Democrat stimulus bill proves tax cuts
impact families and the economy twice as fast as government spending.
CBO went on to say reductions in Federal taxes would have most of
their effects in 2009 and 2010, but purchases of good and services,
either directly or in the form of grants to States and local
government, would take several years to complete.
Worse yet, CBO expects that the rate of spending in 2009 would be
considerably slower than historical rates of spending, and many of the
larger projects initiated would take up to 5 to 7 years to complete.
The bottom line is this, Mr. Chairman: The nonpartisan CBO confirms
that tax cuts get more money into the hands of American families and
our economy faster than government spending. The American people know
that tax cuts are a better way to stimulate the economy than borrowing
money from China just to increase Federal spending and raise the
Federal deficit.
If the Speaker was interested in answering the President's call to
reach a bipartisan American solution to this

[[Page 1697]]

crisis, she would work with Republicans to increase tax relief for
every working American.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this has been in many ways a very sad debate. We face
the prospect of economic collapse. We certainly face the worst economic
crisis in our lifetime. We have been asked by the President to pass
legislation that will try to put people back to work by repairing
schools, by building roads, by developing modern energy grids, and by
making broadband available to rural America. We have been asked to
invest in science and technology to make our economy more efficient and
more productive and more conducive to job growth. And we have been
asked to invest money to make our health care system less costly and
more efficient and more open to more people.

{time} 2015

We've also been asked to provide assistance to people who have lost
their jobs through unemployment insurance, and by helping them to meet
the cost of education, especially college.
And we've also been asked to take actions to help stabilize State and
local budgets so that while we try to expand the economy at the
national level we aren't shrinking the economy at the State level
through unfortunate State tax increases or service cutbacks. That's
what we're trying to do.
This is serious business. And yet when you look at much of the debate
that we had today, you would think that we were playing a game of
Trivial Pursuit. We've had at least 10 Members of this body on the
other side of the aisle focus on the really big picture by complaining
about the fact that there is a $50 million appropriation for the arts
or, can you imagine, because we have the temerity to want to try to
repair the Jefferson Monument to prevent the plaza on the Mall from
sinking into the Tidal Basin. It is really sad, indeed.
I wonder why it's come to this. And then I recall a statement by a
member of the House Republican leadership in which he advised his
caucus members to deal with their minority status by behaving like a
thousand mosquitos and apparently inflicting mosquito bites on the
majority.
We've had a lot of Republican talk about bipartisanship, which was
welcomed; but yet before President Obama even was able to appear before
the Republican Caucus today we are told in newspaper stories that one
of the key leaders in the Republican Caucus advised their Caucus even
before the President came----
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 2 minutes.
And yet we're told that the Republican Caucus was advised to vote
against this bill by one of their leaders.
I think the public will see through this. It doesn't matter much what
we say to each other or how we talk to one another. It should, but
apparently it doesn't. All I can say is we have a serious job before
us. We have had many ideas expressed for many months, but the time for
talk is over. We need to make decisions. And right now, like it or not,
the only comprehensive package before us, the only balanced package
before us is the one being brought to us in this bill today. And I
would hope that tomorrow, when we vote on it, that there will be
significant bipartisan support for that package. I don't know if I have
any real expectations that will occur or not, but I would certainly
like to think so.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I would like to address H. Res.
88, the rule providing for consideration of the ``American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009'' and the bill itself. I believe the H. Res.
88 can be supported by every Member of the House.
Mr. Chair, just yesterday the Associated Press reported that tens of
thousands of Americans will be losing their jobs. This news was on top
of the 2.6 million jobs lost last year under the old Bush
Administration. Some of the biggest names in industry have announced
layoffs yesterday, from Sprint Nextel, Caterpillar, Home Depot, to GM,
all of these companies have announced thousands of layoffs.
Experts believe that without intervention, unemployment will rise to
8.8 percent, the highest since 1983, and it is reported that the worst
business conditions in greater than 20 years will exist.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will result in infusing
greater than $850 billion into America's ailing economy. With this
economic recovery plan, there will be 4 million more jobs and an
unemployment rate that will be 2 percentage points lower by the end of
2010. Moreover, H. Res. 88 provides for unprecedented accountability
and transparency measures that are built into the legislation to help
ensure that tax dollars are spent wisely. $550 billion is strategically
targeted to priority investments; $275 billion in targeted tax cuts
will also help spur economic recovery. All of these laudable aims are
achieved without earmarks. This Act represents the culmination of
priorities shared with the new Obama administration and is sure to help
America's economy in the long term.

AMENDMENTS

I would have offered the following four amendments to the underlying
bill, H.R. 1.

AMENDMENT 1

First, I would have offered several amendments that specifically
addressed the issue of funding for parklands, either rural or urban in
the bill. I would have made clear that the funding in the bill in Title
VIII does not preclude the use of the funding ``for the restoration,
creation, or maintenance of local and community parks, including urban
and rural parks.''
The inclusion of such language would make eminently clear the
Congress's intent to work on green spaces and the creation of green
jobs in a new America. This is a priority already articulated by the
present Obama administration and that would be appropriately mirrored
here in this legislation.

AMENDMENT 2

Second, I would have offered an amendment that allowed local parks
and recreation facilities to be provided with $125 million for
construction, improvements, repair or replacement of facilities related
to the revitalization of State and local parks and recreation
facilities under the Land and Water Conservation Act Stateside
Assistance Program, as amended (16 U.S.C. 4601(4)-(11)), except that
such funds shall not be subject to the matching requirements in section
4601-89(c) of that Act:

URBAN PARKS

For construction, improvements, repair, or replacement of facilities
related to the revitalization of urban parks and recreation facilities,
$100 million is made available under the Urban Park and Recreation
Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), except that such funds
shall not be subject to the matching requirements in section 2505(a) of
the Act: Provided that the amount set aside from this appropriation
pursuant to section 1106 of this Act shall not be more than 5 percent
instead of the percentage specified in such section and such funds are
to remain available until expended. Cities and counties meeting this
criterion would have to include the required distress factors as part
of their applications for funding.

AMENDMENT 3

The third amendment that I would have offered would have extended the
special rule regarding contracting under this bill to all sections of
the bill.
The special rule on contracting would provide that each local agency
that received a grant or money under this Act shall ensure, if the
agency carries out modernization, renovation, or repair through a
contract, the process for any such contract ensures the maximum number
of qualified bidders, including local, small, minority, women- and
veteran-owned businesses, through full and open competition.
This amendment is important because it ensures that qualified
bidders, including local, small, minority, women- and veteran-owned
businesses, participate in the process through full and open
competition. This would definitely create jobs and help these
communities.

AMENDMENT 4

A fourth amendment that I would have offered would have conditioned
the release of monies to the Department of Justice to prevent
prosecutorial misconduct. Specifically, the language would have
prevented the release of money to the Department of Justice unless the
State did not fund any antidrug task forces for that fiscal year or the
State had in effect State laws that ensured that:
(A) a person is not convicted of a drug offense unless the fact that
a drug offense was committed, and the fact that the person that
committed that offense, are each supported by separate pieces of
evidence other than the eyewitness testimony of a law enforcement
officer or an individual acting on behalf of a law enforcement officer;
and
(B) a law enforcement officer does not participate in an anti-drug
task force unless the

[[Page 1698]]

honesty and integrity of that officer is evaluated and found to be at
an appropriately high level.
While I did not formally offer these amendments, I believe that their
goals are no less aspirational and that these are indeed good ideas
that should be included.

Oberstar Amendments

AMENDMENT 1

Mr. Chair, I support, and I urge my colleagues to support two
amendments offered by Chairman Oberstar. First, I would urge my
colleagues to support Chairman Oberstar's amendment that any monies
appropriated under Title XII be used within 90 days or the use of such
funding will be forfeited. This so-called ``Use or Lose It'' amendment
addresses the issue of job creation and the necessity that the Nation
must act fast. It is believed that with the inclusion of this language
entities will act without delay for fear of forfeiting access to much
needed funds. These monies are critical for the renovation and
improvement of the Nation's transportation and infrastructure and must
be expeditiously used to ignite our transportation system across the
Nation. This infusement of capital into the Nation's transportation and
infrastructure will surely create jobs for Americans.

AMENDMENT 2

Similarly, I support Chairman Oberstar's amendment that would
authorize $9 billion for use for transportation and Infrastructure
development, creation, and renovation in America. Frankly, I would
support increasing the amount to $12 billion because the expansion of
the Nation's transportation and infrastructure is critically important
to the expansion of the economy and job creation. I urge my colleagues
to support this second amendment offered by Chairman Oberstar as well.
Mr. Chair, given the exigency of the situation and the Nation's
current economic crisis, I would urge this Committee and my colleagues
to move this bill quickly to the floor and act without delay. The
Nation is at a crossroads and is currently sitting in its nadir, as
some pundits would argue, the Nation's economy needs to be infused with
capital, critical infrastructure and development, and the American
people need to employed with real jobs. H.R. 1 does this. It creates
the development of infrastructure, provides Americans with jobs, and
tries to correct the economy. I am hopeful that this bill will help
alleviate the economic woes this country faces.
As the Obama Administration staked its campaign upon the idea of
change and won, I believe that America is ready for a change. We are
ready to be lifted from the doldrums of economic morass. We are ready
for real change that puts America, its economy, its innovation, and
entrepreneurial spirit back in its rightful place. I am hopeful and
confident that H.R. 1 does just that and places America back in the
spotlight as the sunbeam on the world stage. I strongly urge my
colleagues to act quickly and support H. Res. 88 as vigorously as I do.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to rise in
support of the package before the House today, which will help put our
country on a steady path toward economic recovery.
I want to thank all of the committees that have worked to put this
together, particularly the members of the Appropriations Committee and
its hardworking staff. As Chairman of the Homeland Security
Appropriations Subcommittee, I have tried to develop proposals Members
can support with confidence that they will help get our economy moving
while also making us safer.
We worked diligently to scrub this bill and to make sure that the
provisions that we've included would create jobs and put our economy in
a stronger position for the long haul.
The bill contains $1.1 billion in new homeland security investments.
We estimate that this will not only directly create thousands of jobs,
but will also contribute significantly to improving both security and
efficiency at our ports of entry and airports. This funding will
primarily accelerate critical investments that the House has repeatedly
voted for.
The recovery package contains $500 million to buy and install
Aviation Explosive Detection Systems and checkpoint screening systems
in the Nation's airports, improving security while helping speed the
flow of travelers through airports. A more efficient transportation
system will help grease the skids of our Nation's commerce. Funds will
be competitively awarded based on security risk.
$150 million is provided to replace and repair Customs and Border
Protection-owned land ports of entry at the top 10 facilities. This
will improve border security, facilitate travel and trade, and reduce
wait times. Once again, it will stimulate commerce by improving the
transport of goods.
The package also includes $150 million to enable the Coast Guard to
alter or remove hazardous bridges and make marine navigation safer and
more efficient.
$100 million is provided for non-intrusive inspection devices to
enhance security at seaports. These new devices will replace aging
cargo scanning systems to ensure that our security requirements do not
interrupt the flow of commerce.
Lastly, this recovery package extends aid to those hit hardest by the
recent economic crisis through FEMA's Emergency Food and Shelter
Program. $200 million is included to help local community organizations
provide food, shelter, and support services to the Nation's hungry,
homeless, and people in economic crisis. This will provide, among other
things, 1-month utility payments to prevent service cut-off, and 1-
month rent or mortgage assistance to prevent evictions or to help
people leave shelters. Funds will be distributed by formula based on
unemployment and poverty rates.
This funding has been carefully reviewed to ensure it will help the
most vulnerable among us, will create new jobs, can be obligated
quickly, will make our country safer, and will help improve economic
efficiency. I urge members to support these homeland security
investments and to vote for this economic recovery package.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chair, H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act is a critical first step to beginning what will be a long process
of recovering from our current economic crisis, the likes of which we
have not seen since the Depression of the 1930s. I am proud to be an
original cosponsor of this bill.
Our Nation has already lost 2 million jobs in the current recession,
and is expected to lose another 3-5 million in the coming year. The
bill before us targets priority investments in infrastructure,
education, health care, and energy in an effort to forestall those job
losses by creating or saving 3-4 million jobs.
While the need for this economic stimulus package is urgent, clear,
and compelling, we must also make sure that the money is spent wisely,
and that waste, fraud, and mismanagement of these funds is kept to an
absolute minimum. That is why this bill includes provisions that will
ensure an unparalleled level of oversight, transparency, and
accountability.
Over the past few years, Oversight Committee investigations have
uncovered waste and theft of government dollars on an unprecedented
scale. Stacks of one-hundred-dollar bills were loaded onto cargo planes
with forklifts and flown to Iraq--and nobody could say what happened to
the money. Billions were spent on Katrina contracts, with little to
show for it. When writing this bill, we worked with Chairman Obey so
waste and fraud is prevented from the beginning.
The bill will provide almost $210 million to agency Inspectors
General and $25 million to the Government Accountability Office to
ensure vigorous oversight of the programs and activities being funded
through this bill. It will fund auditors and accountants, and more
importantly, criminal investigators, to track the funds. The bill also
creates a Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board to review
management of the funds and provide early warnings of problems.
The bill requires an unprecedented level of transparency over the
announcement and award of contracts and grants through a special
Government Web site. Federal, State, and local officials will be
required to post this information. Governors and mayors will have to
certify that any investments funded with recovery act dollars are an
appropriate use of tax dollars. It is often said that sunshine is the
best disinfectant. This bill puts that sentiment to work in an
extraordinarily rigorous way.
In addition, the bill makes clear that Federal contracts awarded
using recovery act dollars must comply with the Federal acquisition
regulation and that fixed-price, competitively awarded contracts are
used to the greatest extent possible. This will ensure that the
taxpayer gets the best bang for the buck.
Contractors and other non-Federal employees are also afforded
whistleblower protections under this bill. This is critical, since they
are often our first line of defense against wasteful spending.
Mr. Chair, this bill is essential to jump-starting our economy and
providing sustained growth. But it does so in a way which will ensure
unprecedented accountability and transparency. I urge all Members to
support it.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chair, there is a crisis of confidence in our country.
Much of it related to the meltdown that has occurred within the
financial system.
But there is also an uncertainty on the part of everyday people
across this country about whether they will be able to maintain the
basics in their lives. They wonder if the bottom is going to fall out
from beneath their families.
People are worried about their jobs and whether they will be able to
meet the mortgage payment. This bill contains funds to create jobs by
building roads, sewers, a new

[[Page 1699]]

electric grid and other needed infrastructure. It also contains a tax
cut for 95 percent of working Americans.
People are worried about whether they'll have health insurance for
themselves and their families. This bill provides a 65 percent subsidy
for COBRA health care coverage for unemployed workers. There is another
provision that will allow people to qualify temporarily for Medicaid
until they find another job or alternative health care. It is estimated
that these two provisions will provide health insurance to more than 8
million people.
They are worried about the cutbacks they see happening in education
and how it will affect their kids. And they wonder if they will be able
to send their children to college. This bill contains funding for
States and school districts to prevent deep cuts in critical education
programs and modernize and repair schools. The bill also boosts Pell
grants by $500 to make college more affordable.
As much as anything, people are wondering whether the Federal
Government is going to take action to help them--or will the old
political divisions keep this Congress from taking effective action to
help people in their daily lives.
By passing this bill, we show that we will step up to the plate and
help address these concerns. This bill is a first step. Other steps
will be needed, but this recovery package is a good beginning. Vote for
the bill.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act.
With unemployment at its highest level in nearly 30 years, millions
of American are struggling to pay for basic necessities as food,
housing and health care, it is clear Congress must act.
In my district, our manufacturers have been hit hard by the crisis in
the auto industry; our tourism economy has taken a beating as fewer
Americans can afford to take a vacation; mining and forestry are
suffering as the demand and price for raw materials has plummeted.
Unemployment ranges from the national average of 7.2 percent in
Menominee County to 19 percent in Mackinac County. The Congress must
act.
This legislation is not perfect; it is not everything I would put
into an economic recovery legislation. Still, the Congress must act and
act without delay!
My staff and I have been contacted by dozens of local officials from
across Northern Michigan who have identified more than $360 million in
road, bridge, water infrastructure and construction projects that could
help jump start their local economies.
I expect only a portion of these projects may be funded--but Congress
must act.
While I have reservations about this legislation, Congress must act
to invest in the Americans who need a helping hand, not a hand out.
Michigan's unemployment rate is at 10.6 percent. We must act to
extend unemployment benefits to help 3.5 million Americans who have
exhausted their benefits.
We must act to increase food stamps to help 31 million Americans,
half of whom are children.
We must act to protect health insurance coverage for Americans who
have lost their jobs and are one illness or sickness away from
bankruptcy.
Mr. Chair, this bill is not perfect. But the needs of the millions of
Americans struggling through this deep recession demands the U.S.
Congress to act. We must act. I encourage all of my colleagues to join
me in supporting the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chair, I support the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act and the important first step it takes toward
reinvigorating our faltering economy. The bill invests critical dollars
in nearly all major industries and will create more than 4 million jobs
by the fourth quarter of 2010.
Over 300,000 jobs will be saved in Florida alone, reducing
unemployment by 2.4%.
The $102 billion investment in increased income support will go to
those families who are feeling the strains of financial pressure the
most, providing increases in unemployment benefits, food stamps and
COBRA healthcare.
Floridians can expect to see over $29.8 million directed to Head
Start, over $105 million directed to child care and development block
grants, over $13 million for low-income energy assistance, over $15
million for elderly nutrition programs, and nearly $9 million aimed for
preventative health services.
This will help us ensure that those who have fallen with the economy
won't be beaten down, but are given the protection and help they need
to get back up.
I am proud the bill provides $211 billion in aid to state and local
governments for vital services such as public education and law
enforcement.
My own state of Florida is grappling with significant fiscal
problems, due in large part to our foreclosure crisis, which has
resulted in shrinking tax revenue, declining property values and slow
retail sales.
I know that this federal aid to state and local governments will help
fill in the gaps, ensuring our children get the educational support
they need to compete on the global market. The bill provides over $654
million for grades K-12 and over $306 million for higher education
institutions to modernize, maintain and repair their facilities in
Florida.
The inclusion of the repeal of the 3% tax withholding on payments
made to vendors by government entities will also help stimulate our
economy, relieving small business and local governments from this
unfair and burdensome requirement. Tax cuts in the stimulus plan will
help those with the lowest incomes save more of their hard earned
dollars.
In Florida this means those from the lowest end of the scale to those
with middle incomes will see their taxes cut by more than 20% in 2009.
I am also pleased that the bill uses this opportunity to look
forward, investing in clean and renewable energy and green
infrastructure, to create jobs, reduce pollution and help to bring us
to a clean energy future.
Mr. Chair, I support this bill and urge its passage.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chair, I rise today to state for the record the
intent of the legislative language in the Special Rules section H.R.
1--American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Title V--Medicaid
Provisions, Section 5001, subsection (f) STATE INELIGIBILITY AND
LIMITATION.
The intent of this language is to ensure that states which had laws
directing reduced eligibility in their state plan or waiver on or
before July 1, 2008, not be deemed ineligible to receive the increased
FMAP that this bill provides, due to subsequent delays when
implementing those provisions. It was the case in Rhode Island that as
of July 1, 2008, state law directed and authorized the reduction of
eligibility in one group of beneficiaries. These provisions were not
finalized and fully effective until October 1, 2008 due to a delay in
the implementation of a new extension period for the waiver. The
language in this special rule allows states which encountered similar
delays to remain eligible for an enhanced FMAP in this Recovery and
Reinvestment Act.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairmen Waxman, Obey
and Rangel, for their leadership and to thank all of the Ranking
Members, Committee Members and Staff for this successful effort to
bring the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to the floor
today so that we may deliver it on schedule to the President's desk.
This bill, H.R. 1, will not only stimulate our economy, but will also
do much to heal our Nation.
As our president has promised, this bill provides an immediate
investment that will create jobs, but also does so with a look to the
future so that the jobs created, the infrastructure built, the stronger
healthcare system created, the technology that is expanded and the
training and education that is improved, not only provides jobs for
today but also those we need tomorrow. H.R. 1 will lay a strong
foundation upon which to create a more stable and vital economy and
will actually create savings in the future.
I am proud to support this bill for the very reason some on purely
political reasons oppose it.
I support it because it begins to move our country in a new and
better direction--one which once again supports children and working
families and begins to lift Americans out of poverty and to expand
access to quality, comprehensive and culturally and linguistically
appropriate healthcare to everyone regardless of race, ethnicity,
gender or geography.
As a physician and as the Chair of the CBC Health Braintrust, I am
pleased that this legislation makes the sound and much-needed health
and health care investments that many of us have been fighting for over
the past eight years.
This bill not only invests needed resources into Medicaid, with
increases for the Territories, it extends the period of COBRA coverage
to help Americans who have lost their jobs keep their health care
coverage and increases FMAP to bolster state economic recovery efforts,
but it also begins to modernize our health care system through the
widespread implementation of health information technology.
In H.R. 1 we finally begin to make prevention the priority it needs
to be--with 3 billion dollars going into a prevention and wellness
fund, 1.5 billion dollars going into modernizing and expanding health
care services in community health centers and we finally invest in the
diversification and expansion of our Nation's health workforce,
increasing the number of primary care physicians, nurses and other
health care personnel.

[[Page 1700]]

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I rise today to applaud a particular section
of the stimulus package that will have a profound impact on the
citizens of the District of Columbia. The hundreds of millions of
dollars in AIDS/HIV testing and prevention contained in the legislation
before us will assist an amazing organization in the District called
the Whitman Walker Clinic. When it is time to award these funds, I
strongly urge the Secretary of HHS and the Director of the CDC to look
favorably upon the Clinic's application.
The District of Columbia is facing an HIV/AIDS epidemic of untold
proportions. It is estimated that 1 in 20 citizens of the District now
have HIV or AIDS. This is one of the highest incidences in the Country
if not the highest compared to other major metropolitan areas.
The Whitman-Walker Clinic (WWC), a comprehensive primary care clinic
with centers of excellence in HIV/AIDS care and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual
and Transgender (LGBT) health care, has been providing healthcare and
supportive services to residents of the District of Columbia for 30
years. WWC is one of the largest nongovernmental HIV/AIDS medical and
service organizations in the metropolitan Washington area. The Clinic
provides a full spectrum of medical and support services to patients
residing in the District of Columbia metropolitan area through its two
District of Columbia sites: Elizabeth Taylor Medical Center (ETMC) and
Max Robinson Center (MRC).
The overall aim of WWC HIV/AIDS services is to improve health
outcomes of persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) by providing clients
with comprehensive and coordinated primary medical care; dental care;
HIV/AIDS specialty care; medical adherence case management; mental
health and addictions counseling and treatment; HIV education,
prevention, and testing; support groups; nutrition counseling; legal
services; and day treatment programs. The Clinic offers a comprehensive
continuum of HIV/AIDS-related medical, behavioral health, and social
services through our ``one-stop-shop'' approach to service delivery
where all client services are available and integrated at a single
location at each of our sites. The WWC ``one-stop shop'' approach
combined with a newly implemented Electronic Health Record (EHR)
enhances and ensures coordinated treatment, continuity of care,
confidentiality, and elimination of duplication of effort and/or
services. The co-location also allows better and more efficient access
to services for clients.
Among the many recent accomplishments of the Clinic are the four key
new services which advance care for HIV patients: (1) the addition of
an electronic health record (EHR) system; (2) the establishment of the
Medical Adherence Case Management Department; (3) implementing the
Public Benefits Department; (4) and implementing a new visit type: the
``Rapid HIV'' visit.
(1). The Electronic Health Record: WWC implemented an electronic
health record system, ``eClinicalWorks,'' in order to achieve
significant clinical and operational efficiencies that are needed to
support a high quality client/physician encounter. WWC EHR allows for a
complete multidisciplinary approach to health care. All clients of WWC
are established in our electronic health record (EHR) system in order
to track progress in an organized and efficient manner. This allows
physicians, mental health practitioners, nurse case managers, and other
providers to coordinate the care of that client, exchange information,
and communicate with each other in an efficient and trackable manner.
When we receive information from an outside health service, that
information is scanned into the patient's Clinic-based EHR. Similarly,
when we send out information to an external provider, a note is made in
the EHR as to the nature of the communication.
(2). Medical Adherence Case Management Department: The Medical
Adherence unit consists of Medical Adherence Case Managers and Medical
Adherence Care Coordinators. The Medical Adherence Case Managers, all
of whom are RNs, provide the following: barriers to care assessment,
care planning, disease process education, medication/treatment
management support, 24-hour support via pager and pillbox initiation.
The Medical Adherence Care Coordinators provide support by addressing
clients who no-show as well as: prescription refill reports and
followup, home visits, accompaniment to medical appointments, social
services as they relate to barriers to care (like emergency financial
assistance clinics, housing clinics, access to food and transportation)
and other elements as they relate to life skills for managing a healthy
lifestyle. This unit provides an immediate point of care for our new
clients, establishing the relationship from the minute they walk in the
door, or receive an HIV positive test result. WWC recognizes that for
many of our clients, access to food and transportation can be a huge
barrier to maintaining their medical care. Each staff person in Medical
Adherence will be trained in accessing resources available to assist
clients in these areas. The Medical Adherence Department also employs
two full-time referral coordinators who assist patients in securing
specialty and subspecialty appointments. For HIV-positive patients, the
Medical Adherence staff members, in conjunction with our physician
providers, pay close attention to identifying those patients at risk of
failing their treatment regimens.
(3). Public Benefits Department: As of October 1, 2008, all WWC
clients receive eligibility screening for public and private insurance
through our recently established Public Benefits department. This
screening and support service ensures that clients are able to identify
and apply for public insurance programs for which they qualify. By
thoroughly assisting clients in securing insurance, it also ensures
that Ryan White funds remain the payor of last resort. Public Benefits
Coordinators meet with all new HIV clients soon after they test
positive at the Clinic or seek care at the Clinic as a new patient with
previously diagnosed HIV. Potential patients will be asked to bring in
proof of residency and income. Public Benefits Coordinators then assist
potential patients in determining for what insurance programs they are
eligible and provide assistance in applying for benefits. Public
Benefits Coordinators, most of whom are bilingual (English/Spanish),
work closely with medical providers and the Medical Adherence Case
Management department to help clients overcome barriers such as a
medication they cannot afford, lack of insurance, denial of a service
by their public insurance, all to ensure easy access to the services
that they need. They guide clients through every step of the process
necessary to eliminating barriers to care related to payor source. Most
of the D.C. patients seen by WWC are ultimately deemed eligible for
payor programs such as Medicaid and DC Alliance.
(4). The ``Rapid HIV Visit'': The development of a ``Rapid HIV''
appointment type has allowed the Clinic to retain new HIV clients in
care. Through this system, all new HIV clients are seen by the Medical
Adherence Nurse Case Management team as well as by their primary
medical provider on the same day they test positive in one of our
facilities or seek care at WWC for their previously diagnosed HIV.
Medical Adherence Nurse Case Managers triage all new HIV clients and
initiate their care at WWC. WWC reserves several ``Rapid HIV'' visits
with providers for new HIV clients each day. Therefore, new HIV
patients are almost always able to meet with a provider the same day
they test positive or present to the Clinic as a new HIV patient.
Medical Adherence Case Managers provide post-testing counseling and
``HIV 101'' education to help patients understand their new diagnosis
and navigate their treatment options. For new patients, providers take
a full history, screen for mental health and/or substance abuse issues,
order HIV and other labs, and assess immunization and tuberculosis
status. Patients will also be given the opportunity to meet with the
Public Benefits Coordinators on that same day as well.
The Clinic offers expanded hours to accommodate clients who need
services outside of the traditional work day. ETMC hours are Monday
through Thursday from 8 am to 8 pm and Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. MRC
hours are Monday and Tuesday from 8 am to 8 pm and Wednesday, Thursday,
and Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. In addition to extended site hours, the
Clinic provides an afterhours on-call nursing line pager with physician
back-up for medical clients who may be experiencing a non-emergency
problem or need medical advice.
WWC clinics are well situated, geographically, to provide services to
underserved communities, including Blacks, recent immigrants, Latino/
as, and men who have sex with men (MSM). Services at both sites are
fully handicapped accessible and conveniently located on the Metro and
bus lines. ETMC is located in Ward 2 near the U-Street corridor, serves
an area of the city concentrated with Latinos, African Americans, MSM,
and where a significant number of people live below the poverty line.
MRC is located in Ward 8, serves residents of Wards 6, 7, and 8, and
residents east of the Anacostia River. Located in one of the city's
poorest neighborhoods, MRC is well positioned to outreach and serve
residents in Southeast, D.C., which is the area currently hardest hit
by the AIDS epidemic. WWC's MRC location facilitates access to
difficult to reach populations, such as IDUs, women with children, and
sex workers.
The funding that is made available in this legislation will help give
the necessary tools to the staff and volunteers of the Whitman-Walker
Clinic. I am told that the Clinic has major renovation and
infrastructure needs as well. Funding awarded by the Secretary of HHS
and the Director of the CDC will go a long way

[[Page 1701]]

to help identify and treat HIV/AIDs in the Nation's capital. Again, I
am thankful that this money is contained in this package and I
respectfully urge a favorable ruling on the Whitman-Walker's
application for funding.
Mr. HARE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
One week ago, President Obama called for bold and swift action to
address the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Millions
of jobs have been lost, homes have been foreclosed, and families have
been stretched to the limit. We must act now.
I join my colleagues to give the American people hope that better
days are ahead. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is a
downpayment on the investment of our future. It is the first vital step
in an intensive effort to reinvigorate our economy by focusing on JOBS,
JOBS, JOBS.
This bill will save and create three to four million jobs by
immediately putting people to work rebuilding our neglected roads and
bridges. Further, the legislation confronts our 21st Century energy
challenges by combating climate change and creating good-paying green
jobs that cannot be outsourced. The bill also provides funding for
education to ensure that every American has the ability to compete with
any foreign worker in the new global economy.
Additionally, the measure provides relief for those who lost their
jobs and will help struggling families make ends meet while the economy
recovers. In fact, if we do not pass this legislation the unemployment
rate is expected to explode to a staggering 12 percent.
This legislation must pass if we are to overcome the economic crisis.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Tierney, Chair of
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1)
making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation,
infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to
the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for fiscal
year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 1.
And while I'm at it, I want to express my understanding that
apparently an ice storm is on the way, and I appreciate the cooperation
we've had from both sides of the aisle in ending this debate a mite
early so that people can get to their homes before the ice storm hits.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair
will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules
on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which
the vote is objected to under clause 6 of rule XX.
Record votes on postponed questions will be taken tomorrow.

____________________

DTV DELAY ACT

Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Senate bill (S. 328) to postpone the DTV transition date, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``DTV Delay Act''.

SEC. 2. POSTPONEMENT OF DTV TRANSITION DATE.

(a) In General.--Section 3002(b) of the Digital Television
Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 (47 U.S.C. 309 note)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``February 18, 2009;'' in paragraph (1) and
inserting ``June 13, 2009;''; and
(2) by striking ``February 18, 2009,'' in paragraph (2) and
inserting ``that date''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 3008(a)(1) of that Act (47 U.S.C. 309 note) is
amended by striking ``February 17, 2009.'' and inserting
``June 12, 2009.''.
(2) Section 309(j)(14)(A) of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 309(j)(14)(A)) is amended by striking ``February
17, 2009.'' and inserting ``June 12, 2009.''.
(3) Section 337(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 337(e)(1)) is amended by striking ``February 17,
2009.'' and inserting ``June 12, 2009.''.
(c) License Terms.--
(1) Extension.--The Federal Communications Commission shall
extend the terms of the licenses for the recovered spectrum,
including the license period and construction requirements
associated with those licenses, for a 116-day period.
(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``recovered
spectrum'' means--
(A) the recovered analog spectrum, as such term is defined
in section 309(j)(15)(C)(vi) of the Communications Act of
1934; and
(B) the spectrum excluded from the definition of recovered
analog spectrum by subclauses (I) and (II) of such section.

SEC. 3. MODIFICATION OF DIGITAL-TO-ANALOG CONVERTER BOX
PROGRAM.

(a) Extension of Coupon Program.--Section 3005(c)(1)(A) of
the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of
2005 (47 U.S.C. 309 note) is amended by striking ``March 31,
2009,'' and inserting ``July 31, 2009,''.
(b) Treatment of Expired Coupons.--Section 3005(c)(1) of
the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of
2005 (47 U.S.C. 309 note) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(D) Expired coupons.--The Assistant Secretary may issue
to a household, upon request by the household, one
replacement coupon for each coupon that was issued to such
household and that expired without being redeemed.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3005(c)(1)(A) of the
Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005
(47 U.S.C. 309 note) is amended by striking ``receives, via
the United States Postal Service,'' and inserting
``redeems''.
(d) Condition of Modifications.--The amendments made by
this section shall not take effect until the enactment of
additional budget authority after the date of enactment of
this Act to carry out the analog-to-digital converter box
program under section 3005 of the Digital Television
Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005.

SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION.

(a) Permissive Early Termination Under Existing
Requirements.--Nothing in this Act is intended to prevent a
licensee of a television broadcast station from terminating
the broadcasting of such station's analog television signal
(and continuing to broadcast exclusively in the digital
television service) prior to the date established by law
under section 3002(b) of the Digital Television Transition
and Public Safety Act of 2005 for termination of all licenses
for full-power television stations in the analog television
service (as amended by section 2 of this Act) so long as such
prior termination is conducted in accordance with the Federal
Communications Commission's requirements in effect on the
date of enactment of this Act, including the flexible
procedures established in the Matter of Third Periodic Review
of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting the
Conversion to Digital Television (FCC 07-228, MB Docket No.
07-91, released December 31, 2007).
(b) Public Safety Radio Services.--Nothing in this Act, or
the amendments made by this Act, shall prevent a public
safety service licensee from commencing operations consistent
with the terms of its license on spectrum recovered as a
result of the voluntary cessation of broadcasting in the
analog or digital television service pursuant to subsection
(a). Any such public safety use shall be subject to the
relevant Federal Communications Commission rules and
regulations in effect on the date of enactment of this Act,
including section 90.545 of the Commission's rules (47 C.F.R.
Sec. 90.545).
(c) Expedited Rulemaking.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Federal Communications Commission and
the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration shall, not later than 30 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, each adopt or revise its rules,
regulations, or orders or take such other actions as may be
necessary or appropriate to implement the provisions, and
carry out the purposes, of this Act and the amendments made
by this Act.

SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF COMMISSION AUCTION AUTHORITY.

Section 309(j)(11) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 309(j)(11)) is amended by striking ``2011.'' and
inserting ``2012.''.

[[Page 1702]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Boucher) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.

General Leave

Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
the legislation now pending.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, today we take a highly regrettable, but necessary,
step and delay the date for the digital television transition from the
currently scheduled February 17 until June 12. With this delay, and the
additional funding for the program which the stimulus measure will
provide, we can assure a smooth transition and avoid the disruption and
the loss of television service by millions of American homes that
otherwise would occur.
Yesterday, the Nielsen service that surveys and reports on television
viewing in America reported that more than 6 million American
households that have over-the-air dependent analog television sets are
completely unprepared for the transition. Those homes will lose service
if analog broadcast ends on February 17. These 6 million homes do not
have cable or satellite subscriptions, they depend on the use of rabbit
ears or outdoor antennas in order to receive television service
delivered over the air.
More than 3 million applications for converter box coupons are
currently pending at the NTIA, and the program is currently out of
funds. These 3 million pending coupons, therefore, cannot be honored.
It's truly unfortunate that the situation that we now confront was
completely avoidable, but previous action to avoid it simply was not
taken. Many of us warned years ago, when the legislation setting the
February 17 DTV transition date passed, that the $1.34 billion set
aside for the coupon program for converter boxes was not sufficient. We
pointed out that there are 70 million analog television sets in service
in the U.S. that are over-the-air dependent. These television sets
receive their television signals through the use of rabbit ears or
outdoor antennas. The $1.34 billion finances converter boxes for less
than one half that number. It simply was not realistic to assume that
more than one-half of these 70 million sets would simply be discarded.
The decision was consciously made at the outset that only $1.34
billion in revenues from the 700 megahertz auction--which itself
derived more than $20 billion in revenues--would be expended in order
to ease this transition and assure that people do have over-the-air
dependent analog sets could get some assistance in purchasing converter
boxes. At the time, we were requesting a higher number. We suggested
that approximately $2.3 billion was what was needed. And we now know
that that number is closer to the mark of what the actual need is.
Beyond the problem of converter boxes and inadequate funding to
finance the coupons for them, the call centers that the Federal
Communications Commission is charged with operating under the statute
in order to answer inquiries from people who have problems with the
transition--connecting their converter boxes, or doing other things
like adjusting their antenna in order to receive a digital signal--are
today understaffed. These call centers do not have enough personnel to
answer the many calls that are coming into the centers at the present
time. And that call volume will only increase as the transition date
approaches and occurs. They are understaffed today. They will be more
understaffed unless additional resources are provided and time is
provided for appropriate staffing.
And so today we have no alternative but to delay the transition date
and provide in the stimulus measure the funding that should have been
allocated for this program years ago. I regret the disadvantage that
this delay will cause for the first responders and the public service
agencies across the country that are awaiting access to portions of the
700 megahertz spectrum now occupied by analog broadcasting which will
be vacated when analog broadcasting ends. These first responders have
been counting on receiving that spectrum in order to have fully
interoperable national communications first responder agency to first
responder agency, and that is a clear need. Their portion of the
spectrum now will not become available until June 12 under the terms of
this bill.
But I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a far greater public service
concern is allowing this transition to go forward at a time when 6
million households will be completely unprepared for it. People rely
upon over-the-air television in order to receive vital safety
information, information about natural disasters that can affect that
individual in that home; and that information is vital to enable people
to prepare. Yes, we are going to delay the arrival of this spectrum by
4 months for public safety agencies. But the far greater public safety
concern lies in not taking this step.
And I would note that the legislation we are proposing tonight has
been endorsed by a variety of public service agencies that are saying
today that it is important that this delay occur, and specifically,
that is the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the
Association of Public Safety Communications Officials--and these are
the individuals directly responsible within these first responder
agencies for their communications equipment--and also the International
Association of Fire Chiefs.
I also, Mr. Speaker, regret the disadvantage of this delay for the
commercial wireless service providers who bought their portion of the
analog spectrum for approximately $20 billion. But I would note, Mr.
Speaker, that AT&T and Verizon, the companies that purchased most of
the spectrum and contributed most of that $20 billion, have endorsed
the legislation that is pending tonight and have said that this delay
is appropriate.
I also regret the added cost that will be imposed on the TV
broadcasters who had planned to turn off their analog transmitters on
February 17 and now will incur higher than expected electricity and
transmitter maintenance costs until June of this year, but at this
juncture we simply have no choice.
I rise in support of the bill before the House tonight and ask
Members to give their approval. The measure before us was approved last
night in the Senate, and that vote was unanimous. It actually passed by
unanimous consent, meaning that every Member of the Senate had an
opportunity to object, and not one Senator raised an objection to this
measure.
In addition to changing the transition date to June 12, the bill
directs that coupons for converter boxes be sent by first class mail
rather than the third class mail currently used by NTIA for delivery.
The bill makes eligible for new coupons households whose previously
issued coupons have expired. That's an important new provision. Many
homes requested coupons some time ago and did not redeem them within
their stated life.
The bill allows television stations to turn off analog broadcasts
before June 12 in markets deemed by the FCC to be transition ready. And
we fully anticipate that the FCC will be very flexible in applying this
provision and will actually allow the transition to occur in markets
prior to the 30-day period that current FCC regulations suggest the
applications must pend before they're acted upon. We think a shorter
time period for this would be appropriate.

{time} 2030

The bill also requires NTIA to provide a monthly report to the
Congress from this time forward on the progress with the coupon
program.
One final word, Mr. Speaker, before I reserve the balance of my time.
Another delay in the digital transition beyond the one contained in
this bill tonight will simply not occur. I will

[[Page 1703]]

strongly oppose any effort to delay the transition beyond June 12, and
I strongly discourage anyone from requesting that another delay be
provided. This delay is a one-time occurrence taking place for
predictable but extraordinary reasons, and no additional delay will be
considered in our committee.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks on the issue, I want to extend
my personal heartfelt condolences to my good friend Mr. Boucher, the
passing of his mother.
We feel strongly for you in your loss, and our prayers are with you
as you undergo that transition.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to Senate 328. It's a
solution looking for a problem.
We have had on the books since 1996 a requirement that at some point
in time, the United States telecommunication network in terms of
television broadcast transits from analog to digital. Under the old
law, that transition was supposed to occur when 85 percent of the
households in America had the ability to receive a digital signal.
Three years ago in the Budget Reconciliation Act, we changed that to
give a hard date of February 17, 2009. If we had not had changed the
law, we would have already undergone the transition because 95 percent
of America's households now can receive a digital television signal.
But the legislation that we passed three years ago put a hard date to
create certainty of February 17, 2009.
Now, we know that there are some problems in the transition. Until
several weeks ago, we were working collectively, collaboratively with
our friends in the majority to move a bill that would tweak the
accounting or provide an additional $250 million not in appropriations
but in authorization for the coupon program that Mr. Boucher has spoken
about. Then the Obama transition team, in their infinite wisdom,
decided that they wanted a delay, and as far as I can tell, and I could
be corrected on this, they didn't consult with any of our legislative
experts on either side of the aisle in either body, the House or the
Senate. They just sent up a letter or a message to the majority side
that they wanted this delay, and those discussions that we had on a
bipartisan basis broke down.
We could do nothing worse than to delay this date. Now, I will admit
that I am pleased to note that we now know that the perfect date is
June 12. I wish I had known that 3 years ago when I was chairman of the
committee working on this. If I had known that June 12 was the perfect
date, we might have agreed with it. But we didn't know that. So we
chose February 17, which was after the Super Bowl but before the
Masters and before March Madness in NCAA. That's kind of where we
picked this February 17 date.
I respect totally my friend from Virginia and his facts and figures.
He's one of the most well-informed Members of this body. But on the
number of households that are not yet ready, the number of over-the-air
households who don't have satellite and don't have cable is less than 1
million. We think it's about 800,000. And all the other households are
ready to go.
And if you're a true conservative, you could argue that there
shouldn't be any coupon redemption program, that people should pay out
of their pockets.
Now, I have a confession to make, Mr. Speaker. I'm one of those
consumers who's not yet ready. It's not because I don't know the
transition's not upon us. It's not because I don't want to be ready.
It's because I just haven't got around to it. And I, quite frankly,
have the means that if I need to, I can pay $40 out of my own pocket to
buy a converter box.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Perriello). The time of the gentleman
has expired.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional minute.
But when we were negotiating this with our friends that were then in
the minority, now in the majority 3 years ago, they felt like we should
defray the cost of these converter boxes. They also felt like we
shouldn't means test it so that a billionaire, if they wanted to, could
get a coupon. So we've actually sent out 13\1/2\ million coupons for 14
million over-the-air households that don't have satellite or cable. My
guess is that most of the households that don't have these coupons are
households like me, that for whatever reason they have chosen, they
don't want to burden the government, they just don't feel like they
want the hassle of asking for the coupon, whatever. I guarantee you no
matter when you set the date, February 17, June 12, July the 4th,
Valentine's Day, there are going to be some people that aren't ready.
We need to keep this hard date. We need to defeat this bill under
suspension. We need to let the February 17 date go forward, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Texas, the ranking
member of our Energy and Commerce Committee (Mr. Barton) for his kind
remarks acknowledging the loss that my family has recently suffered.
I've been away for 3 weeks. This is actually my first day back, and his
kind remarks both here and in the markup session before our Energy and
Commerce Committee are deeply appreciated.
I would say, in response to the gentleman's suggestion, that the real
number of households that would lose television service completely if
this transition occurs on February 17 is 6 million. It is not the lower
number that the gentleman suggested of somewhere between, I think he
said, 750,000 and 1 million. And that 6 million number is not mine.
That number comes from the Nielsen service. And the Nielsen company is
perhaps, well, I don't want to say the most widely respected. I don't
know that for a fact. But it is a widely respected national reporting
service.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional minute.
It is a widely respected national reporting service that surveys
television viewing habits in America. And it is based on the surveys
done by the Nielsen service that, for example, television commercial
rates can be set. There's that level of confidence in the reporting
that Nielsen does. And Nielsen has just reported that the number of
homes that are unprepared constitute fully 5.7 percent of all U.S.
households; yet the actual number is 6.5 million homes, and these are
homes that do not have cable or satellite connections. These homes are
completely dependent on rabbit ears or outdoor antennas and receive
over the air only television. These are the number of families that
would lose reception if the transition takes place as scheduled in 3
weeks' time.
I don't want to delay this transition any more than the gentleman
from Texas, and the last thing I wanted to be doing this week was to be
here on the floor advocating a delay, but we simply have no choice. We
can't permit the level of dislocation that otherwise would occur to
take place.
So I do support the legislation. I think it is necessary. I think
these are the best numbers that we're going to have available to us in
determining how many households are truly unprepared.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to
the ranking member of the Telecommunications Subcommittee of the Energy
and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. I thank my distinguished chairman, and I also give Mr.
Boucher my condolences and sympathy on the death of his mother.
I rise in strong opposition to this bill. And I want to tell my
colleagues that I had the opportunity to ask President Barack Obama a
question 3 hours ago on this very debate. And I asked him, I said, Mr.
President, in light of the fact that you have a stimulus package that
you're pushing and you want to create more jobs, then certainly
broadband and digital television

[[Page 1704]]

and third and fourth generation wireless will do just that. And he
agreed. And I said, Then why would you want to delay the transition
when we have spent all this money, billions of dollars, to publicize
the date? We're going to waste all this time and money, and it's going
to create a hardship for the broadcasters and so many other people. We
should go ahead with this transition.
He said, Well, well.
I said, Now, if it's a question of money, Secretary Gutierrez sent a
letter last year indicating $250 million would take care of anything;
so it's not a question of money.
So the President said, Well, I agree with you, it's not a question of
money, but it appears to be some kind of administrative or accounting
problem that we need to fix.
Well, I said to the President, I said, Mr. President, we had a
demonstration project in Wilmington, North Carolina, in which we had a
transition, and it turns out almost 99 percent of the people were
satisfied. So the demonstration project in Wilmington, North Carolina,
showed that we could transition back in September in Wilmington.
Surely, we can transition February 17 in the United States.
I liken this to a football stadium. Just bear we with me for this
metaphor, this example. Let's say you have a large stadium with 90,000
people in it, and it actually takes 92,000 people. Well, it turns out
at the front door, the door is locked. By chance a nail is caught in
the door, and there are 2,000 people, just 2,000 people out there that
can't get into this championship game. And the coin is tossed, they're
ready to go, the lights are there, the televisions are going,
everybody's roaring, they're waiting for the kickoff; and suddenly they
say we've got to stop the game because these very few people, maybe 1
percent, maybe 1\1/2\ percent, can't get in the stadium; so we're going
to stop the whole game because of those people. And that's what we have
here. That is the analogy. We're delaying legislation on a very, very
small amount. And, frankly, the demonstration in Wilmington, North
Carolina, showed that we are ready to go.
Mr. Obama has made it a priority to make the government work for the
people. So now in his first decision in his administration and this
Congress, we're saying delay, delay, delay. We're going to delay and
put a placeholder on this, and then the consumer is going to have to
hold off. And by delaying 115 days, we are sending, I think, the wrong
message to the people who are trying to put this in place.
So if you look at the players on the field, they're ready to go. All
the stakeholders are ready to go. I urge you to defeat this.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a
distinguished member of the full committee and the subcommittee, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

{time} 2045

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate Chairman Boucher
on his ascension to the Telecommunications Subcommittee. We have had a
great working relationship, I look forward to doing it again.
But this is bad policy, and I am sad that you are the one who has to
come and try to pawn it off on the American people.
Chairman Dingell always used to talk about the takings clause,
passing litigation and then the aspect of litigation. We have auctioned
spectrum off. We have got small broadcasters who have people lined up
to climb the towers, to do the transition, and we are saying, stop.
I know what I have done in my district. I have been working for 8
months with public service announcements, going to senior centers,
newsletters, I have done about everything a Member can do to educate my
individuals.
What I did today was I asked when was income tax day enacted into
law, 1955. Everyone knows April 15 is the day you pay your taxes. Guess
how many people we had not pay their taxes on April 15 last year, 12
million people, advertised, historic, annual.
The reason why we have this provision is because of the 9/11
Commission, the ability for the spectrum to be released for first-line
responders to develop interoperability. Woe be it to us, Mr. Barton,
woe be it to us, Chairman Boucher, and we have another national
catastrophe in these next months and we have failed to enact
interoperability and released the spectrum to first-line responders so
they can communicate with each other.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself 2 minutes.
I appreciate very much the always eloquently expressed thoughts of my
friend from Illinois.
Let me say in response that this legislation has been endorsed by
some of the same groups that I have concern about and that the
gentleman has also expressed concern about. Yes, it is true that the
700 megahertz spectrum, large portions of it, were auctioned for
commercial services and purchased. The two largest purchasers of that
spectrum were AT&T and Verizon, and we have endorsements from both AT&T
and Verizon for the legislation delaying this transition.
It is true that other portions of the spectrum will eventually go to
the first-responder community. And I am concerned about that community.
We have a clear need to deploy fully interoperable telecommunications
on a nationwide basis so that a fire department from one community can
talk to a fire department or rescue squad or law enforcement agency
from another community when they all converge on an event somewhere.
Today we sadly don't have that capability, at least not fully deployed,
and making the spectrum available will enable that to happen, and I am
concerned about the delay.
But I would note that this delay has been endorsed for necessary and
sufficient reason by the International Association of Chiefs of Police,
by the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, who are
responsible for their telecommunications equipment, and by the
International Association of Fire Chiefs. And so the very people about
whom we are concerned have said this delay is okay.
It is the last thing that I wanted to have to do, but we literally,
at this point, have no choice.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
I would like to include this report from the Nielsen Company
indicating that 6.5 million American households will lose television
service completely because they don't have cable or satellite service
and are simply not ready if the transition occurs on February 17.

[From nielsenmedia.com, Jan. 22, 2009]

5.7% of U.S. Households Still Unprepared for the Switch to Digital
Television

New York, NY.--More than 6.5 million U.S. households--or
5.7 percent of all homes--are not ready for the upcoming
transition to all-digital broadcasting and would be unable to
receive any television programming at all if the transition
occurred today, The Nielsen Company reported today. This is
an improvement of more than 1.3 million homes since Nielsen
reported readiness status at the end of December.

TABLE 1.--PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE COMPLETELY UNREADY FOR THE DIGITAL TRANSITION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African- Under Over
Preparedness as of: Overall White American Hispanic Asian age 35 age 55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 18, 2009........................ 5.7 4.6 9.9 9.7 6.9 8.8 4.0
Dec. 21, 2008........................ 6.8 5.6 10.8 11.5 8.1 9.9 5.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: The Nielsen Company.

[[Page 1705]]

Under government-mandated action, all television stations
are required to switch to digital programming by February 17,
2009, which will leave viewers without a television signal
unless they purchase digital television sets, connect to
cable, satellite, and alternate delivery systems or purchase
a converter box.
Nielsen is making these estimates available as a public
service to the television industry, government policy-makers
and local communities. This information is based on the same
national and local television ratings samples that are used
to generate national and local television ratings. To conduct
the survey, Nielsen representatives observed and tabulated
the actual televisions used in its samples. Because Nielsen
has developed samples that reflect the total U.S. population
including African American and Hispanic populations, these
household characteristics in the samples can be projected to
the whole country.
``Nielsen has been preparing for the transition to digital
television for more than two years,'' said Nielsen Vice Chair
Susan Whiting. ``Because we recognize that accurate and
reliable information on consumer behavior is essential to
this transition, we've been sharing our data with clients,
government leaders and the public so they could track
progress to digital readiness.''
``There are still millions of people who will be adversely
affected because they are not ready for the digital
transition. So it's critical that we provide them with the
information and resources they need to stay connected with
the world,'' said Ernest W. Bromley, Nielsen Hispanic/Latino
Advisory Council (HLAC).
``Nielsen has played a key role in reaching out to our
underserved communities and helping them understand what
needs to be done,'' said Nita Song, Nielsen Asian Pacific
American Advisory Council (APAAC).
``It is imperative that we operate at an accelerated pace
to educate those who are at the greatest risk of losing their
television service--low-income households, large numbers of
senior, minority and disabled viewers. These viewers rely on
traditional television the most and can least afford to lose
their television lifelines. We have a responsibility to make
sure that these groups whether in our families, churches or
communities are equipped and ready for this transition,''
said Cynthia Perkins-Roberts, Nielsen African American
Advisory Council (AAAC).

Local Market Rankings

Among the 56 local markets that Nielsen measures with
electronic meters, the one that is least ready is
Albuquerque-Santa Fe, with 12.4% of the households completely
unready. The most prepared market is Hartford & New Haven,
with only 1.8% of homes unready.

TABLE 2.--LEAST PREPARED LOCAL METERED MARKETS BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF
HOUSEHOLDS CURRENTLY UNPREPARED FOR DIGITAL CONVERSION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
--------------------------------------
Completely Partially Completely
ready ready unready
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National people meter sample..... 85.08 9.24 5.68
Local metered samples............ 82.31 12.36 5.33
Albuquerque-Santa Fe............. 81.29 6.47 12.24
Dallas-Ft. Worth................. 77.39 12.40 10.21
Houston.......................... 72.63 17.42 9.95
Tulsa............................ 76.50 13.97 9.53
Portland, OR..................... 80.85 10.08 9.08
Salt Lake City................... 81.58 9.85 8.58
Memphis.......................... 73.31 18.16 8.53
Austin........................... 80.73 10.82 8.45
Los Angeles...................... 82.54 9.80 7.66
Sacramento-Stkton-Modesto........ 77.04 15.63 7.33
Phoenix (Prescott)............... 77.82 14.87 7.31
Jacksonville..................... 80.89 12.09 7.02
Dayton........................... 75.14 17.98 6.88
Greenvll-Spart-Ashevll-And....... 84.94 8.37 6.69
Indianapolis..................... 72.71 20.76 6.53
Milwaukee........................ 73.94 19.63 6.43
San Antonio...................... 77.19 16.61 6.20
Richmond-Petersburg.............. 77.04 16.83 6.13
San Diego........................ 84.42 9.64 5.94
Cleveland-Akron (Canton)......... 81.86 12.22 5.91
Minneapolis-St. Paul............. 78.21 15.94 5.85
Kansas City...................... 75.88 18.37 5.75
Seattle-Tacoma................... 85.18 9.16 5.67
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale............. 83.11 11.41 5.47
St. Louis........................ 79.72 15.02 5.26
Cincinnati....................... 72.62 22.17 5.21
San Francisco-Oak-San Jose....... 89.45 5.35 5.20
Chicago.......................... 82.00 12.82 5.18
Las Vegas........................ 81.79 13.04 5.17
Birmingham (Ann and Tusc)........ 82.91 12.23 4.86
Charlotte........................ 85.50 9.72 4.79
Denver........................... 81.24 14.01 4.75
Louisville....................... 80.66 14.75 4.59
Nashville........................ 81.58 14.01 4.41
Detroit.......................... 83.18 12.42 4.40
Raleigh-Durham (Fayetvlle)....... 80.47 15.15 4.38
New Orleans...................... 84.14 11.51 4.35
Columbus, OH..................... 79.64 16.08 4.29
Buffalo.......................... 86.04 9.69 4.27
Tampa-St. Pete (Sarasota)........ 89.47 6.39 4.14
Washington, DC (Hagrstwn)........ 81.76 14.16 4.08
Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn....... 86.30 9.79 3.91
Norfolk-Portsmth-Newpt Nws....... 79.97 16.25 3.78
Baltimore........................ 79.91 16.34 3.75
Greensboro-H.Point-W.Salem....... 85.20 11.38 3.42
Knoxville........................ 84.78 12.02 3.20
Providence-New Bedford........... 83.25 13.56 3.20
Oklahoma City.................... 85.62 11.31 3.07
Pittsburgh....................... 88.89 8.07 3.05
Ft. Myers-Naples................. 89.55 7.48 2.98
West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce....... 90.86 6.47 2.67
New York......................... 92.51 4.93 2.57
Boston (Manchester).............. 84.05 13.70 2.25
Philadelphia..................... 87.37 10.53 2.10
Atlanta.......................... 89.66 8.31 2.02
Hartford & New Haven............. 87.91 10.34 1.76
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: The Nielsen Company.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOUCHER. I will be happy to yield. But to keep this absolutely
proper, let me yield to myself an additional minute, and I am happy to
yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you for yielding the time. I appreciate that.
You know, I chair the E-911 Caucus, and I have worked across in a
bipartisan basis with now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was
on the Senate side.
I would ask if the National Emergency Number Association, NENA, which
is the premier association that supports first-time responders, if they
provided a recommendation on this legislation--I see staff saying yes.
Mr. BOUCHER. Will the gentleman permit me just one moment, please.
The answer is the association the gentleman identified has sent a
communication to us endorsing this delay.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Would the gentleman include that for the record?
Mr. BOUCHER. I will be happy to include that for the record. We will
collect whatever is appropriate and be happy to do so.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include for the
Record a letter from the Fraternal Order of Police opposing this
legislation.
National

Fraternal Order of Police,

Washington, DC, January 23, 2009
Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Representative Boehner, I am
writing on behalf of the members of the Fraternal Order of
Police to express our concerns regarding S. 328, the ``DTV
Delay Act,'' as it relates to public safety access to
spectrum.
Many of the arguments being made in favor of delaying this
transition were made during the consideration of the Digital
Transition and Public Safety Act in 2005. This is not a new
issue, and was first recognized in a public safety report
issued in September 1996. In 1997, Congress granted public
safety access to this portion of spectrum under Title III,
Section 3004 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which
directed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
authorize broadcasters currently occupying the spectrum to
remain there until 2006. Public safety access to this area of
spectrum was repeatedly pushed back until the enactment of
the Digital Transition and Public Safety Act in 2005, which
set a hard deadline of 17 February for analog broadcasters to
allow public safety access to 24 MHZ of spectrum on the
700MHz band. We are concerned that the staggered transition
which would result if S. 328 is signed into law may
jeopardize the channels that Congress promised to law
enforcement and other public safety officers more than a
decade ago.
For public safety to use the spectrum they have been
promised, broadcast stations must stop analog broadcasts on
those channels. Broadcast stations on the adjacent channels
must also stop analog broadcasts to avoid interfering with
the public safety communications we are trying to enable. For
all those broadcast stations to have somewhere to go,
additional broadcast stations must stop their analog
transmission. It is this chain of events that makes the hard
deadline of 17 February 2009 the most realistic and
responsible option for clearing the spectrum for public
safety's use.
While S. 328 would still allow broadcasters to voluntarily
transition by 17 February, subject to current FCC
regulations, and allow public safety to occupy this vacated
spectrum, unless all the surrounding broadcast stations also
voluntarily transition, it is unlikely anyone can move.
Moreover, under current FCC regulations, broadcasters
generally would not be permitted to transition even
voluntarily until three months before the delayed transition
date, and even then the FCC has the discretion to refuse them
authorization.
The American public has asked broadcasters to take
difficult, time consuming, and costly steps to enable better
public safety communications. These broadcasters have
admirably risen to the call and say they are ready for 17
February. If this delay goes into effect, it opens the door
for future delays. More than a decade of work has gone by
since Congress authorized public safety communications to
expand on the spectrum, and we are very close to achieving
our goal. I urge you not to bring all of this progress to a
halt less than thirty days from the finish line.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of the views of
the more than 327,000

[[Page 1706]]

members of the Fraternal Order of Police. Our communications
are our lifeline and we need to know that they will function
properly at all times. If I can provide any additional
information on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
me or Executive Director Jim Pasco in my Washington office.
Sincerely,
Chuck Canterbury,
National President.

I want to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished former chairman of the
Agriculture Committee and the current ranking member, Mr. Goodlatte.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome my good friend and neighbor back to
the House and offer my condolences as well regarding the passing of his
mother, who I never had the opportunity to meet, but who I heard much
about from my good friend, who is rightfully proud of her record as an
attorney and a public office holder in his hometown of Abingdon,
Virginia.
I rise, however, in opposition to the legislation that is offered
today. This is of great concern to me and to the television
broadcasters and emergency services personnel and others in my
district. Since the decision to switch from analog to digital
television, there has been a massive public awareness campaign that has
been very successful in identifying February 17 as the day of
transition.
This legislation, S. 328, will delay the switch, would undermine this
transition and require another massive public outreach campaign to make
the public aware. The American public has had almost 3 years to prepare
for this transition for which entire industries have had to adapt, and
the American public is ready. Forcing them to do so for what will
essentially prove to be an arbitrary deadline will set a dangerous
precedent that could easily lead to more delays and would likely result
in an onslaught of lawsuits.
Delaying access to the 700 megahertz spectrum will unfairly prevent
those entities that have been awarded access to this bandwidth from
having immediate access, again, something that has been planned for
several years. This is particularly troubling when considering our
first responders, the very individuals that we sought to aid with this
initiative in response to the communications blunder that occurred
during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Some claim that this delay will not prevent first responders from
accessing this bandwidth, but that is simply not true. Television
stations will have to stop broadcasting on channels that are sought for
communications.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I would simply ask that the remainder of my statement
be made a part of the Record and urge my colleagues to oppose this
legislation.
Since the decision to switch from analog to digital television, there
has been a massive public awareness campaign that has been very
successful in identifying February 17 as the day of transition. This
legislation, S. 328 will delay the switch, would undermine this
recognition and require another massive outreach campaign to make the
public aware.
The American public has had almost 3 years to prepare for this
transition, for which entire industries have had to adapt. Forcing them
to do so for what will essentially prove to be an arbitrary deadline
will set a dangerous precedent that could easily lead to more delays,
and will likely result in an onslaught of lawsuits.
Delaying access to the 700 MHz spectrum will unfairly prevent those
entities that have been awarded access to this bandwidth from having
immediate access--again something that has been planned for several
years. This is particularly troubling when considering our first
responders, the very individuals that we sought to aid with this
initiative in response to the communications blunder that occurred
during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Some claim that
this delay will not prevent first responders from accessing this
bandwidth, but that is simply not true. Television stations will have
to stop broadcasting on channels that are sought for communications and
neighboring channels will also have to be cleared to avoid
interference.
Delaying the transition will also hinder the deployment of broadband,
something that has also been planned for years, and will unfairly limit
the companies and consumers that plan on utilizing this type of
broadband access.
Furthermore, this proposed delay is being used to justify $650
million in new spending in the proposed new economic stimulus bill. In
a time of economic distress and budgetary disarray, increasing the debt
to American taxpayers by hundreds of millions of dollars hardly seems
prudent. In fact, this legislation will work against any effort to
stimulate the economy because the economic activity and growth that
comes with deploying new broadband technology and new emergency
communication will be delayed.
There are some reports that nearly 93 percent of households affected
by this switch are already prepared, deeming this legislation excessive
and overly burdensome.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
Mr. WALDEN. I thank my ranking subcommittee chairman for the time.
Let me get right at it. The 1996 law that this law replaced said that
when the marketplace had 85 percent of households with one television
that could receive digital, this transition could occur.
The law that we passed a couple of years ago said, no, we are going
to work this a little differently. We will set a hard date, we will
make coupons available to do all of this. Currently, 94.3 percent of
American households have a television that receives digital or that has
the ability to receive digital signal.
So remember the old law that we updated said 85 percent could make
this change today, or 94 percent. Only exclusively over-the-air homes
without a digital division or converter box are at risk of losing all
television service. Now, again, Nielsen, the rating service, says there
are 3.4 million exclusively over-the-air homes, and already we have
sent 13.5 million coupons to 13.5 million of those homes, leaving
800,000 exclusively over-the-air households that have not yet received
the coupons.
Approximately 600,000 of them, however, are on the waiting list. This
all gets down to a couple hundred thousand people. This could simple
easily be solved by simply changing the accounting rules and allowing
NTIA to go ahead and send out those coupons.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to include for the Record letters from
television stations in Oregon who point out that this delay will cost
them upwards of $1 million in added energy costs at a time when they
are having to lay off staff who do news coverage and other things
because now they are going to get saddled with this burden, $500,000 to
$1 million.
January 8, 2009.
Hon. Greg Walden,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Greg, I hope this note finds you well. This letter is
in reference to the possible delay of the DTV transition date
for broadcasters from the scheduled date of February 17,
2009. Changing the date at this time would unravel a
tremendous amount of work done by broadcasters to educate
consumers about DTV, and most likely do more harm than good.
Attached find a list of issues from our Director of
Engineering, Karl Sargent, related to the possible change of
dates.
We hope you have success in keeping the date we have all
been working towards, and please do not hesitate to let me
know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,

Bob Wise,

Vice President/General Manager,
KOBI-TV/KOTI-TV.

DELAY OF DIGITAL TRANSITION

We feel the delay of the digital transition is not in the
best interests of the viewer, broadcaster, or country in
general.
Delaying the transition will place doubt and uncertainty in
the mind of the public. We have been diligently informing
them of the positive benefits of the transition and it will
now place doubt in their mind that technologically, it is not
ready or up to its promises of improved TV performance.
Stations have spent a lot of money in their digital
facilities, allowing the analog facilities to deteriorate. It
would be more cost to the broadcasters to now have to invest
money into keeping the analog transmitters operating in
parallel with the digital transmitters or they have to invest
in short-term capital to keep the transmitters running (i.e.
KOTI driver tube failure).
Delaying the transition for months will not rectify the
public not being ready for the

[[Page 1707]]

transition. In fact, it may make it worse. The public will
feel that they now have time to back off their efforts to
prepare. No matter when the transition takes place there are
going to be viewers who are not prepared.
We need to make this transition now and get on to other
critical items the stations have to do. In our case it is the
capital improvement we still need to do to our station
infrastructure to convert it to full digital and HD and to
complete the Sprint-Nextel project.
We don't see any positives to the transition being delayed.
We have been preparing for it for 5 years.
We are very concerned that the incoming administration will
change the baseline rules and specifications of the digital
transition. That would be a disaster in both money and time
for both the viewers and broadcasters.
____

January 9, 2009.
To: Congressman Greg Walden, Second District, Oregon.
Fr: Jerry Upham, General Manager, KOHD Bend.

Dear Congressman, I was both shocked and disappointed to
hear that Congress is considering delaying the implementation
of the digital transition for television stations. With so
much publicity and planning for this ``hard date,'' any
change would result in huge consumer confusion, and give the
indication that there really is no hard deadline. In
addition, millions of consumers will feel like they were
incorrectly advised--in a tough economic time--to spend money
now to be able to receive their television signals.
At Chambers Communications, we've spent millions of dollars
for this digital transition, and, in the case of KOHD,
launched the station in 2006 with an exclusively digital
signal. The decision to launch without a full power analog
signal was made due to this upcoming deadline. KOHD has gone
without an analog signal, and has sacrificed analog viewers
during this time. If the deadline is pushed back, this will
only extend the station's analog deficiency. Had we had an
indication that this deadline would be extended, the company
may have made a different decision with regard to an analog
signal.
Please urge Congress not to extend this deadline, as both
the private television sector and the public will be severely
negatively affected by this decision.
Sincerely,
Jerry Upham,
KOHD General Manager.
____

January 9, 2009.
Congressman Walden, thanks for including local
broadcasters.
(1.) Tower lease agreements will have to be extended to
continue to provide some outlying areas with analog.
(2.) We'll have to continue to operate two transmitters.
(a.) Increase cost (b.) More energy consumption.
(3.) February ratings moved to March, making March non-
useable.
(4.) People not ready today won't be ready in 3, 6 or 9
months unless forced to change because of the end of analog
service.
(5.) All our efforts to inform the public for nothing and
more confusion. If we change the date once, what's to say we
don't change it again?
(6.) No credibility with the public.
(7.) Angry people who have already purchased new TVs,
converter boxes or subscribed to cable or satellite adding
extra expense.
I get the political road the new administration is
following, but to change would only prolong the pain.
Thank you,

Christopher T. Gallu,

General Manager,
NPG of Oregon, Inc.
____

January 9, 2009.
Hon. Greg Walden,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Walden: I strongly urge Congress to resist
changing the digital transition date of February 17, 2009.
Broadcasters around the country have been mandated by the FCC
to provide unprecedented promotion and news coverage of this
important date. Millions of Americans have responded with
obtaining coupons, calling broadcasters for information and
preparing for this important milestone in the broadcasting
industry. To delay implementation at this late juncture will
most certainly confuse the American public even further. In
addition, millions of consumers will feel they were misled
and incorrectly advised, during these tough economic times,
to spend money now to be able to receive their television
signals. In addition, this will put an extra burden on
broadcasters in the form of additional power usage for
transmitters and man power.
Chambers Communications has invested millions of dollars
for the digital transition and countless man-hours in its
implementation and preparation for the Feb. 17 cut-off. I
urge you to rebuff attempts to extend the deadline at this
late date.
Sincerely,

Renard N. Maiuri,

General Manager,
KDRV/KDKF TV.
____

January 8, 2009.
Congressman Greg Walden,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Walden, I am writing to implore you to
retain the digital transition date of February 17, 2009, for
which we have been planning and preparing.
At the beginning of the transition, I was not in favor of a
hard shut-off deadline, preferring that the market decide
when analog was no longer needed. However, now that we have
committed hundreds of hours of time to prepare for this
change, invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to enable
us to change, and literally broadcast thousands of
announcements, all focused on this date, I believe that
changing would be a mistake.
The key to successful implementation of any change,
including a historic change such as this one, is
communication. The efforts of local broadcasters to inform
the viewers have reached beyond news stories, announcements,
and crawls over programming, to in-person demonstrations,
community talks, and talking to callers to walk through the
unique needs for their location in their individual
situation.
Broadcast television is my livelihood, so I don't take this
position lightly. If this transition fails, and viewers lose
access to free-over-the-air-TV, it will damage our ability to
broadcast to the communities we are licensed to serve. Our
best chance to succeed is to stick with this heavily promoted
date, and trust that we will do whatever it takes to insure
that all of our viewers are not left behind in the digital
age.
Sincerely,

Kingsley Kelley,

General Manager,
KTLV-TV.
____

February 8, 2009.
Hon. Greg Walden,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Walden: I am deeply concerned and shocked
that some in the Congress are considering delaying the
nationwide DTV transition that is scheduled for February 17,
2009. I understand the concern given that the distribution of
coupons has been suspended and those still wishing to receive
a coupon have been put on a waiting list pending the
authorization of additional funds. I urge you and other
members of Congress to push for legislation that would
immediately provide the necessary funds to fulfill the
additional requested coupons.
This station has been planning for this DTV transition for
over a year and along with my fellow broadcasters has been
educating the public on this transition. Collectively the
Medford market broadcast stations have run thousands of
announcements regarding the transition and have also engaged
in educating the public through numerous outreach activities.
There will always be people that wait to the last moment or
have not prepared themselves for the transition even though
they know it is coming, and no delay is going to mitigate
that problem.
Procedures are in place for helping the public with any
problems they may incur during this transition and our
engineers are ready to make the transition on February 17,
2009.
Given the amount of time we have spent educating the public
that February 17, 2009 is the firm date, I believe that
changing that date will cause an enormous amount of confusion
and do great harm to an orderly transition.
Even if the date was changed for the transition we will not
change our plans to transition on February 17, 2009.
Sincerely,

Gary D. Jones,

General Manager,
KMVU-TV.

Some of these stations, one of them is brand new, KOHD in Bend, went
on air as digital only in anticipation of this date. And now this
Congress apparently is going to move the date.
And then in the so-called stimulus bill we are going to borrow maybe
$600 million, maybe from the Chinese, I don't know, that the next
generation will get to pay back whenever that occurs so we can send out
more coupons. This is a solution looking for a problem.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, can I ask how much time is left on both
sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 6 minutes and
the gentleman from Virginia has 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BOUCHER. Well, I would like to yield myself 30 seconds, Mr.
Speaker.
I will submit for the Record a letter from the National Emergency
Number Association, which I believe is the association that the
gentleman from Illinois was referring to, and the chief executive
officer of this association indicates support for the delay that is
proposed in the legislation tonight.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to give time to the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) 2 minutes.

[[Page 1708]]

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. The ostensible goal of this legislation is to
give consumers more time to prepare for the transition. But,
unfortunately, this bill will only confuse customers by changing the
date, cost more money and hurt public safety.
It will not give a single television viewer the coupon off the coupon
waiting list. It will jeopardize the spectrum that police and
firefighters say they need. Since 9/11 we have been hearing this, as
our good friend from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) has already stated. And I
don't know under what circumstances the national police chiefs and fire
chiefs have written, but my local people are saying exactly the
opposite.
And, also, this will jeopardize the spectrum that the original DTV
legislation clears for advance wireless services, perhaps our Nation's
quickest and most realistic way to improve broadband deployment,
stimulate the economy and create jobs.
Now, if we are going to move this date to tornado season in Nebraska,
let me use this Nebraska analogy about waiting so that we are at 100
percent of people already hooked up, which seems to be our new standard
here.
Let me give you this story about Tom Osborne, three-time national
championship coach of the Huskers. When he decided to run for Congress
after being coach for, I think, almost 30 years, and three national
championships, he polled and found out that he had name ID in Nebraska
of 95 percent, meaning 5 percent of the Nebraskans had never heard of
Tom Osborne. Yet, we are holding up this legislation here today because
5 percent of our Nation, although they may have the coupons in hand,
have not hooked up yet.
If we are going to wait till 100 percent, we are going to come back
and delay this again.
Mr. Speaker, we are ready. Nebraska is ready because of broadcasters
and community groups in my district who have been preparing the
population with educational efforts about this transition to digital
television that have been on going for over a year now. They have
worked very hard and I would like to recognize them for their efforts
here on the floor.
The Nebraska Digital Television Conversion Coalition is comprised of
not-for-profit organizations that have recognized the digital
television conversion could be problematic for some in our society,
including elderly and low income individuals. Members of this coalition
include: Nebraska Educational Television, United Way of the Midlands,
Nebraska Broadcasters Association, Little Brothers & Friends of the
Elderly, the Nebraska Retail Federation, the Nebraska Office on Aging
and my congressional office.
Mr. Speaker, please allow me to briefly describe one example of the
problems my constituents will encounter if this bill becomes law.
Nebraska Educational Television tells me that they will suffer both
financially and technically because they will not be allowed to
increase power at the six sites they have already converted to digital.
At these six sites they have decommissioned the analog service and are
digital only, this was done with permission from the FCC, which results
in many of their viewers unable to receive the NETV signal until the
power is strengthened.
My Nebraska Broadcasters Association is also opposed and I quote,
``We plead with you Congressman Terry to oppose any effort to extend
this date. Any change now would create an urgent need for a campaign
far greater than the first to reverse the message indelibly affixed in
the minds of Americans.''
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the ostensible goal of the legislation is to
give consumers more time to prepare for the transition, but
unfortunately, this bill will confuse consumers, cost more money, and
hurt public safety:
It will not move a single television viewer off the coupon waiting
list.
It will jeopardize the spectrum that police and firefighters said
they needed 5 years to the day before September 11, 2001. The most
important telecommunications-related recommendation of the 9/11
Commission was to make spectrum available for public safety by
completing the digital television transition.
And it will jeopardize the spectrum that the original DTV legislation
clears for advanced wireless services, perhaps our Nation's quickest
and most realistic way to improve broadband deployment, stimulate the
economy, and create jobs.
The DTV coupon program is not out of money; only half of the $1.5
billion in the coupon program has been spent on redeemed coupons.
Instead of delaying the transition and spending hundreds of millions of
dollars more, Congress has the opportunity to simple do what former
Commerce Secretary Gutierrez suggested and modify the coupon program to
allow all of those who have requested a coupon to get one.
I urge a ``no'' vote.

{time} 2100

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman continue to
reserve his time?
Mr. BOUCHER. I continue to reserve.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 2 minutes to one of our new members of
the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
Senate bill 328, the DTV Delay Act. Due to the very rushed nature by
which the legislation is being considered this evening, I have a number
of concerns about both the policy and procedure represented within S.
328.
Basically, we are asked to vote on legislation that will have a
significant impact on the telecommunications industry and our first
responders without giving it proper consideration.
Mr. Speaker, the Nielsen Company estimated this past November that 93
percent of homes in the United States already had one or more TVs ready
for the digital television transition. This same study indicates that
83 percent of households across the country are completely prepared for
this transition.
Despite the fact that the vast majority of households across the
country have taken the necessary steps to be ready for DTV transition,
the DTV Delay Act would sacrifice the preparation of the masses as a
means to assist the very few. Delay in this transition will only cost
the taxpayers, needlessly, $750 million, at a time when we are facing a
$1.2 trillion budget.
Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission stated in its report that this
transition should have occurred years ago to free up the lower
frequency analog signals for police, firefighters, emergency personnel,
and public officials. Because this transition has been years in the
making, for the benefit of our brave first responders, I believe that
we need to move forward in this transition as scheduled, instead of
delaying it until June.
Mr. Speaker, delaying the digital television will only create more of
a financial burden for American taxpayers and create further confusion
among the public. For these reasons, I urge all my colleagues oppose
the DTV Delay Act.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 1 minute to our very newest member of
the Energy and Commerce Committee on the Republican side, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
Mr. SCALISE. I'd like to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding,
and I rise in opposition to this bill to delay the transfer to digital.
I think if we look at what this could do for our economy, number one,
we are talking about the problems that we are having in our economy
right now, and we want to create good jobs. There are billions of
dollars of investment that are sitting on the sidelines right now,
waiting to move, waiting to create new technologies, and create good
new jobs in our economy, that this delay will further hamper.
In addition to that, I think we need to be very concerned about what
this means to our first responders. It was just read into the Record
from the president of the National Fraternal Order of Police, but also
what this would mean for our firefighters as they try to implement
interoperable capabilities, something that we experienced after
Katrina, we saw after September 11, something we need to get to.
Something, again, this delay will only hurt their ability to make those
changes that they want so desperately to make for the safety of our
people all throughout the country.
So there are many strong reasons why we are ready to get this
implementation to take place and why we should oppose any delay.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I want the American people to know that the Republicans
want to solve this problem. If we defeat this bill tomorrow under
suspension, then hopefully we can reach across the

[[Page 1709]]

aisle and work with our friends in the new Democrat majority to do
things that actually solve the problem.
We can actually say that money that is in the Treasury that hasn't
been spent on redemptions of coupons can be used to issue new coupons.
We could even eliminate the coupon requirement. We could provide a
small amount of additional funding.
I have a bill that I introduced this week that does most of those
things. But if we need to do something differently, I pledge to the
American people and my friends on the majority side that once we defeat
this delay bill tomorrow, we still have time to work together on a
bipartisan basis to put together a bill that does solve the problem,
without delaying the hard date of February 17.
So, with all due respect, I would ask that we defeat S. 328, vote
tomorrow not to suspend the rules, and then let's work together the
rest of this week and next week to solve the problem. Vote ``no'' on S.
328.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to compliment my friend from Texas, the ranking Republican
member of our Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton; Mr. Stearns, the ranking
member on our Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the
Internet, with whom I very much look forward to working over the course
of the coming 2 years, for the very cordial way in which they have
handled their opposition to this measure here today. That reflects the
best traditions of our committee. We sometimes disagree, but we always
do so in a very agreeable manner.
That certainly has been the situation here tonight. We all have the
same objective, and that is to make sure that we have a smooth digital
television transition and that American households are not dislocated
when the analog television broadcast ends and all of the broadcasting
from that time forward is in digital.
We have one formula for doing that and my friends on the other side
of the aisle have another formula for doing that. I respectfully
suggest that our formula is the better way.
I did not want to be here tonight advocating a delay in this
transition. The gentleman from Texas is right. That date for the
transition has been a feature of our law now for a number of years. A
lot of advertising has gone behind publicizing that date. Many people
have been relying on that date as the date upon which the 700 megahertz
spectrum that analog broadcasting will, when it stops, will make
available and be delivered. There have been plans made on this. And so
this is not a step we take lightly or frivolously, but when in which we
think we have no choice.
There are 6.5 million households in the United States, as revealed by
the best numbers we have available coming from a highly reputable and
well-regarded television reporting service, that will completely lose
television coverage if this transition happens on February 17. These
households are unprepared. They do not have a cable or satellite
connection. They rely on over-the-air television reception only.
That dislocation simply must be avoided. These homes depend upon
television service for vital information. Not just entertainment, but
news and information about community emergencies that typically would
only reach the home by means of the broadcast media.
We have talked about the public safety community and the fact that we
do not want to see a delay in their receipt of the spectrum that they
intend to use for fully interoperable communication equipment. But the
greater public safety concern is turning off that analog broadcast at a
time when 6.5 million homes are not prepared for the transition.
Denying vital public safety information to those 6.5 million homes is
the greater threat.
And so the delay for that reason is necessary. That has been
acknowledged by the leading associations representing the public safety
community. The National Association of Chiefs of Police, the
Association of Public Safety Communications officials, the
International Association of Fire Chiefs, all of whom have endorsed
this delay. It has been endorsed by the major recipients on the
commercial side of the 700 megahertz spectrum; by AT&T, by Verizon. It
has been endorsed by the networks; by ABC, NBC, and CBS.
And so among all of those who will be disadvantaged by this delay,
there is a recognition that the delay is unfortunately and regrettably
necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to emphasize that this is a one-time delay,
and our committee simply will not entertain requests that a delay
beyond the June 12 date be adopted. I would strongly oppose any further
delay. The Chairman of our Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman), has indicated his strong opposition to
any delay beyond June 12, and we would strongly discourage anyone from
suggesting that a delay beyond that date take place.
So the step we take tonight is necessary. None of us want to take it.
I think it is the only approach we have before us at this moment that
truly will assure that when this digital transition occurs, and that it
occurs in a way that does not result in disruption for television
viewing in America. I urge the passage of the measure.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support S. 328, delaying the
digital television transition. It has become clear in recent days and
weeks that the country simply is not ready for the transition.
For years, I have been saying that we are not providing enough
resources or enough education for the public. That is why for the past
two Congresses, I have introduced my Digital Television Consumer
Education Act. This legislation would provide far more education about
the transition, and would add $200 million to the converter box coupon
program to get coupons to the 2 million people on the waiting list.
I do want to ensure that this delay is only a one-time event. If we
keep delaying and delaying, we will never see the benefit of the
transition. Television viewers will not get to see crystal clear images
of their favorite programs, we will not enjoy the technological
advances that will be rolled out by wireless companies, and most
importantly, our first responders will not get the interoperable
communication devices they so desperately need. But with the condition
that this will be a one-time delay, I will support S. 328.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 328, the DTV Delay
Act, which passed the Senate yesterday by unanimous consent. This
legislation extends the digital television transition date and makes
improvements to the converter box coupon program.
In 2005, Congress mandated that as of February 17, 2009, all
television stations shut off their analog broadcasts and transmit in
digital only. The transition from analog to digital will offer better
pictures and sound, more programming choices, and interactive
capabilities. It will also serve an important public safety purpose by
freeing up spectrum for first responders for nationwide interoperable
communications. Finally, it will provide consumers with new and
innovative commercial wireless services.
Unfortunately, we are not prepared for this transition. The prior
administration assured the Committee on Energy and Commerce repeatedly
that the transition effort was on track. But on December 24, 2008, the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA,
notified Congress that the converter box coupon program would run out
of funding the first week of January and that it would need an
additional $250 to $350 million to meet projected demand.
The President's Transition Team asked Congress to extend the deadline
for a brief period. This is not a step that anyone wants to take. But
we have no good alternative. Without a short, one-time extension,
millions of households will lose all television reception.
The DTV converter box coupon program is supposed to ease the
financial burden of the transition. But it has ground to a halt. There
are currently over 1.7 million households on the waiting list. In
addition, the FCC has not adequately planned for call centers and other
assistance for consumers who will face technical problems after the
transition has occurred.
The measure before us extends the date of the transition to June 12
and extends the coupon program date until July 31, 2009. It will also
allow those who hold expired coupons--or never received their coupons
because of problems with third class mail--to reapply.
Moreover, the economic recovery package that the House is considering
includes $650 million to fix the coupon program and intensify consumer
education and support.

[[Page 1710]]

S. 328 also takes steps to lessen the impact on other affected
parties, including public safety, broadcasters, and wireless licensees.
I am pleased that this bill now has broad support in the public
safety community, including the Association of Public-Safety
Communications Officials-International, APCO, the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, IACP, the International Association of
Fire Chiefs of Police, IAFC, and the National Emergency Number
Association, NENA. It has the support of the two biggest winners of
spectrum that will be vacated as a result of the DTV transition--AT&T
and Verizon. And, it has the support of a number of public interest
groups.
S. 328 gives the new administration the resources it has told us it
needs to fix the coupon program and better prepare consumers for the
transition.
Unfortunately, our time to act on the legislation is short. If we do
not pass this measure, it is likely that there will be no extension of
the February 17 transition. Time will have run out for the
administration to implement the changes necessary to fix the problems.
I urge Members to support this bill.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this
legislation to address the urgent problems occurring with the digital
television transition.
After participating in numerous oversight hearings by the
Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee on the DTV transition in
the 110th Congress, and seeing the mismanagement of the transition by
the previous administration, we need time to get this right and correct
the problems left for the Obama administration.
I am supporting this legislation, not because I think moving the
transition date back is a good idea, but because when the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration notified the
Committee late last year that they would run out of money in the coupon
program, postponing the date to get every household the coupons they
need became necessary.
Our office sent out the coupon application in our constituent
newsletters, handed them out at our townhall meetings, and took them to
other events in our district to distribute. For their part,
broadcasters, cable, and satellite television spent millions in
advertising to educate the public about the upcoming transition.
The primary reason we have to delay this transition is due to the
mismanagement of the program by the NTIA--after months of asking
questions in hearings and letters to the administration, members of the
Telcom Subcommittee were assured there was plenty of money to finance
the program and provide every household that needed one a converter box
coupon. On December 24, however, the Energy and Commerce Committee
finally received word from NTIA that the program would run out of
money, much too late for Congress to address the problem, and now there
are over 2 million households on the coupon waiting list.
As expected, more problems are also surfacing as we have gotten
closer to the transition. Last week the Washington Post ran an article
about problems people are experiencing with their antennas, and in my
hometown of Houston, we have continually raised the issue of there
being limited options and availability of battery-powered converter
boxes for households to purchase in the event of a hurricane like we
experienced last September with Hurricane Ike. Currently, households
must buy a separate battery-pack for a converter, and the coupon
program does not cover the battery-pack.
I understand getting the coupon program rolling again is the most
pressing matter, but I hope between now and June 13 we can address
these other issues and create a program that will assist households who
need to do more than just hook up a converter box to acquire the
equipment they need to make the transition.
Again, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation
so we can get the households the coupons they need to purchase
converter boxes to keep their analog televisions from going black, and
to address other issues that are arising with the digital transition.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 328, DTV
Delay Act. With the deadline of February 17, 2009 for DTV transition
quickly approaching, it is very important that we recognize and address
the reality that consumers are still confused by this transition and in
many jurisdictions are not prepared for the transition to digital
television. Unfortunately, the number of people who stand to lose their
access to TV programming in the DTV transition is considerable.
Approximately 30 to 40 million people still rely on over-the-air
television, most of who are senior citizens, poor or non-English
speakers and underserved communities. Although there has been a
considerable amount of outreach, it has still been haphazard. There are
still issues that may make the impending deadline unrealistic.
For example, in my district--the U.S. Virgin Islands--I have heard
numerous complaints about the receipt of the vouchers via U.S. Postal
Service, which in my district takes much longer than most areas in the
U.S. mainland. Unfortunately, S. 328 did not include the House
provision to require first class mail service for the delivery of
coupons via the U.S. Postal Service. This provision would have made a
big a difference in expediting the mail delivery time to the U.S.
territories. I hope that NTIA will work on resolving this issue,
although it is not a provision in the bill.
There are other components of the bill that can potentially make it a
smooth transition. Although an extension will cause delays, it is
important that we protect our Nation's consumers and ensure that no one
is left behind in this transition. The DTV transition is not something
that is easily understood by all consumers and it has become evident
that it will take more time to bring everyone on board. We must work to
ensure that this important transition does not leave millions of
consumers in the dark.
In the interest of time, I urge passage of this legislation but
encourage the NTIA to continue work with Congress on resolving the
program's deficiencies.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I speak in strong
support of S. 328, and I also want to thank my colleague Senator Jay
Rockefeller for authoring this insightful resolution.
The digital television transition is an unnecessary burden to be
passed onto the American people at a time when the pressures of day to
day life are heavy and growing.
To assist consumers through the conversion, the Department of
Commerce through its National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, NTIA, division handled requests from households for up
to two $40 coupons for digital-to-analog converter boxes beginning
January 1, 2008 via a toll free number or a Web site.
However, the Commerce Department has run out of funds to cover the
cost of coupons and there are millions of Americans who have yet to
receive the boxes. These Americans should not be expected to purchase
the converter box without the aid of the government, seeing as the
entire Nation is under extraordinary economic pressure caused by the
recession.
Last week, President Obama's team joined a chorus of concerned voices
requesting a delay because the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, NTIA, which is to provide education and $40
vouchers for people to buy digital TV converter boxes, ran out of money
on January 4. There is also concern that many people, especially poorer
and more rural areas, have not yet heard that they will need a
converter and a larger antenna.
Older homes can not be easily wired for cable. The house walls might
be made of concrete, brick, or stone that is difficult to wire through.
This has caused some local residents to opt for analog over-the-air TV
instead of cable or FIOS. Other people have decided to only wire their
living room, and still use analog over-the-air in other rooms. The old
construction can also cause problems running an antenna to a window,
roof, or attic. These older homes are generally owned by lower income
families that are being hit particularly hard by the current economic
recession.
On January 22, the Nielsen Company said 6.5 million Americans had not
prepared for the switch, a startling number considering the Commerce
Department's inability to assist these Americans in the purchase of the
converter boxes. TV stations would face extra expenses, which is a
burden that they also cannot be expected to take on in times like
these.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the long-term effects of this
transition will benefit the American people and support the eventual
transition. Mr. Speaker we are in a recession at best. Our seniors can
barely afford their prescriptions and we are asking them to pay another
40-50 dollars for a convertor box? To some of us that may not seem like
much but for many it is a small fortune. Especially for our senior
population who may have only the television as company.
I ask that my colleagues support this legislation and give Americans
more time to properly prepare for the conversion.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, it infuriates me that thanks largely to the
incompetence of the Bush Administration during the past three years, we
are presently confronted by the need to delay the transition from
analog to digital television. That we are today voting on

[[Page 1711]]

DTV delay legislation underscores the utter folly of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration's arrogant confidence
in its management of programs to carry out the mandates of the Digital
Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005.
As the Obama-Biden Transition Team highlighted in its January 8,
2009, letter to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the inadequacy of
the existing converter box coupon program and other federal programs
meant to support consumers necessitates a delay in the date of
transition to digital television. During numerous hearings in the 110th
Congress, I asked representatives of NTIA whether they had sufficient
funding for the DTV converter box coupon program. These representatives
consistently responded that they did, even in light of a GAO report
last year that NTIA would be unprepared to cope with a surge in
consumer demand for converter coupons. We now know that there are some
1.5 million households on a waiting list to receive converter coupons
and moreover that consumers, who apply for a coupon today, may not
actually receive the coupon until after the DTV transition, as it is
presently scheduled. I can only stress that had NTIA been more
forthright with the Congress about the perilous reality of the coupon
program, we would have been able to agree upon a solution well in
advance of the consumer crisis that now looms before us.
While I intend to vote in favor of S. 328, I wish to take this
opportunity to mention three brief, but important, points. First, I am
troubled that S. 328 does not contain a provision to require monthly
reports by NTIA concerning its administration of the DTV converter box
coupon program. Given NTIA's poor administration of this program in the
past, I feel it only prudent that NTIA be subject to more rigorous
oversight in the future. I would add that the House version of this
bill, which was to have been considered today by the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, included such a reporting requirement.
Second, I would caution my colleagues that this bill's extension of
the Federal Communications Commission's ability to auction spectrum
gives rise to the possibility of waste, fraud, and abuse in those
proceedings. I intend to work with the Chairman of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce to see that oversight hearings are held following
the enactment of this bill to ensure that the FCC is adhering to the
statutory requirements of section 309 of the Communications Act of
1934, which specifies how the FCC shall grant licenses for the use of
spectrum.
Finally, I am concerned about the DTV transition's effect on the
natural environment, specifically as millions of analog television sets
are disposed of by consumers. These old television sets contain such
hazardous materials as mercury, chromium, cadmium, and beryllium, which
could leach into the ground after these sets are deposited in
landfills. I hope also to work with the Chairman of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce to examine the environmental repercussions of the
DTV transition and take such steps as necessary to mitigate them.
In closing, I remain committed to working with my colleagues in
reaching a consensus-based solution to the problems associated with the
DTV transition, especially to mitigate its impact on low-income, rural,
and elderly Americans.
Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend you for
quickly putting this Senate legislation (S. 328) before the House for
immediate consideration. This is a bill that is responsive to the slate
of digital television issues confronting consumers and the television
industry.
In several weeks, without immediate action, millions of Americans may
remain unprepared for the digital television transition. Mr. Speaker,
as you know, I have had a long interest in the digital television
transition. I held the very first hearing on ``High Definition TV'' in
October of 1987--more than 20 years ago. In 1990, I battled hard and
successfully as then-Chairman of the House Telecommunications and
Finance Subcommittee to get the Federal Communications Commission to
switch from pursuing an ``analog'' HDTV standard to a ``digital''
standard. Moreover, I fought to build into the Telecomm Act in 1996 the
appropriate way in which broadcasters could utilize ``spectrum
flexibility'' to multiplex the digital signal into several video
programming channels or offer wireless interactive television or
information services. And I pushed unsuccessfully in the context of the
1997 budget battles to prohibit the sale of ``analog-only'' televisions
by the year 2000--an amendment that was opposed by every Republican in
our Committee markup in 1997. The result was over a hundred million
analog-only sets were sold into the marketplace even as the government
was stipulating it intended to turn off the analog TV signal. The
failure to mandate ``dual tuner'' TVs sooner has compounded the
difficulty of this transition immeasurably by increasing the base of TV
receivers that need converter boxes to receive digital TV signals.
Most recently, for the last two years as the Telecommunications and
Internet Subcommittee Chairman, I convened six DTV hearings, requested
and received three Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports, and
wrote numerous oversight letters to the FCC, to NTIA, and to industry
and consumer representatives in headlong pursuit of ensuring a
successful digital television transition on February 17th.
At the last DTV hearing that we held the second week of September--
just after the Wilmington, North Carolina switch-over test--the GAO
testified:

``NTIA is effectively implementing the converter box
subsidy program, but its plans to address the likely increase
in coupon demand as the transition nears remain unclear. . .
. With a spike in demand likely as the transition date nears,
NTIA has no specific plans to address an increase in demand;
therefore, consumers might incur significant wait time before
they receive coupons as the transition nears and might lose
television service during the time they are waiting for the
coupons.''

In response, I asked the Acting NTIA Administrator to give the
Subcommittee a contingency plan for dealing with the expected surge in
coupons within 30 days. Now, that contingency plan did not arrive in 30
days. Instead, it arrived to us on November 6th--just after Election
Day. The NTIA's ``Final Phase'' plan did not echo the GAO's alarm
bells, but rather stated the following:

``This Plan demonstrates that the Coupon Program has both
sufficient funds and system processing capabilities to
achieve this goal . . . . and to do so without the creation a
large backlog. Also, NTIA has built flexibility into the
Program to respond to various or unexpected events. Moreover,
based on actual, cumulative redemption data, NTIA would not
exhaust the authorized $1.34 billion in coupon funding
despite increased demand leading up to the analog shut-down
on February 17th, and, in fact, may return as much as $340
million to the U.S. Treasury.''

That's from the NTIA just over two months ago. ``No problem,'' the
agency is saying. In essence the agency is telling Congress, ``We have
a plan to deal with the surge and we don't need any more money. No
large backlog. And we'll have hundreds of millions of dollars left
over.''
Now, why is this important? It is important because we were actually
in session in November. We could have acted during the ``lame duck''
session if the Bush Administration had said, ``yes, we will likely have
a shortfall'', or ``please, Congress, let's err on the side of caution
and budget a couple hundred million more just in case . . .''. Yet NTIA
told us all just the opposite. The agency said everything was fine and
they didn't need additional money for coupons.
In late December, I asked for an urgent status update on the program.
That's when NTIA wrote back to me--on December 24th--stating that a
waiting list was going to begin in January of this year because the
coupon program was hitting its funding ceiling. The agency indicated
that to solve this issue and spend up to the $1.34 Billion in the
underlying statute for coupons that another 250 million dollars at a
minimum might be needed. And that amount would not necessarily reflect
the actual demand for coupons the agency was newly projecting. The
waiting list now represents approximately 3 million coupons.
In an attempt to respond quickly, I reached out the first week we
returned here in January to Ranking Member Joe Barton (R-TX) and said
if we work together on an accounting fix we could start to address the
waiting list issue and get the coupons flowing to consumers again and
buy some time. I want to thank Rep. Barton for his willingness to
proceed on such a bill.
But that effort has simply become overtaken by events. If we passed
it and also gave NTIA a couple hundred million dollars for additional
coupons in a measure that passed through the House and through the
Senate today, and arrived to the President's desk this evening, we
simply wouldn't be able to address the backlog and get coupons out to
people who have requested them by February 17th.
Not every media market will be as unprepared as others on February
17th. I know that in the Boston market, our local commercial and
noncommercial broadcasters, as well as our local cable operators, have
worked diligently to be ready on February 17th and I commend them for
their model efforts. Yet even in Boston, it is important to note that a
recent test brought a flood of calls to consumer call centers from
citizens confused about or unprepared for the switchover. Many

[[Page 1712]]

other media markets, in part due to the demographic makeup of such
markets, will have an even greater risk of significant dislocation
without immediate action. The Bush Administration has simply left us
with so little time to make the needed adjustments on a national basis
absent a short, one-time delay.
So, although this is the last place we all wanted to be, and in spite
of the fact that we toiled mightily to make this effort work, it is my
judgment that a short delay is in the public interest in order to
protect consumers. I urge passage of this emergency DTV legislation.
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank Chairman Waxman for
addressing problems with the transition to digital television which was
due to happen next month.
The simple fact is that millions of Americans are not prepared for
the digital switch.
In Salt Lake City, Nielsen Media Research reports that nearly 9
percent of households are completely unprepared. Salt Lake ranks as the
sixth least-ready out of 56 surveyed.
The coupons authorized by Congress 4 years ago--to help families
acquire the hardware they need to view programs once the digital change
is made--aren't getting to the customers.
Millions of Americans are currently waiting to receive the coupons.
The agency charged with distributing them has fallen behind.
My office has been attempting to assist constituents with the program
for several months. I know of cases where coupons have expired before
they even reach consumer mail boxes. That's ridiculous.
I'd like to thank Chairman Waxman for working with the Senate to
address concerns I raised about the coupon program. This is a Senate
bill, but it is important to acknowledge the work of the Energy and
Commerce Committee in trying to fix DTV problems.
The last thing families need right now is the prospect of additional
monthly bills in order to watch television.
Finally, I am pleased to see that this bill allows for emergency
services to begin using some analog space. It also provides flexibility
by allowing broadcasters who are ready-to-go to switch to digital
service earlier than June, which is a good idea.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 328, the DTV
Delay Act.
Since 1996, our nation's first-responders have been calling for more
broadcast spectrum to be made available for better and more effective
communication among emergency services. Tragically, the lack of such
spectrum was cited by experts as partially leading to many unnecessary
deaths among those responding to the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York
City. In fact, completing the digital television transition so that
this spectrum may be used by police, firefighters, and emergency
personnel was the main communications-related recommendation of the 9/
11 Commission.
In 2005, after years of delay, Congress finally established February
17, 2009 as the date when the country will switch to all-digital
broadcasting and eliminate the disruptions to public safety
communications. Unfortunately, after more than a decade of preparing
for the transition, the bill before us today would delay the digital
transition for another three months.
Like many Delawareans, I am concerned about the management of the
digital transition process and the shortfall in the number of converter
box coupons available. It is critical that we act quickly to provide
additional resources to address these complications and ensure our
constituents are prepared for the transition date. Still, public safety
services and broadcasters have spent millions of dollars preparing for
the February 17th transition date and postponing the deadline again
will only create more confusion and delay the implementation of this
vital 9/11 Commission recommendation.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, the question of whether to delay the
transition to digital television is important and deserves thoughtful
consideration. But today's debate misses a key point that will affect
many Vermonters, many Americans, living in rural areas: once the
transition to digital television is completed, even if every household
in America has a DTV converter box, many TVs simply will not work.
Reception of a digital television signal is an ``all-or-nothing''
proposal: rural areas that currently receive a weak analog TV signal
may receive no digital signal at all. For many people across Vermont
and across the country, this transition does not represent a step
forward, but a step backward. I am particularly concerned about the
many elderly viewers living in rural areas; for them, television is a
lifeline that provides information and entertainment.
We know that this problem is out there. In order to ensure that all
our constituents have access to broadcast television, we need to do one
or all of three things: increase digital television broadcast signal
range; increase the ability of viewers to receive the signal through
antennae; or increase access to low-cost cable or satellite television.
If there were an easy answer, this problem would most likely have
already been solved. But the problem persists, and it must be
addressed. I look forward to working with Chairman Waxman as well as
you, Chairman Boucher, to ensure that rural Americans maintain access
to television broadcast over the public airwaves.
Mr. BOUCHER. 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 Virginia (Mr. Boucher) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the Senate bill, S. 328, 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. BARTON of Texas. 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.

____________________

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1,
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009

Mr. POLIS of Colorado (during debate on S. 328), from the Committee
on Rules, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 111-9) on the
resolution (H. Res. 92) providing for further consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1) making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and
creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science,
assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization,
for fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes,
which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

____________________

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.

____________________

ECONOMIC STIMULUS PLAN

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2006, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. GINGREY. It is my privilege this evening to have the opportunity
on behalf of our leadership to take this hour and talk about a number
of things, particularly to discuss this economic stimulus package that
we are going to be voting on very soon, probably tomorrow. And we will
get into that, and hopefully some of my colleagues will join me on the
floor.
But, before I begin that discussion, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take an
opportunity to rise and to recognize a great woman who I am blessed to
call Aunt Eleanor on her 95th birthday. Eleanor Gingrey Murphy turned
95 years old today, Tuesday, January 27, 2009.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend her birthday celebration,
but I wanted to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to honor Aunt
Eleanor and wish her a happy and a healthy birthday. Eleanor Gingrey
Murphy has lived a great life and has been a blessing to both her
family and to her community.

{time} 2115

She was born on January 27, 1914, to Charlie and Effie Eubanks
Gingrey, my grandparents, in Warrenville, South Carolina, just outside
of my hometown of Augusta, Georgia. At the time of her birth, she had
two older brothers, Bill and my father James Gingrey. About 2 years
after her birth, her youngest brother Charles was born.
Just before Aunt Eleanor's fourth birthday, her mom died in
childbirth at

[[Page 1713]]

age 26. My grandfather, Charlie, worked hard as a mail carrier and
later as a carpenter to provide for his four children. But times were
tough, Mr. Speaker, and the children often had to take care of each
other when aunts and uncles were not available. After school, they
often roamed the woods, learning the names of wild berries and fruits
that were edible, and they would collect them and bring them home for
food. Eleanor was left to do all the cooking for the family at an early
age; and she must have learned well, for she is a wonderful cook today.
After high school, Eleanor followed her brothers to New York, where
they had hitchhiked in their mid teens to search for work. While in the
Big Apple, she met Bill Murphy. Bill Murphy, an Irish immigrant who
immigrated legally to the United States with his family from Limerick,
Ireland. Eleanor and Bill fell in love and were married in 1937 at the
St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church in New York City. They had both been
working at a little restaurant, Mr. Speaker. Some of my New York
colleagues may remember it; I think it was called the Horn and Heart,
where you put a little coin in a slot and you could see your food and
you pull out a sandwich or a salad or a bowl of soup.
Well, they were blessed with five sons, my cousins, Larry, Billy,
Charles, Tom, and Kenneth. Shortly after the birth of their second son,
Billy, Eleanor and Bill left New York City, and they settled their
family in a little town called Edgefield, South Carolina.
Tragically, my Uncle Bill left this world at the age of 44 after
suffering a heart attack while supervising a sandlot baseball game that
he had organized among his own sons and the African American neighbors.
Once again, Aunt Eleanor was left to care for her family. Her boys were
now becoming teenagers. At the time of my uncle's death their ages, Mr.
Speaker, were 12, 13, 16, 17, and 19. And, believe me, times were not
easy. Eleanor enrolled in nursing school, and she earned her LPN in
order to support her family. Her oldest son Larry had to cut short his
Navy enlistment to help out at home.
Through the years, Eleanor's family has continued to grow with her
love and her support. She now has 12 grandchildren, and 20, and I
understand soon to be 21, great grandchildren. Aunt Eleanor is a devout
Christian woman who has a deep love for her family. She often remarks
how blessed she has been to be able to watch her children become old
men. Fortunately, that includes her nephews and niece, of which I am a
proud member.
Eleanor Murphy is a remarkable, remarkable woman with a generous and
a loving spirit, and I ask all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to join with me tonight in wishing my aunt, Eleanor Margarite Gingrey
Murphy, a happy and a blessed 95th birthday. And I thank you, Mr.
Speaker, for allowing me to take the first part of this hour to discuss
this wonderful, wonderful woman and to pay my respects to her.
Mr. Speaker, this is quite a week. We are going to be voting tomorrow
on a bill that would spend $825 billion to stimulate our economy. I
know that we all agree, both Republicans and Democrats, in this body
and 100 Senators in the other body, that these are dire economic times.
This country is in a deep recession, and something truly needs to be
done about it. We need to stimulate the economy, we need to grow jobs,
we need to free up credit markets, and we need to do it quickly.
My concern, Mr. Speaker, is that this package is not the right
package. Sure, there are some tax cuts in the package and there are
some spending programs; but when this was first described, the idea was
there would be monies spent for infrastructure projects all across this
country, restoration of roads and bridges, money spent on rapid transit
and repairing decaying infrastructure. And each State was asked to
prepare a list of projects, and States including my own of Georgia
laboriously went through this process to find projects, so-called spade
or shovel ready projects that we could immediately get started or
purchasing right away and getting these projects underway and putting
people back to work. And it was an estimate that several hundred
billion dollars would be spent on the these projects.
But as this program has developed, and we now today at the 11th hour
looking at this bill as it has been marked up on the House side, what
we see is far different from what was originally projected. It is not
unlike what happened before the first of the year back at the end of
the 110th Congress when Secretary Treasury Paulson came to the
Congress, to both the House and the Senate, and said: Look, the sky is
falling; we are in dire economic straits. And I have a plan; it is just
three pages long, but I have a plan. And I am going to ask you to
authorize me to spend $800 billion to purchase something that was
referred to, Mr. Speaker, as troubled assets, so the program became
known as the TARP program, Troubled Asset Relief Program.
And I am not going to try to get too deep into the weeds of all of
this, but the bottom line is that many financial institutions across
the country were holding literally 50, 75, in some cases hundreds of
billions of dollars worth of these collateralized, securitized
mortgages, many of which contained subprime loans that had questionable
value, particularly with the value of homes going down, and sometimes
the mortgage alone on these homes was worth far more than the value of
the home that they represented. But in any regard, that is what the
Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board
said to us, and that we needed to give them that authority to do it,
and to do it quickly.
So, basically, over my vote and many on my side of the aisle, this
bill did pass, and $350 billion was spent and spent quickly. But, Mr.
Speaker, to this day I don't believe one thin dime has been used to
purchase a troubled asset. No. The Secretary of the Treasury, former
Secretary of the Treasury made a decision that maybe the British had a
better plan, one that was not discussed with us at any time, at any
time, as we deliberated and debated that bill. And we finally made some
changes to it, and it went from a three-page bill to a 110-page bill,
and at no time was there any discussion though of taking that money and
literally giving it to the large national banks and regional banks to
restore their capital and to purchase stock in these banks, preferred
stock, and so the government would literally take an ownership interest
in our banking system.
So that is basically what happened. No troubled assets were
purchased. And what happened to the credit markets and the ability for
a small business man or woman to get a loan from a bank, or indeed a
person to get an automobile loan or someone to borrow a little money to
send their child to college or get them through that last semester?
That money was frozen. There was nothing available. And so this
program, to my way of thinking, Mr. Speaker, hasn't worked at all. And
it is pretty depressing when it was not even something that we in this
Congress had talked about. This was just a decision that was made
because the Secretary of the Treasury said: Well, there is some fine
print or a section in the bill that says I have the authority to do
this. And he did it.
And so now as we come back for the 111th, and just before President
Obama was sworn in for his inauguration on January 20th, former
President Bush asked for the rest of the money, so to speak, another
$350 billion; and yet, again, no real restrictions on how that money
was going to be spent, and no accountability, no transparency. And so
we on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, have some real concerns
about what we are doing to this country and the amount of money we are
spending.
Now, talking about the TARP program, that is a total of $800 billion.
And now we are on the eve, literally, of passing another piece of
legislation where we spend $825 billion, but some say it will end up
being $1.5 trillion, or possibly even more, on a massive spending
program that is a far cry from what we were originally told; that is,
most of this money would be put immediately to work on spade ready or
shovel ready infrastructure projects across

[[Page 1714]]

this country repairing roads and bridges and some for mass transit. And
when we look at the content of the bill and we see things like hundreds
of millions of dollars to resod the National Mall and several hundred
million dollars for a contraception program, to me, that has very, very
little, if anything, Mr. Speaker, to do with stimulating the economy.
It just simply does not.
Fortunately, and I commend President Obama for this, there are some
tax cuts in this economic stimulus package. But some $80 billion of
$250 billion of tax cuts are literally going to people, Mr. Speaker,
who currently are not paying any Federal withholding tax. They have no
obligation to, because with their income and the amount of deductions,
then they don't owe any Federal income tax but they do pay a payroll
tax. So this is a refundable tax credit for those individuals, and it
amounts to, as I say, approaching $70 billion. And it is really taking
money out of the Social Security system and the Medicare system that
benefits that group of people more than any other in our population.
A little lesson on Social Security, Mr. Speaker, is that individuals
who are eligible for Social Security, who are in the lower income
levels, their monthly check on Social Security replaces far more of
their income than the monthly check to someone who is a higher income
earner. Someone at a higher income level may get 15 percent or less of
their income replaced by Social Security; but individuals at that lower
income level who pay no withholding tax, their income replacement by
Social Security is up to 40 or 45 percent.

{time} 2130

And so to literally take that money and take it out of the Social
Security system, to me it seems like it penalizes them more than it
helps them. That is something that hasn't really been discussed. I
haven't heard others discuss it, Mr. Speaker. But maybe we will hear
more about that tonight from some of my other colleagues.
There is one most important point that I would like to make. And of
course, President Obama very respectfully came to the Republican
Conference today. I think he was very forthright with us. I think most,
all of my colleagues on the Republican side would agree that the
exchange was respectful, sincere and honest. There were honest
differences of opinion in regard to what kind of taxes we really feel
like we need to stimulate this economy. We Republicans feel very
strongly that the tax breaks need to be across the board, that
everybody that pays taxes needs to have a tax cut, not have a
preponderance of the tax break going to those who currently don't pay
any taxes. But most importantly, even more importantly than individual
lowering of marginal rates, is to help our corporate men and women,
small businesses. I'm not talking about IBM or General Motors or Apple
Computer or anybody in that category. I'm talking about small
businessmen and women, the ones that, quite honestly, because we goofed
up the TARP program, are having such a desperate time getting a loan, a
bridge loan to keep those businesses going and to keep the employment
rate up in this country. They're not getting what they need. So we feel
very strongly that there should be a significant lowering of the
corporate income tax rate, maybe from 35 current down to 25 percent.
We feel like that a person who has a 401(k) or an IRA plan, Mr.
Speaker, who is under age 59\1/2\ and normally would be penalized and
have to pay a tax burden for taking money out prematurely from one of
those plans, in this desperate year or two, there should be no penalty
for withdrawing money out of a 401(k) or an IRA to possibly pay the
heating bill or pay for a child's surgery or to ward off foreclosure
when they are a couple of months behind on a mortgage payment.
Those are the kind of things that we, on the Republican side, have
tried to bring to the committees of jurisdiction that marked up this
bill last week, the Appropriations Committee, the Ways and Means
Committee and the committee on which I now serve proudly, the Energy
and Commerce Committee. And every little amendment, there weren't many,
Mr. Speaker, that we got approved in Energy and Commerce last week, lo
and behold, when it was all said and done, those amendments were pulled
out of the final bill. And so the bill that we are seeing today, which
is kind of an amalgam of those three bills sort of put together, maybe
rewritten by the majority leader and the Speaker of the House, none of
those Republican amendments, those well-thought-out amendments, after a
12\1/2\ hour markup, a lot of hard work went into that, and all of a
sudden, poof, they are gone.
And so when President Obama was at our conference today, Mr. Speaker,
we talked to him about that. And he listened. I think he sincerely
listened. He made no promises. But I thought it was a very good
opportunity, a very good exchange and a good start. And as he pointed
out, we would love to be able to have a bill that we could agree on
that had a good chance of stimulating this economy and stimulating it
quickly and that we could do it in a bipartisan way.
But for that to happen, Mr. Speaker, he is going to have to make some
changes that we Republicans can believe in. Let me repeat that. That
has been the motto, ``change you can believe in.'' He, in this bill, to
get Republican support, is going to have to make some changes that we
Republicans and the people that we represent, literally 48 percent of
the population of this country, that they, too, can believe in. And so
we can only hope that as this bill is marked up in the Senate, and
clearly, the two will not be the same, and ultimately there will be a
conference report and some changes will be made. And I hope that
President Obama, in working with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader
Reid, Mr. Speaker, we can work with the Republican minority with our
Leader Boehner, John Boehner, a gentleman from Ohio, and the Senate
minority leader, Mitch McConnell, a gentleman from Kentucky, that we
can get together and this can be a work that we can be proud of that
has a good chance of success, that truly we will be pouring water on a
fire and not gasoline on a fire.
So with that, Mr. Speaker, I see that I have been joined by one of my
colleagues, indeed one of my classmates from New Jersey, a gentleman
that has served on the Financial Services Committee, he served on the
Budget Committee, and I think he has an understanding of this whole
process far deeper than most Members. Let me just put it that way.
And so I'm pleased to have with us tonight my good friend from New
Jersey, Scott Garrett. And Mr. Garrett, I will yield some time to you.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Well, I thank you for the introduction and
thank you for yielding as well. I don't know if I can live up to the
level as being more informed and better versed than many of my
colleagues, but let me just try to make a couple of points here in the
next couple of minutes.
You are right when you begin by laying out a little bit of a history.
And when you do so, what it points out is that really we have been down
this road before. Several months ago, we were right here on this floor
debating a similar issue, when then Speaker Pelosi said that the sky
would fall if we did not take immediate action in the stock market and
the credit market and the rest. And of course, at that time we were
talking about TARP 1, TARP 1, a spending of $350 billion, because we
were in the midst of a crisis, we were told, a crisis that required
that there be absolutely no alternatives considered. In fact, the
Treasury Department said they looked at other ideas and immediately
dismissed them. In fact, when we were not even allowed to have a markup
or a hearing on it to consider alternatives, no, they had picked the
right solution to the problem that we were facing in the fall and
winter of last year, and that was their TARP 1 piece of legislation,
and we had to rush it through this body, pass it and have the President
sign it. And we did that over my objection, and I believe your
objection, as well.

[[Page 1715]]

At that time we said it was going to solve the problem. But what was
the end result? Of course, well, they said if we didn't do it, the
stock market would drop about 1,000 points. But by gosh, look where it
is now, several thousand points down. And the credit markets, I was
just in my office earlier today, credit markets, securitization of
housing in the commercial markets, are still equally tight as they were
then.
That was followed by TARP 2. It was just a week ago Wednesday of last
week. We were again on this floor, and again we were told that we were
in a panic phase, a crisis phase, if you will, and we had to vote on
TARP 2. And what was TARP 2? TARP 2 was an additional $350 billion that
would again go to now the new administration with no strings attached.
And this is the rub that so many of my constituents are so angry about
that basically we are just writing a proverbial blank check here,
passing it off to the administration, they can use it for whatever they
want, buy toxic assets, buy banks, nationalize the banks. If you saw
Speaker Pelosi on TV the other day, she refused to use the words
``nationalization of the banks.'' But in essence she said that is
exactly what they were doing, buying up the auto companies.
We could have our new Treasury secretary, if he wanted to, he could
go out and buy a TurboTax for every American in this country so those
people would be able to figure out how their taxes are done and make
sure that they pay their right taxes. That is what we basically granted
when we passed last Wednesday an additional $350 billion, again, over
my objection, and I believe over your objection as well, when that TARP
bill went through. And now here less than a week later, we are on the
floor discussing an additional $800 plus billion, again because we are
in a crisis, we are told, and if we don't move now, it will get even
worse. And we were told, again, just as in TARP 1, as in TARP 2, no
opportunity for hearing, no opportunity really for input, no
opportunity for amendments and the like, so that we were in panic
phase.
And with that, I would just like to refer you over to an article that
was actually in today's ``Weekly Standard'' written by John Stossel,
who I'm sure you're familiar with. The headline of that is, ``This Is
No Time to Panic.'' And I think that is extremely important to
consider. And it lays it out pretty well. The subheadline is, ``our
economy has recovered before and we can do so again.'' And what he
basically lays out here is just take your time, move in a careful and
cautious manner, consider all the alternatives which you were not
allowed to do in 1 and 2, and move appropriately and the economy will
work its way through with appropriate action in Washington that takes
all considerations and input to mind. We didn't do that in 1. We didn't
do it in 2. And I think obviously we are not going to do it with the
expenditure of $800 billion now.
So going forward, we should consider a couple of points. What do the
economists say about this? What do some of their own members say about
what is about to go on here? Well, the economists, let's talk about
that. We had the President come and speak to us today in the Republican
Conference, as you said, and I appreciate the fact that the new
President came and said he would reach across the aisle and talk to us
about these issues. Although I will add the caveat, each time we threw
out some alternatives to him and said, well, we might want to improve
the bill in this manner or in that manner, I believe for as long as I
was in the conference, each time one of those alternatives was
suggested to him, he said, well, I would disagree with you on those
points, and I really can't accept that amendment or that suggestion as
a change.
But I do still appreciate the fact that he would come and listen to
our talks. While he was there, and other times as well, he said that
all the economists side with them on the need for a spending plan right
now as they have laid out. And in essence, it is sort of the same
argument we have heard before where it says there is no economist on
the other side. Well, there are economists on the other side. As a
matter of fact, there are pages of economists on the other side of this
issue who say that the right action is not the one that is being laid
out in this stimulus package. The right action is not to put us deeper
in debt. And it is not just economists outside of the mainstream. I can
refer you, as well, to economists right in the Obama administration.
If you look to an article in the February 9 edition of National
Review by Alan Reynolds, he quotes two economists. One is Peter Orszag,
who of course is the new administration's head of the Office of
Management and Budget. And also he makes reference to Douglas
Elmendorf, who is the new Democrat head of CBO. So these are people
within the Obama administration who, previous to coming into their
administration, or the Democrat side of the aisle, I should say,
disagreed with this approach to stimulus with regard to fiscal
spending.
Let me just quote from the article with regard to Peter Orszag.
``Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin co-authored a 2004 paper
with forecaster Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institute at that time,
who has now been tapped by the Obama administration to lead the Office
of Management and Budget. In that report they argued that `budget
deficits which will occur with this bill, decrease national savings
which will reduce domestic investment and increase borrowing abroad.'''
Big budget deficits, warned Rubin and Orszag, would ``reduce future
national income,'' and this is the important part as well, risk a
``decline in confidence which can reduce stock prices.'' So that is his
new OMB director raising those red flags. Democrats' CBO director said
the following, and they warn that ``it is critical that efforts to
fight a recession'' such as we are doing now ``do not end up increasing
the long-run budget deficit and thus harming long-run growth.''
Elmendorf rightly noted that ``the idea that Congress should make
legislative changes to tax and spending policies in order to counter
the business cycle has fallen into disfavor among economists.'' So
there it is right there.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If I reclaim my time just for a second, I
hope you will stick with me, I want to hear more from you. But you
mentioned the majority CBO, Congressional Budget Office, they came out
with a report that said that 7 percent, Mr. Speaker, 7 percent of this
money would be spent in 2009 and up to 38 percent by the end of 2010.

{time} 2145

So we have this dire emergency and we need spending and we need it
right now, and yet only 7 percent of all of these projects are getting
into the hands of the people, into the economy, to help grow jobs.
Where is the emergency?
Well, I quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, feel there is an emergency. But
that is why we take exception to this program and the many things that
are in it that really have nothing to do with emergency spending. I
mentioned a few of them at the outset. There are others. There are
quite a few others.
In fact, Mr. Garrett, I know you would agree with me, Mr. Speaker, I
think he would, that when President Obama came to the conference today,
he admitted the same thing. He said look, there is stuff in there if I
had my complete way, and I am not sure why he doesn't, but he does have
to deal, of course, with the legislative branch, that being Speaker
Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid on the Senate side, but there are
things that I think clearly should be, and I bet my colleague from New
Jersey would agree with me, it is just regular spending. Whether we are
talking about some of the trillions of dollars on education spending,
IDEA, increasing Pell Grants, that is part of a regular process that
ought to work its way through the authorizing committee, Education and
the Workforce, and let the appropriators appropriate money under
regular order. That is not emergency spending. So we have turned this
$825 billion emergency spending package literally into a Christmas
tree, and it is not going to help, it is not going to get us

[[Page 1716]]

out of this deep recession. And we need something that is going to
work.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate the gentleman yielding and I
think when you said I would probably agree with you, I do agree with
you.
Before I describe the types of jobs that they may be creating with
this so-called bailout of the economy, you have to ask yourself: what
is the definition of a job? We have an idea when somebody says I just
got a new job, they have a job, employment, a career that they will be
starting next Monday and it will last not just through Monday afternoon
but through the next year and as long as they perform their duties and
services appropriately as to the requirements of their employer, that
they will have a job.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. At least to work long enough to make them
eligible for Social Security, 10 quarters worth of work.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. There you go. But what the government
means when they say they are creating jobs, and the Obama
administration has given us different numbers as to how many jobs, 2 or
3 or 4 million jobs, we don't know how many jobs that they are
creating, but a job is when an individual works at least one hour
during the course of one week, and that means that they have created a
job. So I could pay you to paint my fence in front of my house for an
hour, and I just created a job. So we could be creating 2 or 3 million
of these jobs under this proposal. But is that the type of job and the
type of recovery that Americans are truly looking for?
As to what the nature of some of these jobs are, let's look at a
couple of them. In Anchorage, Alaska, we have talked about building the
bridge to nowhere in Alaska. Here is street lighting. I guess that is
putting in light bulbs. That is one job.
Intercom upgrades, someone is rewiring intercoms in buildings.
Bus replacement. I am not sure how that is getting a job.
Also in Anchorage, Alaska, and Alaska does pretty well under this
bill, potentially. These are proposals coming from mayors across the
country as far as job-ready projects that they can submit to the
administration and say let's roll with these programs, Greenbelt Trail
resurfacing. I guess that is a job that we are looking to spend money
on.
Again street light retrofitting.
Landfill methane recovery project.
In Huntsville, Alabama, they are looking for money to replace
bathroom fixtures, software purchases, and replace trolley buses.
Down in Pines Bluff, Arkansas, they are looking to buy a fire
department ladder. I am not sure how that creates a job, but that is
what the mayors are submitting to say they are ready to go, dollar
ready, and spend this money getting it out the door.
With regard to that, I think the point should be driven home as far
as when the money would be spent. The original CBO budget said that
only a small percentage of the money will actually go out during the
course of this year.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Absolutely. Again, that was a CBO report and
it was 7 percent in 2009.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Yes, 7 percent.
Now the number on top of that that the majority has just come out
with says actually, we are going to get around two-thirds of the money
out in 18 months. Think for a second what that actually means. So 18
months from now will be July 2010. By July, we will be having our
summer barbecue, and that is when the bulk of this money will be spent.
That is not when we need to get the economy going, that is not when
small businesses should be hiring new people, not a year or more from
this summer, we should be hiring people today, we should be putting
people back to work today. So the idea that the majority is saying is
okay is favorable, spending money a year and a half from now as the
best-case scenario is one that I think most Americans would have a
problem with.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, and I would say to my
colleague that the jobs are being lost today. They are not being lost
18 months from now. God help us if we are losing these kinds of job 6,
12, 18 months from now. We better be growing jobs and not losing
15,000, and I think Pfizer Pharmaceutical announced they were going to
cut 15,000 jobs out of their workforce. Apple for the first time in its
history I think recently announced a significant job loss. The big
three automobile manufacturers, despite the fact that they got what, at
least $5 billion, including GMAC, another billion in the first tranche
of the TARP money, so these jobs are being lost and lost now. And as my
colleague from New Jersey points out, we need to save these jobs, save
the ones that we can and grow new jobs, but not 6, 12, 18 months from
now but right now.
I wanted to just mention for my colleagues' sake on both sides of the
aisle, sometimes it is a little difficult to know what is exactly in
these massive bills, particularly one that has been brought to the
floor in such rapid-fire fashion without any input really from the
minority side, but maybe without much input, if any, from the rank and
file of the Democratic majority. But, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues,
including Mr. Garrett from New Jersey, just listen to a few of the
things that are in this economic stimulus package: $650 million for
digital TV coupons; $650 million for new cars for the Federal
Government; $6 billion for colleges and universities, many of which
have billion dollar endowments; $50 million in funding for the National
Endowment for the Arts. That is a perfect example of something, Mr.
Speaker, that should be funded under regular order. It should be
debated and a case made whether or not that needs to be increased or
decreased, not thrown in here in the dark of night and said we are
going to spend $50 million because it is part of an economic stimulus
package. It is not.
There is $44 million for repairs to the United States Department of
Agriculture headquarters. What do they need new carpet, retrofitting of
their bathroom fixtures? Can't that wait? Is that going to create new
jobs? I don't think so.
There is $200 million as we said earlier for The National Mall,
including $21 million for sod. I could go on and on. Some might say you
are nitpicking, you are just going in there and picking out things that
sound and look bad. Believe me, there are others that sound and look a
whole lot worse. It is just a recurring theme. So we feel very
strongly, and I want to spend some time talking about this because my
colleague on the floor with me tonight, Representative Garrett from New
Jersey, he and I are both members of the Republican Study Committee,
the more conservative 108 Republican Members out of about 175 of us
now, in the minority, who have a better plan, we think, for stimulating
this economy. We call it the Economic Recovery and Middle Class Tax
Relief Act of 2009.
I want to bring out just a few of the things that are in that bill.
We have submitted it. I am a proud cosponsor of this bill. I think the
original cosponsors, the chairman of the Republican Study Committee,
Mr. Speaker, and that would be Dr. Tom Price of my great home State of
Georgia, and Jim Jordan, the gentleman from Ohio, and a couple of other
members of the Republican Study Committee, but here are some of the
provisions.
We would provide an across-the-board tax cut of 5 percent for
everybody who pays taxes. Every marginal rate, we would cut 5 percent.
If you are paying 10 percent, it is 5. If you are paying in the 15
percent bracket, it is 10. If you are paying in the 28 percent bracket,
it is 23. And we feel very strongly about that.
We would increase the child tax credit from $1,000 to $5,000.
We would repeal the AMT. Very quickly, I think the general public has
heard enough about this to understand it. I know my colleagues
understand it. AMT, alternative minimum tax, which was put in place 25
or 30 years ago to make sure that maybe 125 ultra-rich people had to
pay some taxes, they couldn't use legal loopholes with very smart
Philadelphia tax lawyers to get out of paying any taxes, and so it had

[[Page 1717]]

to be calculated in two ways and they had to pay an alternative minimum
tax. Well, it was not indexed for inflation and this year come April
15, 25 million middle income taxpayers are getting caught by the AMT,
and that should be repealed. It should not have any kind of a PAYGO
provision. It is a wrong tax. It was never meant to apply to these 24
million, and it should be repealed and repealed permanently.
We want to make the capital gains tax lower and we want to make the
dividends tax rate 15 percent and permanent. We want to increase by 50
percent the value of the tax deduction for interest on student loans
and the tax deduction for qualified higher education expenses.
We want to make all withdrawals from retirement accounts tax free, as
I said earlier, during the year 2009.
There are a number of other provisions in the bill. I know that my
colleague from New Jersey is very familiar with that. I would love to
yield to him at this time and we will further discuss the RSC stimulus
bill which is called the Economic Recovery and Middle Class Tax Relief
Act of 2009 which we firmly believe will get us out of this recession
because people will have money in their hands that they will spend and
we will not have to worry about this massive bureaucracy throwing $825
billion out the window and hoping that it sticks somewhere.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, before I speak to the many
merits of that piece of legislation, I just want to reiterate another
point as to how we got here and what we are getting from the other
side.
As I mentioned before, the proponents of the bailout bill that we are
about to vote on tomorrow would say that the economists are on their
side and there are no economists on the other side, and I made the
argument that there are a number of economists who support our view,
that the way to go is just what you were laying out in the Economic
Recovery and Middle Class Tax Relief Act.
I should also point out that even within their own conference, there
is growing realization that the way to get job creation going in this
country is not by rushing a bill through this House without due
deliberations, rushing a piece of legislation that is going to put our
children and grandchildren in debt.

{time} 2200

And so I just wanted to point out that our friend from the other side
of the aisle and the chairman of the Capital Markets Committee in
Financial Services, Representative Paul Kanjorski--who, by the way,
just an hour or so ago was trying to make a positive amendment to the
underlying bill and was rebuffed in the Rules Committee--this is what
he had to say on C-SPAN with regard to his own party. He said, the
Democrats, ``have lost our way, and that we shouldn't be pressed by any
silly deadlines.'' He went on to say further, ``We need to take our
time. And I guarantee you we're going to come back and we're going to
have to have another stimulus on top of this. We're going to have
another bailout for Wall Street because we are not doing things
properly.'' He says, again, ``I think we lost our way in a way. We
shouldn't be pressed by these deadlines. You know, what makes the
President's Day holiday''--which is where they were initially aiming
for--``so important for us to get out of town to get these things
done?'' Which just goes to show that there are individuals from both
sides of the aisle who realize that when you're talking about such sums
of money and when you're talking about such a situation that we're in
right now, that a solution is not to be found by rushing to judgment,
nor is a solution to be found by putting all consideration to
alternatives aside.
That's why I commend the gentleman from Georgia to making reference
to the RSC, the Republican Study Committee, proposal. Because what this
does is to make a realization that the failed policies of the past, as
far as economic policy of saying that we can spend our way into a new
paradise of the economic situation, history does not prove that. If you
think about the Great Depression--which a lot of people are now
referencing right now--some of them from the other side of the aisle
will make that argument and say, well, what pulled us out of the
Depression they'll say was FDR. And I know our new President makes
reference to himself with regard to FDR, besides Lincoln. But the other
side of the aisle will say that the way to get out of this doldrums is
do additional spending such as the New Deal, and that's what they're
talking about today is another New Deal.
But if you actually study the history of the Great Depression--and I
know there is much dispute as to how we got into the Depression in the
first place, but I will commend the gentleman from Georgia to an
article written by Robert Higgs which makes the case very well that
going into the Depression, there is question as to how we got into it,
not so much into question is how we got out of it. And how we got out
of it was an opportunity by the private sector to make decisions on
their own to invest as they wanted to invest, hire people how they want
to be hired, and to do so without excessive control by the Federal
Government.
And I'll bring this all around to your point of why the RSC's bill is
so important. During the Great Depression you had the FDR, the
Roosevelt administration, setting up a whole alphabet soup of new
agencies to regulate the economy. During the Depression, you had
excessive government expenditures in various sectors of the economy,
all of which made the private sector basically say, we're going to sit
back for a little while. We're not going to invest anything because
tomorrow, where I invest over here, the government may start regulating
in such a way that I can't make a profit; or tomorrow, if I decide to
invest over here, the government may decide to subsidize my competitor,
so I will not be able to make a profit.
So during that time, during the Depression, the investor groups or
individuals stayed on the sideline. And it wasn't until the Great
Escape, when the Roosevelt administration began to back off, that
investors began to get into the market again. The legislation you refer
to, the RSC bill, would go in the direction of what came after FDR and
during what we call ``the Great Escape,'' allowing for the investor
class to say I'm going to invest again. And why are they going to do
so? Just because of all those great things that you listed right there.
Section 179 expensing. An investor is going to say, I can start
investing tomorrow. I can buy this new machine, this new factory, this
new truck, or what have you, to hire new people because I can expense
it today.
I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. This is without a doubt. And I'm glad you
mentioned section 179. I think under current law, section 179, Mr.
Speaker, of course is that section of the Internal Revenue Code which
does allow a small business to expense a certain amount of capital
improvement or equipment purchase in the very first year. But it's
limited under current law, I believe--Mr. Garrett, correct me if I'm
wrong--to about $125,000.
We say, in the Economic Recovery and Middle Class Relief Act of 2009,
the RSC stimulus package, that that ought to be expanded. And not only
that, but also to immediately cut the top corporate income tax rate
from 35 percent down to 25 percent. And my colleagues and my friends,
that would just align us with the average rate in the European Union.
We're all talking about the European Union and what they're doing on
cap and trade and global warming and how we ought to get in line with
that--even though it will probably break our economy at a time that we
can ill afford to do so--but yet we let them rob our bank, literally,
with a more attractive corporate tax rate, and we drive our
corporations offshore. That makes absolutely no sense. So there are so
many things that we could do with the tax code.
And I want to say one other thing before yielding back to my
colleague. You know, I've heard the majority side talk about the tax
portion of this stimulus bill, the $250 billion or so worth of

[[Page 1718]]

tax incentives, and this business of refundability of a tax credit to
people for their payroll taxes, people that don't even pay taxes. And
the attitude is that, well, the RSC is wrong; you shouldn't cut taxes
across the board because people at a higher income level--let's say
$40,000, $50,000, $60,000 a year--they won't have to spend that money
and they will just hold onto it and it won't get flowing in the
economy, it won't stimulate the economy. But these nearly poor and poor
people have no choice but to spend that money because they're
desperate, they have to spend the money. They can't save it, they can't
pay down their debt, they can't put it in a college fund for their
child. To me, Mr. Speaker, that is insulting to these people--good,
hardworking salt-of-the-earth people--who I truly believe know how to
control their money and know when to spend and know when to save and
know when to pay down debt and know when to tear up their credit cards.
But no, we have this attitude that only uncle knows, only uncle knows
and has to make the decision for us.
And I'm just afraid, Mr. Speaker--and that's why I'm opposed to this
bill in its present form--I just feel that we're only going to get one
shot at this. We are losing too many jobs, the economy is in a severe
downturn--I think it's fair to say a deep recession--and we need to
give it our best shot. And we certainly don't need to be throwing
gasoline on the fire.
And so I yield back to my colleague for some additional comments and
then we'll move to close.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. It looks like the time is coming to a
close. And it just makes me think, as someone else said earlier today,
there is a culture of arrogance, I believe, in the Nation's Capitol
when the thought is that the bureaucrats and the Representatives here
in this House know how to spend the money better than the people back
at home. There is an arrogance to think that there is elitist--whether
it's here or some administrative agency--that they are somehow imbued
with special qualities, that their action of spending a dollar will
generate more wealth for this country than if you and I or our
constituents spend a dollar.
And of course we're not really only spending a dollar, are we? We're
talking about billions and trillions of dollars. And if this $5 bill
was actually a $1,000 bill and I put it right here, how many would I
need of those to have a million dollars? Well, I would need four inches
of these stacked up here to give to you and then say that you would be
a millionaire. And how many of these, if these were $1,000, would I
have to have stacked up here in order to say go out tomorrow and spend
a trillion dollars--which is just about what the other side wants to
do? I would need to have this stack go 63 miles into the air, into the
space. That's how much money we're talking about spending. And the
arrogance is that we somehow think that we know how to spend it better.
How much money are we talking about here? And I will close on this.
If you took all the money that Congress or that Washington ever spent
on the Marshall plan to rebuild Europe and added that to all the money
that this country used to buy the Louisiana Purchase some time ago, and
you added that to all the money that we spent in this country to the
race to the moon, and you added that to all the money that we had to
spend to get us out of the savings and loan crisis, and then you added
to that all the money that we spent on the Korean War, and then you
added that to all the money that FDR spent on the New Deal, and then
you added that to all the money that we spent on the invasion of Iraq,
and finally, if you added all the money that we spent on the entire
Vietnam War, all those things together would not equal what the other
side of the aisle thinks that they know how to spend better than the
American taxpayer. And I think the American taxpayer knows how to spend
it far better.
With that, I yield back to you for closing comments.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. My colleague from New Jersey, I appreciate
those figures. And boy, if that doesn't put it into perspective for all
of us, Mr. Speaker.
Let me just say this, and then I want to recognize my colleague from
Minnesota, possibly, for a minute. But at the end of our conference
today, Mr. Speaker, with President Obama, our conference chairman, Mike
Pence, the gentleman from Indiana, said to the President, one thing is
for sure, you have our prayers. And you have our prayers on both sides
of the aisle. We'll be praying for the administration, we'll be praying
for the leadership. We'll be praying for the majority and the minority
that we can do the right thing for the American people.
I see that my colleagues are leaving. So as I finish up, again, I
just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this issue is much too important
for partisan politics, but it is about policy. And if we're going to
be--we, the Republican minority--are going to be the loyal opposition,
then it is our duty, it's our responsibility to express our concern in
a respectful way to the President of the United States, to President
Obama, and to Majority Leader Reid in the Senate and the Speaker of the
House, Ms. Pelosi, here in this great body, that we have some concerns.
We want you to listen to us. We want to work with you. We want to save
this economy so that we can help all the American people.

____________________

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for
today and the balance of the week on account of a family emergency.

____________________

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. Boucher) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Scalise) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Jones, for 5 minutes, February 3.
Mr. Poe of Texas, for 5 minutes, February 3.
Mrs. Biggert, for 5 minutes, January 28.
Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Foxx, for 5 minutes, today and January 28.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 13 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, January 28, 2009,
at 10 a.m.

____________________

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

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

270. A letter from the Chief, Congressional Review
Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Revision of the Hawaiian and
Territorial Fruits and Vegetables Regulations [Docket No.:
APHIS-2007-0052] (RIN: 0579-AC70) received January 21, 2009,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
271. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Installations
and Environment, Department of the Navy, transmitting
notification of the decision to conduct a streamlined A-76
competition of aircraft maintenance functions being performed
by one hundred nine (109) military personnel in various
locations; to the Committee on Armed Services.
272. A letter from the General Counsel, Federal Housing
Finance Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule --
Golden Parachute Payments (RIN: 2590-AA08) received January
22, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Financial Services.
273. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting the Department's report
entitled,

[[Page 1719]]

``Report to Congress on Head Start Monitoring for Fiscal Year
2007,'' pursuant to Section 641(e) of the Head Start Act; to
the Committee on Education and Labor.
274. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- In the Matter of Amendment of
Section 73.622(i), Final DTV Table of Allotments, Television
Broadcast Stations. (Casper, Wyoming) [MB Docket No.: 08-108
RM-11451] received January 7, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
275. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- In the Matter of Amendment of
Section 73.622(i), Final DTV Table of Allotments, Television
Broadcast Stations. (Kansas City, Missouri) [MB Docket No.:
08-111 RM-11454] received January 7, 2009, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
276. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- In the Matter of Amendment of
Section 73.622(i), Final DTV Table of Allotments, Television
Broadcast Stations. (Kearney, Nebraska) [MB Docket No.: 08-
199 RM-11486] received January 7, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
277. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- In the Matter of Amendment of
Section 73.622(i), Final DTV Table of Allotments, Television
Broadcast Stations. (Omaha, Nebraska) [MB Docket No.: 08-115
RM-11445] received January 7, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
278. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- In the Matter of Amendment of
Section 73.622(i), Final DTV Table of Allotments, Television
Broadcast Stations. (Superior, Nebraska) [MB Docket No.: 08-
209 RM-11496] received January 7, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
279. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- In the Matter of Amendment of
Section 73.622(i), Final DTV Table of Allotments, Television
Broadcast Stations. (Huntsville, Alabama) [MB Docket No.: 08-
194 RM-11488] received January 7, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
280. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- In the Matter of Amendment of
Section 73.622(i), Final DTV Table of Allotments, Television
Broadcast Stations. (Superior, Nebraska) [MB Docket No.: 08-
209 RM-11496] received January 9, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
281. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Wireline Competition
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- In the Matter of
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service
Providers [CG Docket No.: 03-123; CC Docket No.: 98-67; WC
Docket No.: 05-196] received January 7, 2009, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
282. A letter from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Copies of
international agreements, other than treaties, entered into
by the United States, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
283. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a
report in accordance with Section 3 of the Arms Export
Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
284. A letter from the Attorney -- DOT Office of General
Counsel, Department of Transportation, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Railroad Saftey Enforcement
Procedures; Enforcement, Appeal and Hearing Procedures for
Rail Routing Decisions [FRA-2007-28573] (RIN: 2130-AB87)
received January 21, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
285. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Department of the Army, transmitting the
Department's report on a June 2008 limited reevaluation study
conducted to review previous reports prepared for the
Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park (Mod
Waters) project; (H. Doc. No. 111-11); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and ordered to be printed.
286. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Department of the Army, transmitting an
interim response to conduct a feasibility study to evaluate
problems and opportunities associated with ecosystem
restoration and protection for the New York and New Jersey
Port District; (H. Doc. No. 111-12); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and ordered to be printed.
287. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Department of the Army, transmitting a study
on the Santa Cruz River, Paseo de las Iglesias, Pima County,
Arizona, pursuant to Public Law 75-761; (H. Doc. No. 111-13);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and
ordered to be printed.
288. A letter from the Director of Civil Works, Department
of the Army, transmitting a study that recommends
authorization of an ecosystem restoration and recreation
project for an eight-mile reach of the Salt River between
19th Avenue and 83rd Avenue in Phoenix, Arizona; (H. Doc. No.
111-14); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and ordered to be printed.
289. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Department of the Army, transmitting a report
on the budgeting for the Island Creek Local Protection
Project, Logan, West Virginia; (H. Doc. No. 111-15); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and ordered to
be printed.
290. A letter from the Deputy Associate Director Energy,
Science and Water, Department of the Army, transmitting a
study for the ecosystem restoration and recreation for the
Salt River (Va Shly'ay Akimel), Maricopa County, Arizona; (H.
Doc. No. 111-16); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and ordered to be printed.
291. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Department of the Army, transmitting a
feasibility study to evaluate problems and opportunities for
East St. Louis, Illinois; (H. Doc. No. 111-17); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and ordered to
be printed.
292. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting a report of the Department of
Health and Human Services entitled, ``Geographic Variation in
Drug Prices and Spending in the Part D Program,'' pursuant to
Section 107 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement,
and Modernization Act of 2003; jointly to the Committees on
Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means.

____________________

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. RANGEL: Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 598. A bill
to provide for a portion of the economic recovery package
relating to revenue measures, unemployment, and health; with
an amendment (Rept. 111-8, Pt. 1).
Ms. SLAUGHTER: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 92.
Resolution providing for further consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1) making supplemental appropriations for job
preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy
efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and
State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes (Rept. 111-
9). Referred to the House Calendar.

discharge of committee

Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XII the Committees on Energy and
Commerce, Science and Technology, Education and Labor, and Financial
Services discharged from further consideration. H.R. 598 referred to
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered
to be printed.

____________________

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. RAHALL (for himself, Mr. George Miller of
California, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Markey of Massachusetts,
Mr. Berman, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Costa, Mrs.
Christensen, Mr. Holt, Mr. Stark, Mr. Kildee, Mr.
Hinchey, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Kind, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Honda, Mr. Salazar,
and Ms. Tsongas):
H.R. 699. A bill to modify the requirements applicable to
locatable minerals on public domain lands, consistent with
the principles of self-initiation of mining claims, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. McNERNEY (for himself and Mrs. Tauscher):
H.R. 700. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to extend the pilot program for alternative water
source projects; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Ms. FALLIN (for herself, Mr. Cole, Mr. Lucas, Mr.
Boren, and Mr. Sullivan):
H.R. 701. A bill to prohibit the use of funds to transfer
enemy combatants detained by the United States at Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to any facility in Oklahoma,
or to construct any facility for such

[[Page 1720]]

enemy combatants in Oklahoma; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
By Ms. HIRONO (for herself, Mr. George Miller of
California, Mr. Castle, Mr. Andrews, Mrs. Davis of
California, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr.
Ackerman, Mr. Berman, Mr. Bishop of New York, Ms.
Bordallo, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Ms. Corrine
Brown of Florida, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Cleaver,
Mr. Connolly of Virginia, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Crowley,
Ms. Edwards of Maryland, Mr. Farr, Mr. Fattah, Mr.
Filner, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Grijalva, Mr.
Gutierrez, Mr. Hare, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr.
Hinchey, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Holt, Mr. Honda, Mr.
Kennedy, Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan, Mr. Kucinich,
Mr. Loebsack, Ms. McCollum, Mr. McNerney, Mrs.
Maloney, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr. Pallone, Mr.
Perlmutter, Mr. Polis of Colorado, Mr. Price of North
Carolina, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Ruppersberger, Ms. Linda T.
Sanchez of California, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Schakowsky,
Ms. Schwartz, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Stark, Ms. Sutton,
Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Welch, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Wu, and
Mr. Yarmuth):
H.R. 702. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to improve early education; to the
Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts:
H.R. 703. A bill to promote bank liquidity and lending
through deposit insurance, the HOPE for Homeowners Program,
and other enhancements; to the Committee on Financial
Services.
By Mr. KING of New York (for himself and Mr.
Bilirakis):
H.R. 704. A bill to provide for free mailing privileges for
personal correspondence and parcels sent to members of the
Armed Forces serving on active duty in Iraq or Afghanistan;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. EHLERS (for himself, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Gallegly,
Ms. Richardson, Mr. Holt, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Gordon of
Tennessee, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Olson,
Mr. Carnahan, and Mr. Lipinski):
H.R. 705. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to encourage teachers to pursue teaching science, technology,
engineering, and math subjects at elementary and secondary
schools; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. COHEN (for himself, Ms. Norton, and Mr. Mario
Diaz-Balart of Florida):
H.R. 706. A bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to direct the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to
continue to administer the National Urban Search and Rescue
Response System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Ms. CASTOR of Florida (for herself, Mr. Abercrombie,
Mr. Barrow, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Bishop of Georgia,
Mrs. Bono Mack, Mr. Boozman, Ms. Bordallo, Mr.
Boswell, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Ms. Ginny
Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Burton of
Indiana, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Carter, Mr. Chandler,
Mr. Childers, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Clay, Mr. Cohen, Mr.
Conyers, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Cummings, Mr.
DeFazio, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Edwards of Texas, Mr.
Ellison, Mr. Farr, Mr. Filner, Mr. Foster, Mr. Frank
of Massachusetts, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr.
Gonzalez, Mr. Gordon of Tennessee, Mr. Grayson, Mr.
Hastings of Florida, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Holden, Mr.
Holt, Mr. Honda, Mr. Israel, Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Kagen, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Kind, Mrs. Kirkpatrick of
Arizona, Mr. Kissell, Mr. Klein of Florida, Ms.
Kosmas, Mr. Langevin, Mr. LaTourette, Ms. Lee of
California, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Massa, Ms. Matsui, Mr.
McDermott, Mr. McMahon, Mr. Meek of Florida, Ms.
Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr. Moran of
Virginia, Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Petri, Mr. Pierluisi, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr.
Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Ross, Mr. Rothman of New
Jersey, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr.
Sablan, Mr. Schiff, Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. Sestak, Mr.
Shuster, Mr. Tanner, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Terry, Mr.
Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Tonko, Ms.
Woolsey, Mr. Schrader, Mr. Doyle, Ms. Kaptur, Ms.
Schwartz, Ms. Sutton, Mr. Platts, Mr. Minnick, Mr.
Taylor, Mr. Boccieri, Ms. Pingree of Maine, Mr.
Schauer, Mr. Hall of New York, Mr. Berry, Mr.
Cleaver, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Bishop of
New York, Mr. Carnahan, and Mr. Arcuri):
H.R. 707. A bill to provide monthly vouchers to members of
the Armed Forces serving in overseas operations, or
hospitalized due to a disease or injury incurred as a result
of service in such operations, that a member may transfer to
another person to permit the person to mail, without charge,
correspondence and small parcels to members of the Armed
Forces; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself, Mr.
Sensenbrenner, Mr. Stupak, and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen):
H.R. 708. A bill to restrict assistance to foreign
organizations that perform or actively promote abortions; to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. ABERCROMBIE (for himself, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Frank
of Massachusetts, and Ms. Waters):
H.R. 709. A bill to reauthorize the programs of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development for housing
assistance for Native Hawaiians; to the Committee on
Financial Services.
By Mr. ACKERMAN:
H.R. 710. A bill to secure additional Tier I capital for
the United States banking system from parties other than the
Federal Government by providing authority to the Secretary of
the Treasury to guaranty certain new preferred stock
investments made by public pensions acting in a collective
fashion, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Ways
and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. CAPUANO (for himself and Mr. Castle):
H.R. 711. A bill to amend the Investment Advisers Act of
1940 to remove the registration exception for certain
investment advisors with less than 15 clients; to the
Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. CASTLE:
H.R. 712. A bill to amend title I of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to require in the
annual report of each defined benefit pension plan disclosure
of plan investments in hedge funds; to the Committee on
Education and Labor.
By Mr. CASTLE:
H.R. 713. A bill to require the President's Working Group
on Financial Markets to conduct a study on the hedge fund
industry; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mrs. CHRISTENSEN:
H.R. 714. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to lease certain lands in Virgin Islands National Park, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. GRIJALVA:
H.R. 715. A bill to expand the boundary of Saguaro National
Park, to study additional land for future adjustments to the
boundary of the Park, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. ISRAEL (for himself, Mrs. Myrick, and Mrs.
Capps):
H.R. 716. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act,
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require group and individual
health insurance coverage and group health plans to provide
coverage for individuals participating in approved cancer
clinical trials; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and
in addition to the Committees on Education and Labor, and
Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas (for herself and
Mr. McGovern):
H.R. 717. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide incentives to improve America's research
competitiveness, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. JONES:
H.R. 718. A bill to reinstate the Interim Management
Strategy governing off-road vehicle use in the Cape Hatteras
National Seashore, North Carolina, pending the issuance of a
final rule for off-road vehicle use by the National Park
Service; to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in
addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. LEE of New York:
H.R. 719. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to extend relief from the alternative minimum tax; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. LEE of New York:
H.R. 720. A bill to allow seniors to file their Federal
income tax on a new Form 1040S; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. MEEK of Florida (for himself and Mr. Brady of
Texas):
H.R. 721. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to modify the exception from the 10 percent penalty for early
withdrawals from governmental plans for qualified public
safety employees; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. MORAN of Virginia (for himself and Mr. Young of
Florida):
H.R. 722. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security
Act to provide an option of

[[Page 1721]]

States to cover a children's program of all-inclusive
coordinated care (ChiPACC) under the Medicaid Program; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts:
H.R. 723. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to
eliminate the 5-month waiting period for Social Security
disability and the 24-month waiting period for Medicare
benefits in the cases of individuals with disabling burn
injuries; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PASTOR of Arizona:
H.R. 724. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
authorize grants to increase the number of qualified nursing
faculty, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
By Mr. PASTOR of Arizona:
H.R. 725. A bill to protect Indian arts and crafts through
the improvement of applicable criminal proceedings, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in
addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. PETRI (for himself and Mr. Kanjorski):
H.R. 726. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide a credit and a deduction for small political
contributions; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. POMEROY (for himself and Ms. Herseth Sandlin):
H.R. 727. A bill to provide for the issuance of bonds to
provide funding for the construction of schools of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on
Education and Labor, and Natural Resources, 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. PUTNAM (for himself and Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of
Florida):
H.R. 728. A bill to allow seniors to file their Federal
income tax on a new Form 1040S; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey:
H.R. 729. A bill to help keep students safe on school-run,
overnight, off-premises field trips; to the Committee on
Education and Labor.
By Mr. SCHIFF (for himself, Mr. McCaul, and Mr.
Israel):
H.R. 730. A bill to strengthen efforts in the Department of
Homeland Security to develop nuclear forensics capabilities
to permit attribution of the source of nuclear material, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security,
and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. SHADEGG (for himself, Mr. Hall of New York, Mr.
Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Childers, Mr. Bachus, Mr.
Heller, and Mr. Latta):
H.R. 731. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
exclude individuals who have been convicted of committing
certain sex offenses from receiving certain burial-related
benefits and funeral honors which are otherwise available to
certain veterans, members of the Armed Forces, and related
individuals, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. WEINER:
H.R. 732. A bill to authorize the grant program under which
the Secretary of Homeland Security makes discretionary grants
for use in high-threat, high-density urban areas, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security.
By Mr. McGOVERN:
H. Con. Res. 26. Concurrent resolution providing for an
adjournment of the House; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. JACKSON of Illinois:
H. Con. Res. 27. Concurrent resolution authorizing the use
of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony in honor of the
bicentennial of the birth of President Abraham Lincoln; to
the Committee on House Administration.
By Ms. HARMAN (for herself and Mr. Turner):
H. Con. Res. 28. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of the Congress regarding sexual assaults and rape in the
military; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. EHLERS:
H. Res. 91. A resolution honoring the life and service of
Dr. William Spoelhof, president emeritus of Calvin College in
Grand Rapids, Michigan; to the Committee on Education and
Labor.
By Mr. BACA (for himself, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr.
Calvert, Mr. Filner, Mr. Issa, Mrs. Bono Mack, and
Mr. Dreier):
H. Res. 93. A resolution honoring the Armed Forces from the
Inland Empire in California and their families for their
extraordinary sacrifices serving the United States in
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. HALL of New York (for himself, Mr. Welch, Ms.
Kaptur, Mr. Arcuri, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Rothman of New
Jersey, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Linda
T. Sanchez of California, Ms. Baldwin, and Ms.
Loretta Sanchez of California):
H. Res. 94. A resolution urging the Secretary of the
Treasury to take certain actions under the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008 to protect the interests of the
taxpayer, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Financial Services.
By Mr. SIRES (for himself, Mr. Towns, Ms. Hirono, Mr.
McGovern, Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan, Mr. Baca, Ms.
Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Pastor of Arizona, Mr.
Pascrell, Mr. Shuler, Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Ellison, Ms.
Herseth Sandlin, Mr. Cardoza, Mrs. Dahlkemper, Mr.
Doggett, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Higgins, Mr.
Altmire, Mr. Clay, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Hare, Ms.
Velazquez, Mr. Costa, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Carson of
Indiana, Mr. Sestak, Mr. Farr, Mrs. Capps, Mr.
McKeon, Mr. Hall of New York, Mr. Gene Green of
Texas, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Holt, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr.
Rodriguez, Mr. Arcuri, Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of
Pennsylvania, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Teague, Mr. Welch, Mr.
Braley of Iowa, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr.
Ortiz, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Wilson of Ohio, Mr.
Hinojosa, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Yarmuth, Mr. Davis of
Tennessee, and Mr. Kennedy):
H. Res. 95. A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of
``National Girls and Women in Sports Day''; to the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform.

____________________

MEMORIALS

Under clause 3 of rule XII,

2. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the Senate of the
State of Michigan, relative to Senate Resolution No. 232
memorializing the Congress of the United States to assist
Michigan in rebuilding the state's economy; to the Committee
on Education and Labor.

____________________

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 3 of rule XII,

Mrs. NAPOLITANO introduced a bill (H.R. 733) for the relief
of Jayantibhai Desai and Indiraben Patel; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary.

____________________

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

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

H.R. 25: Mr. Posey and Mr. Miller of Florida.
H.R. 31: Mr. Sestak, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Berman, Mr.
Blumenauer, Mr. Boyd, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Hare, Ms.
Harman, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Israel, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Oberstar,
Mr. Ortiz, Mrs. Tauscher, Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Lee of California,
Mrs. Capito, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Baird.
H.R. 80: Mr. Nadler of New York, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson
of Texas, Mr. Lance, Mr. Stark, and Mr. Pallone.
H.R. 85: Mr. Olson, Mr. McHugh, and Mr. Nye.
H.R. 106: Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Filner, and
Mr. Lewis of Georgia.
H.R. 147: Mr. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Carnahan.
H.R. 153: Mr. Young of Alaska.
H.R. 154: Mr. Young of Alaska.
H.R. 155: Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky,
Mr. King of New York, and Mr. Young of Alaska.
H.R. 156: Mr. Olson, Mr. Schauer, and Mr. Kline of
Minnesota.
H.R. 159: Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr. McHugh, Mr.
Connolly of Virginia, Mr. Massa, and Mr. Sarbanes.
H.R. 175: Mr. Filner.
H.R. 179: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania and Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
H.R. 181: Mr. McHugh and Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 200: Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 234: Ms. Titus and Mr. Heller.
H.R. 235: Mr. Bishop of New York, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of
Florida, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Souder, Mr. Oberstar, Mrs. Schmidt,
Mr. Royce, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Manzullo,
Mr. King of New York, Mr. Guthrie, Mrs. Bono Mack, and Mr.
Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 240: Mr. Souder, Mr. Olson, and Mr. Terry.
H.R. 254: Mr. Holt.
H.R. 294: Mr. Latta.
H.R. 301: Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr.
Smith of Nebraska, and Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 333: Mr. Rahall, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. Gonzalez,
Mr. Abercrombie, and Mr. Nye.
H.R. 347: Mr. Weiner, Mr. Berman, Mr. Delahunt, Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Rothman
of New Jersey, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Holt, Mr. Courtney, Ms.
Sutton, Mr. Hare, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Ms. Wasserman
Schultz, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Mr.

[[Page 1722]]

Filner, Ms. Edwards of Maryland, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Ms.
Eshoo, Mr. Olver, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr. Moran of Virginia,
Ms. Hirono, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr.
Israel, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Flake, Mr. Kildee, Mr.
Butterfield, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Smith of
Texas, and Mr. Gutierrez.
H.R. 361: Mr. Nye.
H.R. 367: Mr. McIntyre.
H.R. 377: Mr. Westmoreland.
H.R. 378: Mr. Westmoreland.
H.R. 379: Mr. Pitts, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Wittman, and Mr.
Gallegly.
H.R. 381: Mr. Westmoreland.
H.R. 391: Mr. Shadegg.
H.R. 392: Mr. Latta, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr.
Bartlett, and Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 424: Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Linder, Mrs. Myrick,
Mr. Burton of Indiana, and Mr. Kirk.
H.R. 426: Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Carney, Mr. Connolly of
Virginia, and Mr. Nunes.
H.R. 460: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr.
Sarbanes, Mr. Honda, and Mr. Gordon of Tennessee.
H.R. 463: Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Johnson of
Georgia, Mr. Klein of Florida, Mr. Markey of Massachusetts,
Mr. Massa, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, and Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 470: Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr. Brown of South
Carolina, Mr. Rooney, and Mr. Shadegg.
H.R. 471: Mr. Fortenberry, Mr. Souder, Mr. Wilson of Ohio,
Ms. Sutton, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Jones, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania,
and Mr. Kildee.
H.R. 490: Mr. Langevin.
H.R. 498: Mr. Nye.
H.R. 502: Mr. Lamborn.
H.R. 503: Mr. Rooney, Mr. Berman, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Al Green
of Texas, Mr. Peters, and Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 510: Mr. Boustany.
H.R. 515: Ms. DeGette, Mr. Ross, Mr. Murphy of Connecticut,
Ms. Slaughter, and Ms. Matsui.
H.R. 527: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Honda,
and Mr. Thompson of California.
H.R. 536: Mr. Filner, Mr. Nye, and Mr. Souder.
H.R. 537: Mr. Sires and Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida.
H.R. 538: Mr. Filner.
H.R. 578: Mr. Stark.
H.R. 593: Mr. Cummings.
H.R. 610: Mr. Davis of Alabama, Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan,
Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Cohen, and Ms.
Hirono.
H.R. 614: Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Shimkus, Mr.
Aderholt, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Duncan, and Mr.
Wamp.
H.R. 620: Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 621: Mrs. Biggert, Ms. Kaptur, and Mr. Ellison.
H.R. 634: Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Smith of
Nebraska, Mr. Souder, Mr. King of Iowa, and Mr. Wamp.
H.R. 658: Mr. Dingell, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Bishop of New York,
Mr. Holt, Mr. LoBiondo, and Mr. Wilson of Ohio.
H. J. Res. 11: Mr. McIntyre and Mr. Rogers of Kentucky.
H. J. Res. 16: Mr. Posey.
H. J. Res. 18: Mr. Pallone, Mrs. Maloney, and Mr. Nadler of
New York.
H. Res. 18: Mr. Larson of Connecticut and Mr. Murphy of
Connecticut.
H. Res. 22: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H. Res. 36: Mr. Filner, Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan, Mr.
Higgins, Mr. Larson of Connecticut Mr. Gordon of Tennessee,
and Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H. Res. 60: Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Kline of Minnesota,
Mr. Carter, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Sam Johnson
of Texas, Ms. Granger, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Smith of
Nebraska, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Duncan, Mr.
Brown of South Carolina, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Conaway, Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Latta, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr.
Bilirakis, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida,
Mr. Petri, Mr. Manzullo, and Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of
California.
H. Res. 70: Mrs. Bachmann.
H. Res. 75: Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Speier, Mr. Stark, Mr. Honda,
Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Costa, Mr. Schiff, Mr.
Becerra, Ms. Solis of California, Ms. Watson, Ms. Roybal-
Allard, Ms. Waters, Ms. Harman, Ms. Richardson, Mrs.
Napolitano, Mr. Baca, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr.
LaTourette, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Arcuri, Mr. Bishop of New York,
Mr. Weiner, Mr. Childers, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Wilson of Ohio, Mr.
Altmire, and Mr. Boustany.
H. Res. 77: Mr. Wolf.

____________________

AMENDMENTS

Under clause 8 of rule XVIII, proposed amendments were submitted as
follows:

H.R. 1

Offered By: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 2: At the appropriate place in the bill,
insert the following:

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND STATE ASSISTANCE

For construction, improvements, repair, or replacement of
facilities related to the revitalization of state and local
parks and recreation facilities, $125,000,000 is made
available under the Land and Water Conservation Act Stateside
Assistance Program, as amended (16 U.S.C. 4601(4)-(11)),
except that such funds shall not be subject to the matching
requirements in section 4601-89(c) of that Act:

URBAN PARKS (UPARR)

For construction, improvements, repair, or replacement of
facilities related to the revitalization of urban parks and
recreation facilities, $100,000,000 is made available under
the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 13 (16
U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), except that such funds shall not be
subject to the matching requirements in section 2505 (a) of
the Act: Provided, That the amount set aside from this
appropriation pursuant to section 1106 of this Act shall be
not more than 5 percent instead of the percentage specified
in such section and such funds are to remain available until
expended: Provided further, That notwithstanding section 2504
of the UPARR Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625), any local government
within a Bureau of the Census defined metropolitan
statistical area may apply for assistance under the UPARR
program. Cities and counties meeting this criterion, but not
among the originally designated eligible units of government,
would have to include the required distress factors as part
of their applications for funding.

H.R. 1

Offered By: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 3: At the appropriate place in title VIII of
the bill, insert the following:
Provided further, That no funds shall be precluded from
being dispensed for use for the restoration, creation, or
maintenance of local and community parks.

H.R. 1

Offered By: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 4: Page 175, strike lines 1 through 8.
Page 647, after line 12, insert the following new section
and make the necessary conforming change in the table of
contents:

SEC. 7008. SPECIAL RULE ON CONTRACTING.

Each local agency receiving a grant or money under this Act
shall ensure that, if the agency carries out modernization,
renovation, or repair through a contract, the process for any
such contract ensures the maximum number of qualified
bidders, including local, small, minority, women- and
veteran-owned businesses, through full and open competition.

[[Page 1723]]

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________

UNI-CAPITOL WASHINGTON INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

______

HON. JOE COURTNEY

of connecticut

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, for decades the United States has worked
closely with Australia on issues of great importance to our two
nations. Australia has stood out among the international community as a
friend of the United States and remains one of our closest cultural,
economic and security partners. It is in this spirit that a program was
launched 10 years ago to further foster those close ties. Since that
time, the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program has delivered to
the United States approximately 100 of Australia's best and brightest
to serve as interns in a variety of Federal agencies and congressional
offices.
During my first term in Congress, I was privileged to welcome Anthony
``A.J.'' Bremmer to my office. Anthony was a welcome addition to my
congressional staff and he quickly became an integral part of the team.
When the opportunity arose again this winter to participate in the Uni-
Capitol Washington Internship Program, I immediately agreed to welcome
another Australian ``ambassador.'' Jehane Sharah, much like A.J., has
quickly become a valued part of our staff. Jehane has demonstrated a
maturity and a curiosity beyond her college years. Prior to coming to
the United States, Jehane worked for two members of the Australian
parliament. This experience has helped her flourish during her short
time in Washington. She has attended briefings, assisted constituents,
and worked with my staff on a variety of research initiatives. Jehane
also has an extensive background in communications, serving as a senior
reporter for a newspaper in Canberra. As a result, she has assisted my
communications director on a number of important projects. Jehane truly
is an exceptional ambassador for the people of Australia.
Many of my colleagues have also been privileged to welcome students
like Jehane to their offices. This year, 12 students from all across
Australia are serving in offices here in Washington. They were drawn
from seven Australian universities in four different states and the
Australian Capital Territory. From my experience, it is clear that this
program will help foster a new generation of understanding and shared
experiences between our two countries. One example of this can be seen
in a recent feature piece written by Jehane for the Sunday Canberra
Times. The article details her experience at the inauguration of
President Obama, an event that united not only the people of our
country, but those around the world as well.
We in the United States and Australia owe a debt of gratitude to the
program's founder, Eric Federing. Eric is a former senior House and
Senate Congressional staffer who has worked tirelessly to bring
students from Australia to the halls of Washington through his efforts
at the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program. Madam Speaker, as
Members of Congress we have a responsibility to our constituents back
home and an opportunity to reach out to people across the globe. It is
with that in mind that I would encourage all of my colleagues to open
their doors to students from around the world so that they can share in
our great democracy. Similarly, I would encourage American university
students to travel abroad to learn about other cultures and governments
and share their knowledge of our country. I ask my colleagues to join
with me in recognizing the contributions of the Uni-Capitol Internship
Program and to once more thank Jehane Sharah for her dedication and
hard work.

____________________

HONORING DIANE GLASSER AND PAMELA BUSHNELL

______

HON. ROBERT WEXLER

of florida

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. WEXLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Diane Glasser and
Pamela Bushnell, both of whom were sworn in on November 10, 2008 as new
commissioners of the city of Tamarac, Florida. As outstanding public
servants and great friends of mine, I wish to recognize their
accomplishments and congratulate them on their election as
commissioners.
Diane Glasser, who was elected as commissioner of District 3, has
been a leader in our community for many years. A resident of Kings
Point in Tamarac, Diane has been a member of many important committees
and task forces, including the Senior Citizens Involvement Task Force
for the Broward County School Board, the Charter Board of Tamarac, the
Tamarac Redistricting Committee, and the Broward County Human Rights
Board. She was chairwoman of Tamarac's 25th anniversary celebration and
has served as a four-time delegate to the Democratic National
Convention, has been chosen a Democratic National Committeewoman since
1992, and has been First Vice Chair of the Florida Democratic Party
since 2001. Her commitment to service and to the issues that matter to
our constituency makes her a wonderful choice for commissioner, and I
look forward to working with her in the years to come.
Pamela Bushnell, recently elected as commissioner of District 1, has
also been a member of many local boards and is an active leader in our
community. A resident and current president of Mainlands 1 & 2, Pamela
has served on the boards of the City of Margate Committee for the
Disabled; the Zoning Board of the town of Sutton, New Hampshire; and
Schenectady County Community College; among many others. A volunteer at
Calvary Chapel in Fort Lauderdale and a participant in the Broward
Sheriff's Office Citizens Observer Patrol Program, Pamela will make a
fine addition to Tamarac's government and will serve her district with
the utmost distinction.
I look forward to working with Diane, Pamela, Mayor Beth Talabisco,
and the rest of the Commission of the City of Tamarac, and wish Diane
and Pamela only the best as they begin their service on the City
Commission.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO SERGEANT MICHAEL DUNN

______

HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sergeant
Michael Dunn who retired from the Pleasanton Police Department on
January 16, 2009 after 25 years of dedicated public service. Michael
began his career as a Military Police Officer with the United States
Marine Corps, where he served for over eight years. He was a member of
the Los Angeles Police Department from 1982 until he was hired by the
City of Pleasanton in 1985 and was promoted to the Rank of Sergeant in
1997.
During his career in police service, Michael was recognized on
numerous occasions for his tenacity, professionalism and dedication to
his work. He was an exemplary police officer and consistently gave more
to the community than was asked of him. For example, he was
instrumental in introducing a variety of programs to the community,
including bicycle rodeos and a minor offense court to provide
rehabilitation alternatives for juvenile offenders.
Michael worked a variety of assignments during his career, including
Field Training Officer, DARE Officer, SWAT Officer, Traffic Motor
Officer, Juvenile Detective, Rangemaster, Patrol Field Supervisor and
Traffic Division Supervisor.
During his career, Michael experienced all that law enforcement
offers, including capturing kidnapping and homicide suspects within
hours of the crime, handling high profile child molestation
investigations, assisting in controlling large scale public
demonstrations, providing critical assistance during the Oakland Hills
Firestorm, and saving the life of a young girl at a local restaurant.
Michael always put the community and people first.
He possesses the critical qualities of an exemplary police officer
and has been a positive influence to his colleagues in law enforcement.
I commend Michael Dunn for his legacy of leadership and attention to
detail, while always caring for those with whom he worked as well as
the community at large.

[[Page 1724]]

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. SAM GRAVES

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, due to personal reasons, on Monday,
January 26, 2009 I missed rollcall votes 30 and 31. Had I been present,
I would have voted ``aye'' on those rollcall votes.
Thank you.

____________________

HARDROCK MINING AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 2009

______

HON. NICK J. RAHALL II

of west virginia

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, last Friday, January 23, marks the passing
of 137 years predecessors in the U.S. House of Representatives began to
debate a bill to promote the development of mineral resources in the
United States. One described the legislation as ``an experiment.''
On that day in January 1872, Representative Sargent from the State of
California noted prior fierce debate in the House over a core element
of the proposed mining law--that the Federal Government would be
selling off the mineral rights of the United States rather than holding
onto Federal ownership and imposing a royalty on future production.
Representative Maynard from the State of Tennessee questioned whether
the law might encourage speculation.
During an April 1872 debate in the U.S. Senate, Senator Cole from the
State of California cautioned that the proposed mining law would allow
a person to acquire large tracts of land ``which might be worth
thousands of dollars per acre, perhaps millions . . .''. Senator Alcorn
from the State of Mississippi acknowledged that he had never seen a
gold mine in his life, while Senator Casserly, also from the State of
California, warned of men who could not imagine the mineral deposits
that ``lie to a fabulous extent in value between the Mississippi River
and the Sierra Nevada.''
Ultimately, however, our predecessors believed the bill would ``meet
with universal favor'' and would prevent litigation among mining
claimants. They liked the idea that the bill might, as Representative
Sargent hoped, ``bring large amounts of money into the Treasury of the
United States, causing the miners to settle themselves permanently, and
improve and establish homes, to go deeper in the earth, to dig further
into the Hills . . . and build up their communities and States.''
And so, on May 10, 1872, Congress passed a law that encouraged people
to go West, locate hardrock minerals and stake mining claims on Federal
lands, and remove treasure troves of gold, silver, copper, and platinum
from the public domain--for free.
The General Mining Law of 1872, or the ``experiment,'' as some of our
predecessors named it, has endured for more than one and a third
centuries--a total of 137 years.
Today, we can resoundingly assert that the experiment has lasted long
enough.
Consider some of the impacts of the 1872 Mining Law:
According to the Congressional Budget Office, it allows the hardrock
mining industry to remove $1 billion in precious metals every year from
America's public lands, with no royalty payment or production fee to
the Federal Government. By comparison, the coal, gas, and oil
industries pay royalties of 8 percent to 18.75 percent.
According to the Department of the Interior, it has allowed mining
claimants to buy American public's lands for $2.50-$5 an acre--lands
that could easily be worth thousands or tens of thousands of dollars an
acre today. Between 1994 and 2006, the U.S. government was forced to
sell off more than 27,000 acres of public land holding valuable
minerals for a pittance: $112,000.
Finally, as detailed in several Government Accountability Office
reports, there have been instances where American taxpayers have paid a
fortune to buy back the very lands we once gave away. From Central
Idaho's Thunder Mountain, to Telluride, CO, to land outside Yellowstone
National Park, millions of public and private dollars have been spent
to reacquire thousands of acres of mining claims to protect public
access for hunting, fishing, and other recreational opportunities.
Given our current economic crisis and the empty state of our national
Treasury, it is ludicrous to be allowing this outmoded law to continue
to exempt these lucrative mining activities from paying a fair return
to the American people.
Beyond that, the 1872 Mining Law has allowed unscrupulous owners of
hardrock mines to abandon hundreds of thousands of mines--and to
require American taxpayers to foot the bill because there is no
``polluter-pays'' funding source, that is, a dedicated source of
cleanup funding.
In 2007, the U.S. Forest Service estimated that, with its current
annual abandoned mine cleanup budget of $15 million, it would take 370
years to complete its $5.5 billion in abandoned mine cleanup and safety
mitigation work. In 2008, the inspector general of the Department of
the Interior concluded that the public's health and safety is
jeopardized by the unaddressed hazards posed by abandoned mines on
Federal lands, including lands in the national parks. These old mines
are not just eyesores, they are killers.
Today, I, along with Representatives Miller, Waxman, Markey, Berman,
Grijalva, Holt, Costa, Christensen, Stark, Kildee, Hinchey, Eshoo,
Blumenauer, Kennedy, Kind, Capps, Schiff, Honda, Salazar, Tsongas, and
Connolly, introduce the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2009.
This legislation would end the financial and environmental abuses
permitted by the 1872 Mining Law--archaic provisions that fly in the
face of logic, and are not what taxpayers, sportsmen, conservationists,
and western communities want or need.
This is the same bill that the House of Representatives passed by a
bipartisan vote of 244-166 in 2007. It contains the same critical
requirements, including:
An 8 percent royalty on production from future hardrock mines on
public lands, and a 4 percent royalty from current mines.
A permanent end to the sell-off of public lands holding mineral
resources.
The establishment of a clean-up fund for abandoned hardrock mine
sites, prioritizing the riskiest ones.
Stronger review requirements, specifically for mines proposed near
national parks, to help protect nationally significant areas such as
Grand Canyon National Park, where miners had filed more than 1,100
claims within five miles of the park as of October 2008.
A threshold environmental standard for mining. This standard would
not preclude mining, but it would make it possible to protect public
lands if a mining proposal would irrevocably destroy other equally
valuable resources.
Every year, the mining industry's fear of losing the sweet deal they
currently enjoy on U.S. public lands leads, predictably, to baseless
arguments that reform will cause a large scale departure of mining from
American soil.
But we know there are many reasons companies will still want to mine
for hardrock minerals in the United States. In an annual survey of
metal mining and exploration companies published by the independent,
Canadian-based Fraser Institute in 2008, Nevada ranked second out of 68
jurisdictions worldwide for overall policy attractiveness. Utah and
Wyoming also made the top 10, and Arizona the top 20. The survey
highlighted why the U.S. has appeal. Relative to many other countries
the U.S. offers good enforcement, good infrastructure, a stable
political system, minimal risk of terrorism or guerrilla groups ruining
a mining investment--and a predictable regulatory system. Imposition of
a Federal royalty--or fee--on production--will not change those
powerful advantages.
We also know that the mining industry is clinging to an outdated
boondoggle. Nearly every country in the world imposes a royalty--except
the United States.
Industry might also trot out the argument that this bill undermines
our Nation's secure access to the minerals we use in everyday products.
Yet, import reliance alone is not a problem, as the National Research
Council of the National Academies asserted in a recent study of
critical minerals. Some minerals we have always imported in significant
quantities, simply because the ones we need do not exist in mineable
quantities here.
Furthermore, a 2008 Congressional Research Service report concluded
that Mining Law reform legislation would not likely have much impact on
domestic mining capacity or the import reliance of minerals like
copper, uranium, platinum, and molybdenum, in large part because the
vast majority of mining on federal lands is for gold--about 88 percent.
Today, our goals for mining policy are no longer what they were in
1872, when Representative Sargent hoped the mining law would encourage
miners to ``dig deeper into the earth'' and ``further into the Hills.''
We can aspire to a law that does not merely promote mining, but one
that also protects the other values of the hills themselves: clean
water, wildlife, recreation, open space, and tourism. We should aim for
a law that encourages mining but also encourages responsible corporate
citizenship. And, a law that brings a fair return to the taxpayer. That
would be a Mining Law worthy of the 21st--rather than the 19th--
century.

[[Page 1725]]

____________________

REWARDING YOUTH MENTORSHIP IN THE NEW YEAR

______

HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend anyone who
dedicates his or her time to mentoring this country's impressionable
youth--in any capacity, in all capacities. There is no greater gift
than the selfless giving of one's time and energies to the emotional,
scholastic, and moral development of another. We can all trace back in
our histories that one person or group of people who set us on the
straight and narrow, from whom we drew inspiration, motivation, and a
sense of purpose.
For far too long, wayward youth have had few role models to emulate,
few adults to guide them in an otherwise confusing, self-deprecating,
and turbulent moment in their lives. For far too long, the corrosive
influence of drugs, domestic abuse, academic failure, and delinquency
have instilled in our youth a hopelessness that permeates far into
their adolescence and even adulthood. These honorable many, who have
taken the charge of leading these youngsters to the road of successes,
deserve our praise and our respect, and I am thrilled to support naming
this month of January ``National Mentoring Month'' in an attempt to do
just that.
Three million youngsters are currently benefitting from a mentoring
relationship, but that just isn't enough. Five times as many kids are
in urgent need of guidance, and it is up to us to demonstrably reward
mentors for their vows of time, commitment, and effort. A mentorship is
not a task taken up lightly or without the resolve to work diligently,
generously, and openly--but it provides its participants such
innumerable, intrinsic rewards that it becomes a challenge, and
pleasure, certainly worthy of fulfilling.
May mentors across this great Nation feel proud of the work they are
doing, and may others take note of their tremendous example and develop
a mentoring relationship of their own.

____________________

THE ST. PETERSBURG TIMES CELEBRATES 125 YEARS OF PUBLISHING EXCELLENCE

______

HON. C. W. BILL YOUNG

of florida

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, The St. Petersburg Times, my
hometown newspaper, began its 125th year of publishing this month.
Starting from humble beginings in the back of a Dunedin, Florida
drugstore, 3 people--a doctor, dentist and printer--turned out 480
copies of the newpaper's first edition. Today, The Times is Florida's
most read newspaper.
Following my remarks, I will include for the benefit of my
colleagues, a column by Paul Tash, the Editor, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of The St. Petersburg Times, commemorating the
newspaper's growth and plans to celebrate its history over the next
year.
Madam Speaker, The St. Petersburg Times has dutifully recorded the
history of our community these past 125 years, and as Paul Tash writes,
``sharing in the success, suffering in the setbacks.'' Please join me
in thanking all those past and present employees of The Times who have
brought the news to our doorstep, in good times and bad, and even
during the most trying of times.

[From the St. Petersburg Times, Jan. 14, 2009]

Our Common History: Tampa Bay and Its Times

(By Paul Tash, Editor, Chairman, CEO)

This year the St. Petersburg Times turns 125 years old. To
mark the occasion, we are starting a weekly feature of local
history, drawn from the newspaper's own pages. In their
origins, neither the newspaper nor its community amounted to
much.
The Times started out as a weekly in July of 1884. In the
back room of a drugstore in Dunedin, three men--a doctor, a
dentist and a printer--teamed up to produce the first
edition. The total circulation was 480 copies. As my
colleague Rob Hooker once wrote, ``Their paper was like the
community--small, humble and faced with an uncertain
future.''
Over the years, however, the frontier villages scattered
around Tampa Bay grew together into a vibrant, dynamic
metropolitan region, and the Times grew with it.
Today it is Florida's favorite newspaper, with the largest
circulation in the state. Nelson Poynter, a generous and far-
sighted owner, protected its independence, and three decades
after he died, the Times remains rooted in this community,
not part of a chain or conglomerate.
There have been rough patches along the way. Back in the
1930s--the last time a real estate boom collapsed into
depression--St. Petersburg city government defaulted on
millions of dollars in bond payments, and the public schools
started charging tuition. On the outskirts of town, a sign
went up warning visitors, ``Do Not Come Here Seeking Work.''
Those hard times also hit the Times. Advertising dropped by
two-thirds. Since they had no cash, merchants paid their
bills with vouchers, which the newspaper parceled out to
employees as pay. At one point, the news staff dropped to 15
people, and the paper itself dwindled to eight pages.
But over the long term, the trend lines have kept climbing.
Compare just two scenes.
During the World Series in 1924, a crowd gathered outside
the Times' offices while an editor with a megaphone called
out the play-by-play, coming by telegraph into the newsroom.
Eighty-four years later and just a few blocks away, 40,000
fans gathered to watch the town's own team playing in the
World Series.
For a century and a quarter, the St. Petersburg Times has
recorded the unfolding story of our region, sharing in its
success, suffering in the setbacks. Now we celebrate our
common history by offering these slices of it. And even in
this difficult stretch, we are betting that Tampa Bay's best
days lie ahead. That is one of history's lessons.

____________________

IN HONOR OF GERTRUDE PINTZ

______

HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Mrs. Gertrude
Pintz, upon the recent celebration of her 100th birthday.
Gertrude Pintz was born on December 29th, 1908 in Austria-Hungary.
She has been blessed over her lifetime with strength, joy, her family
and friends. She is known for seeing only the good in others and beauty
in life. Mrs. Pintz lives every day with a grateful heart, warm smile
and positive outlook.
Mrs. Pintz married the love of her life, Sebastian, and together they
raised 3 sons--Sebastian, Adam and the late Henry. She remains close
with her sons, 7 grandchildren and 10 great-grandchildren. As the
matriarch of her family, Mrs. Pintz hosted the family's annual
Thanksgiving dinner at her Cleveland home, continuing this tradition
until the age of 88. In her early seventies, following the passing of
her beloved husband, Mrs. Pintz embarked on pursing her artistic
talents. She enrolled in a four year art school, where she studied oil
painting. To this day, her artwork adorns the homes of numerous family
members and friends.
Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor of Mrs.
Gertrude Pintz upon the joyous occasion of her 100th birthday. Her love
of family, love of life and youthful soul all serve as an inspirational
example for all of us to follow. I wish Mrs. Pintz an abundance of
peace, health and happiness today, and throughout the years to come.

____________________

JIM RICE'S ELECTION TO THE BASEBALL HALL OF FAME

______

HON. NIKI TSONGAS

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Jim Rice of
Andover, MA for his election into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Regarded as one of the most dominant hitters to have played the game,
Rice was a 1978 American League Most Valuable Player and an eight-time
All Star. With a .298 career batting average, Rice hit 382 homeruns and
1,451 RBIs during his 16 years in Major League Baseball. Having spent
his entire career in Boston, Rice becomes the fourth Hall of Fame
player to have spent his entire career with the Red Sox.
Rice has also been an active member of his community, contributing
his time and effort to several charitable organizations in
Massachusetts. In 1979 he was named an honorary chairman of the Jimmy
Fund, which supports cancer research and care at the Dana-Farber
Institute in Boston. He was also recognized by the Jimmy Fund in 1992
with the Jimmy Award, which honors individuals who have shown
``exceptional devotion'' to cancer research. Some of his other
charitable activities include working with the Neurofibromatosis

[[Page 1726]]

Foundation of New England and raising money for toy drives for local
homeless children.
Since retiring in 1989, Rice has continued his commitment to the Red
Sox, working as a hitting coach and instructor. Rice also serves as a
popular studio analyst on the Red Sox pre- and post-game shows for
NESN.
Rice and his wife, Corine, have lived in Andover since 1975 with
their two children, Carissa and Chancey.
I congratulate him for his election to the Baseball Hall of Fame and
for his notable achievements throughout his career.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. JEFF MILLER

of florida

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, rollcall vote No. 30 was a
suspension vote on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 31--A resolution
expressing support for designation of January 28, 2009, as ``National
Data Privacy Day.'' If present, I would have voted rollcall vote No.
30--``yea.''
Rollcall vote no. 31 was a suspension vote on agreeing to the
resolution H. Res. 84--A resolution honoring the heroic actions of the
pilot, crew, and rescuers of US Airways Flight 1549. If present, I
would have voted rollcall vote No. 31--``yea.''

____________________

THE CONGRESSIONAL ANTI-SLAVERY CHAMPION OF 2008

______

HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to read into the
Congressional Record remarks made by Dorchen Leidholdt, Director of
Center for Battered Women's Legal Services at Sanctuary for Families,
regarding my selection as the Congressional Anti-Slavery Champion of
2008:

On behalf of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, an
international NGO fighting human trafficking since 1988, and
Sanctuary for Families, a New York City-based provider of
services to victims of domestic violence, I am delighted to
join other leaders of the New York State Anti-Trafficking
Coalition in saluting Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, the
Congressional Anti-Slavery Champion of 2008. Congresswoman
Maloney's enduring and dedicated advocacy on behalf of
victims of human trafficking is unparalleled in the halls of
Congress. Over and over she has demonstrated her profound
understanding of the harm of human trafficking, gleaned
primarily from her compassionate, respectful attention to the
testimony of survivors, and her acute awareness of what it
takes to stop this horrific crime and severe human rights
violation.
Thanks to Congresswoman Maloney's visionary leadership, it
is widely recognized that stopping trafficking requires both
strong measures to curtail the demand for prostitution and
well-crafted criminal provisions that enable prosecutors to
put traffickers out of business--permanently.
Ken Franzblau has focused on the critically important role
Congresswoman Maloney has played in the drafting and passage
of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2008, which enhances protections to
victims while strengthening the ability of prosecutors to
hold traffickers accountable. Thanks to Congresswoman
Maloney's inspiring leadership, the 2008 Reauthorization
continues the important advances made by the previous two
Reauthorizations.
While we celebrate the achievements of the 2008
Reauthorization, our task of strengthening our federal anti-
trafficking law is not over; critically important work
remains to be done in two important areas. Through her
exemplary work in the House of Representatives, in the draft
that she shepherded there to close to unanimous approval,
Congresswoman Maloney, has pointed the way to two critically
important goals that lie ahead. First, the obstacles of
proving force, fraud, or coercion, while eased under specific
circumstances by the 2008 Reauthorization, continue to stymie
the effective prosecution of many sex traffickers. Going
forward we must ensure that sex traffickers are never
provided a loophole, because their trafficking was not
provably `severe.'
Second, sex tour operators fuel the demand for sex
trafficking worldwide by sending planeloads of affluent
American men to the poorest countries in the world to buy the
bodies of women and girls in prostitution. While
Congresswoman Maloney succeeded in including such a provision
in New York State's landmark anti-trafficking law (the
strongest state anti-trafficking law in the nation), and saw
to it that the House draft reauthorization contained it, the
compromise that resulted in the 2008 Reauthorization does not
include a provision criminalizing sex tour operators.
We must ensure that the next TVPA Reauthorization
criminalizes sex trafficking per se and makes it a federal
crime to operate a sex tour business. With Congresswoman
Maloney leading the campaign, I am confident that we will
accomplish these two remaining goals.
Congresswoman Maloney, on behalf of the Coalition Against
Trafficking in Women and Sanctuary for Families, our
congratulations on receiving this well-deserved recognition
and our heartfelt thanks for your invaluable leadership in
the battle to end human trafficking.

____________________

IN MEMORY OF ROGER BONE

______

HON. BOB ETHERIDGE

of north carolina

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the life
and achievements of Roger Bone, a former North Carolina legislator and
a good friend to me and to all of Nash County. He died on January 25,
2009, after battling cancer for many months. He will be sorely missed.
Roger and I shared parallel lives in many ways. He grew up on a
tobacco farm, like I did, and like me was first elected to the state
legislature in 1978. It was a pleasure to have him as a friend and
partner in my early legislative career.
He quickly rose through the General Assembly to become chairman of
the House Banks and Thrift Institutions Committee, where he served with
distinction until 1981. In 1987, he started his own lobbying business,
Bone and Associates, which has been among the most influential firms in
North Carolina. Last year, the N.C. Center for Public Policy recognized
him as the number one lobbyist in the state, and he was also one of the
most well-liked. People knew they could trust Roger, and his influence
was a credit to his honesty, hard work, and easy humor.
Last June, Roger received the Order of the Long Lead Pine, the
highest honor our state gives to our native sons and daughters. I can
think of no one who is more deserving of North Carolina's respect and
admiration.
Roger's family shared his love of Nash County and commitment to
public service with his family. His lovely wife Reba was an elementary
and middle school principal, and his son, Fred, was his partner in Bone
and Associates. In addition to his wife and son, he is survived by two
grandsons, Jacob and Caleb; his father, Winslow; and two brothers and a
sister.
It was my honor to be asked to offer the following eulogy at the
funeral of this great man.

It is an honor to take part in this memorial service for my
good friend Roger. I wish I could be there today with you to
honor and remember Roger. However, today in the House of
Representatives we are taking a critical vote to help our
economy recover from its current downturn, and I will he
thinking of Roger as I take today's votes. I will be thinking
of his love of politics and legislation, and his many years
in the arena, and I know he would understand, and Reba and
his family understand, but I still wish I could be with you.
There is not a person here who doesn't know how Roger Bone
loved Nash County and loved serving his community in the
legislature. He was not only a student of politics, but he
was a practitioner all his life. I remember that when he gave
Reba her engagement ring, they didn't celebrate with dinner,
they went to watch the General Assembly, so you know that
politics was really in his bones.
As most of you know, he was ranked the top lobbyist in
North Carolina last year, and he was so successful because he
truly cared about people. In his work, he made friends, not
enemies; knowing that those who were not with him today could
be his partner tomorrow. Roger was a good friend to me, as he
was to many of you. He could be calm in the midst of a storm.
No matter what--the commotion of business, the furor of
political debate--he was always steady, always smiling,
always a reliable partner and friend.
I count it a distinct blessing that we were freshman
members of the General Assembly together and I will never
forget that year. In 1979, we were part of a group of
``Liston's Boys'': Roger, myself, Martin Lancaster, Paul
Pulley, and others. As roommates at the Brownstone Hotel,
Roger and I spent many late hours talking about our new roles
and the politics of the House. My fondest memories were the
early mornings. Even though we both grew up on a farm, Roger
never appreciated my getting up early in the morning to go
running. As I was heading out, my stirring would wake up
Roger while he was still trying to finish his sleep. Then, I
would wake him up again when I got back.

[[Page 1727]]

However, the work ethic he gained from farm life served him
well in the General Assembly and in the rest of his life. His
positive attitude contributed to his success in everything he
did. Everyone who knew him liked him, and everyone who worked
with him liked him as well. It says a lot about him that he
could always laugh at himself, and in the toughest of times
if you can laugh you'll be alright.
While this is a sad day for all of us, it would be wise of
us to remember the words of the great artist, Leonardo da
Vinci, who said on the death of a friend, ``As a well-spent
day brings happy sleep, so a life well used brings a happy
death.'' Roger used his life well, and Nash County, and the
State of North Carolina are better due to his efforts. I am
better because I knew him, as are we all. Thank you for
allowing me to be part of this remembrance.

____________________

DANTE ``GLUEFINGERS'' LAVELLI

______

HON. STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, when you were a Cleveland Browns fan,
there is no halfway. To be a Browns fan requires a lifelong devotion,
an unflinching loyalty, a reverence for all those who came before. As a
Browns fan, you come to accept that your loyalty will be tested often,
and in ways you cannot fathom--the Drive, the Fumble, the stealth,
dark-of-night move to Baltimore. Yet, the loyalty never wavers--mostly
because the rewards and the memories forged on Sunday afternoons
between fathers, sons, friends and neighbors are so powerful--even when
they are few and far between.
One of pillars of the Browns recently passed: Dante ``Glue Fingers''
Lavelli. He played with Otto Graham, Marion Motley and Lou ``The Toe''
Groza and was coached by the legendary Paul Brown. He led the team to
seven championships in the 1940s and 1950s. He was a gridiron star in
his hometown of Hudson, OH, which is part of my district. He led his
high school team to three straight undefeated seasons.
Dante Lavelli was a World War II Army veteran who missed most of
college to defend our Nation, trading the Horseshoe at Ohio State for
the beaches of Normandy. The famed receiver--nicknamed ``Gluefingers''
because he never dropped the ball--was enshrined in the Pro Football
Hall of Fame in Canton more than 30 years ago, where his 386 catches
for 6,488 yards and 62 touchdowns are part of football lore. He loved
one woman for more than 60 years, his beloved wife, Joy. He is survived
by his wife, two daughters, a son, and four grandchildren, including
Aaron Bill, who worked for me in Washington and now attends law school.
I want to submit into the Record a column written by renowned
Cleveland Plain Dealer sportswriter Terry Pluto, who so eloquently
captured the magic of a man who meant so much to his family, his
community, the Browns and the NFL. The article was published on January
25, 2009, the day after Lavelli's funeral in Hudson, OH.

He was a man who put salt on almost everything, especially
a salad. He drank a huge can of ice tea each night and would
drive his grandchildren around, forcing them to listen to
polka music in the car.
Dante Lavelli was so much more than a Hall of Fame receiver
for the Cleveland Browns, as family and friends made clear
during his funeral at St. Mary's Church in Hudson on
Saturday.
Aaron Bill walked up to the pulpit with a comb as he
prepared to talk about his grandfather, who died Tuesday at
the age of 85.
``He was always trying to comb my hair,'' said Bill. ``He'd
tell me that my sideburns were too long, that I needed a
haircut. He wanted me to pull up my pants even when they were
as high as they could go.''
Yes, he's Dante Lavelli, ``Gluefingers.'' He was Dante
Lavelli, Mr. ``Clutch.'' He was Dante Lavelli, the receiver's
receiver, a player whose football personality was opposite to
so many of the self-absorbed types who play the position
today.
He's the man ``who never dropped a pass that he touched,
not in practices or games.'' So said great Browns coach Paul
Brown at Lavelli's Hall of Fame induction in 1975. He also
never did a celebration dance in the end zone, because he had
been there before--a total of 62 times in his 11-year Browns
career.
Lavelli caught all but 20 of his 386 receptions from Hall
of Famer Otto Graham. He also played games in 1956, his final
season, with a notebook and pencil tucked inside his pads so
he could sign up opponents after the game to join the new
Players Association that he helped assemble.
``When my father walked, the floor shook,'' said his son,
Edward Lavelli.
Or so it seemed.
He led Hudson High to three undefeated seasons in the late
1930s.
He played only three games at Ohio State before joining the
Army, where he was in the 28th Infantry.
The flag on his casket was a reminder that Lavelli was part
of the group of men who landed at Omaha Beach. He was in
Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge in the winter of
1944-45, where the Allies lost an estimated 81,000 men.
In an interview with Scout.com, Lavelli said at one point
in the fighting, ``I spent three days in a foxhole.'' He also
said he prayed the ``Our Father'' constantly for three days.
After his football career, Lavelli had ownership interest
in a furniture store, in two bowling alleys and other
business ventures. He had been the oldest living member of
the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He pushed for recognition of
the 1948 Browns for their undefeated season, which had been
dismissed by the NFL because it happened in the old All-
American Football Conference.
As Father John Betters said in his homily, ``Dante Lavelli
truly was one of America's Greatest Generation.''
Lavelli was married for nearly 60 years to Joy, and spent
much of his later life in Westlake. His family members
mentioned how he loved to win at anything, from gin rummy to
golf to negotiating to buy a car.
Oldest daughter Lucinda said her father often offered this
advice: ``Save your money and get some rest.''
Or as grandson Aaron Bill said, looking up and speaking to
his deceased grandfather, ``I love you very much, and I'll
miss talking to you every day. And don't worry, my shoes
aren't untied. I wore loafers.''

____________________

IN RECOGNITION OF ARMY STAFF SERGEANT CARLO M. ROBINSON

______

HON. MIKE ROSS

of arkansas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a true American
hero. On January 17, 2009, our Nation and our state lost a brave
soldier when Army Staff Sergeant Carlo Montel Robinson died in Bagram,
Afghanistan, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. He died of
wounds sustained in Kabul, Afghanistan, when a vehicle-borne improvised
explosive device detonated near his vehicle.
Staff Sergeant Robinson grew up in Hope, Arkansas--a tight-knit
community where I had the privilege of growing up as well. Although I
never had the honor to meet Staff Sergeant Robinson, on behalf of the
community of Hope, I extend my utmost condolences to his family,
friends and all who knew him for this devasting loss.
Staff Sergeant Robinson was assigned to the 1st Maneuver Enhancement
Brigade at Fort Polk, La., and carried out his duties with pride in his
country and without reservation. Staff Sergeant Robinson spent the last
thirteen years in the U.S. Army where he served with distinction and
dedication, epitomizing a true patriot.
My deepest thoughts and prayers are with his daughters, Carneshia and
Destiny, son, Da'karia, mother, Jennifer, grandmother, Martha, and the
rest of his family, friends and loved ones during this difficult time.
Today, I ask all Members of Congress to join me as we honor the life
of Staff Sergeant Carlo Robinson and his legacy, and all those men and
women in our Armed Forces who gave the ultimate sacrifice in service to
their country.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE CITIZENS INVOLVEMENT IN CAMPAIGNS (CIVIC) ACT

______

HON. THOMAS E. PETRI

of wisconsin

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, today, Representative Paul Kanjorski and I
are introducing bipartisan legislation to establish a program of
limited tax credits and tax deductions to get average Americans more
involved in the political process. This bill, the Citizens Involvement
in Campaigns (CIVIC) Act, will broaden the base of political
contributors and limit the influence of big money donors in federal
elections.
We need to take a fresh look at innovative approaches to campaign
finance reform, with special attention paid to ideas that encourage,
and not restrict, greater participation in our campaigns. Toward this
end, I have been advocating tax credits and deductions for small
political contributions for many years. An updated tax credit system
would be a simple and effective means of balancing the influence of big
money donors and bringing individual contributors back to our
campaigns. The impact of

[[Page 1728]]

this counterweight will reduce the burden of raising money, as well as
the appearance of impropriety that accompanies the money chase.
Most would agree that the ideal way to finance political campaigns is
through a broad base of donors. But, as we are all painfully aware, the
economic realities of modern-day campaigning lead many candidates to
focus most of their efforts on collecting funds from a few large
donors. This reality alienates many Americans from the political
process.
The concept of empowering small donors is not a new idea. For
example, from 1972 to 1986, the Federal government offered a tax credit
for small political contributions. This provided an incentive for
average Americans to contribute to campaigns in small amounts while
simultaneously encouraging politicians to solicit donations from a
larger pool of contributors. Currently, six geographically and
politically diverse states (Oregon, Minnesota, Ohio, Virginia,
Arkansas, and Arizona) offer their own tax credits for political
contributions. These state-level credits vary in many respects, but all
share the same goal of encouraging average Americans to become more
involved.
The CIVIC Act can begin the process of building this counterweight
for Federal elections. This bill is designed to encourage Americans who
ordinarily do not get involved in politics beyond casting a vote every
two or four years (that is, if they bother to vote at all) to become
more active participants in our political process.
The CIVIC Act will reestablish and update the discontinued Federal
tax credit. Taxpayers can choose between a 100 percent tax credit for
political contributions to Federal candidates or national political
parties (limited to $200 per taxable year), or a 100 percent tax
deduction (limited to $600 per taxable year). Both limits, of course,
are doubled for joint returns. As long as political parties and
candidates promote the existence of these credits, the program can have
a real impact and aid in making elections more grassroots affairs than
they are today.
A limited tax credit for political contributions can be a bipartisan,
cost-efficient method for helping balance the influence of large money
donors in the American electoral process. Instead of driving away most
Americans from participation in political life, we can offer an
invitation for citizens to play a larger role in political campaigns.
It seems to me that this will be a fruitful way to clean up our system,
while at the same time convincing Americans that they actually have a
meaningful stake in elections.

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF GARY PENROD

______

HON. JERRY LEWIS

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute
to one of the most respected public servants in my district, San
Bernardino County Sheriff Gary Penrod, who is stepping down this month
after nearly 40 years protecting our citizens.
A Southern California native, Gary Stephen Penrod graduated from
Redlands Schools, worked as a U.S. Forest Service firefighter and is a
U.S. Army veteran. But his life has been in law enforcement, and he has
served in the sheriff's department since being deputized in 1971.
Sheriff Penrod spent time on patrol in most of the vast desert and
mountain reaches of San Bernardino County, and received regular
promotions over the years. When the city of Hesperia incorporated in
1988, the sheriff's department contracted to provide police services,
and Gary Penrod became the first Hesperia Police Chief.
By the time our former sheriff retired in 1994, Gary Penrod had been
promoted to Deputy Chief. He easily defeated six other candidates and
was sworn in as sheriff on Jan. 3, 1995. He has been reelected to three
more four-year terms.
When he first took office in 1994, San Bernardino County had a
population of 774,000 people. Today, more than 2 million people live in
the sheriff's jurisdiction. Deputies responded to 617,000 calls in
1994, last year they had more than 1.2 million.
Mr. Speaker, San Bernardino County was known in the past for having
some colorful characters as our top law enforcer. Sheriff Penrod has
had a reputation for quiet leadership, for helping the department
achieve high recognition for professionalism, and for encouraging his
deputies to stay on the cutting edge as law enforcement has modernized.
During his tenure, Sheriff Penrod implemented community based
policing and many innovative programs and staffing enhancements
including: Crime Free Multi-Housing, Operation CleanSWEEP, Public
Safety Internship Academy, Marijuana Eradication Team, Methamphetamine
Lab Task Force, Narcotics Special Enforcement Teams and Gang
Enforcement Units. Sheriff Penrod oversaw the merger with the San
Bernardino Marshall's office and in 2005 he became Sheriff-Coroner of
San Bernardino County.
A highly respected leader, Sheriff Penrod is a member of San
Bernardino County Children's Network, San Bernardino County Chiefs of
Police and Sheriff's Association, California Police Officers'
Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, National
Sheriffs' Association, Western State Sheriffs' Association, California
State Coroners' Association, and the Governor's Corrections Standard
Authority. He is a past president of the California State Sheriffs'
Association.
Although he is respected for his professionalism and progressive
thinking, among his deputies Sheriff Penrod is most known as someone
who always cares for the members of his department. Wounded deputies
have often told of finding the sheriff by their bedside, personally
promising to help them and their families.
Madam Speaker, after 38 years as a law enforcement officer, Sheriff
Penrod has decided to retire to spend more time with his wife Nancy and
at his hobbies--horseback riding, raising cattle, fishing, camping and
snow skiing. Please join me in thanking him for his years of service,
and wishing him and Nancy success in all of their future endeavors.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF STEELTON-HIGHSPIRE HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL TEAM FOR THEIR
SECOND CONSECUTIVE PIAA SINGLE A CHAMPIONSHIP

______

HON. TIM HOLDEN

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 2008-2009
Steelton-Highspire Steamrollers, from Steelton, PA in my congressional
district. They completed an undefeated season with a victory over
Clairton High School to become PIAA Single A State football champions.
The Steamrollers certainly had a season to remember setting school
records in wins, points, and games played. They established the longest
winning streak in school history with 25 wins dating back to last year.
The Rollers capped off the season by winning their fourth straight
District 3 title and their second consecutive PIAA State Single A
Championship.
The Rollers were led by a group of seniors who will go down in
Steelton-Highspire history as the most successful class in the great
history of Steamroller football. In 4 years this group compiled a
record of 51 wins and 9 losses winning the district title all 4 years
and two state championships. The offense was led by senior tailback
Jeremiah Young, who ran for 2,812 yards and 30 touchdowns on 283
carries. Mr. Young broke the State's all-time career rushing record and
stands seventh all time in the Nation with 9,027 yards.
I congratulate Steelton-Highspire High School and Coach Rob Deibler
on a season to remember.

____________________

HONORING THOMAS G. LANDAAL

______

HON. DALE E. KILDEE

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of
Thomas G. Landaal. Sadly, Mr. Landaal passed away on December 5, 2007,
at the age of 53, and the International Corrugated Packaging Foundation
will posthumously induct Tom Landaal into their Circle of Distinguished
Leaders on March 31st in Washington, DC at the joint meetings of the
Fibre Box Association and the Association of Corrugated Converters. Mr.
Landaal will be the ninth person to be inducted into this circle.
Born in Hinsdale, IL, Tom, as he was known to his friends, relocated
to Flint, MI as a child. After graduating from Powers Catholic High
School he obtained two degrees from Ferris State University, an AS
degree in Building Construction and a BS degree in Business
Administration. In 1979 he assumed a managerial role in the family
business, Landaal Packaging Systems. As president of Landaal Packaging
Systems he went on to become a leader in the packaging industry. He was
affiliated with the International Corrugated Case Association in Paris,
the Federation Europeenne

[[Page 1729]]

des Fabricants de Carton Ondule based in Paris, the Sales and Marketing
Executives and Technical Association Pulp and Paper Industry, as well
as the International Corrugated Packaging Foundation. Tom served on the
Board of Directors of the Fibre Box Association and the Independent
Corrugated Converters Association. He was chair of the Fibre Box
Association's Independent Sheet Plant Committee and served as the Fibre
Box Association's representative on the Board of the Independent
Corrugated Converters Association for many years.
In addition to his work in packaging industry, Tom Landaal was very
active in his community and is sorely missed. He held leadership roles
with the Food Bank of Eastern Michigan, Hurley Medical Center, Hurley
Foundation, Flint Classroom Support Fund, Hero of Flint, Burton
Business Association, Burton Economic Development Corporation, Friends
of Sloan Museum, Flint College and Cultural Center, Incorporated,
Goodwill Industries of Mid-Michigan, Heartland Manor, Information
Services of Michigan, Michigan State University, University Affiliated
Hospitals of Flint, the Industrial Mutual Association, the Genesee
Regional Chamber of Commerce, Michigan Manufacturers Association, and
Powers Alumni Association. He belonged to several golf and ski groups
including the National Ski Patrol.
Madam Speaker, the International Corrugated Packaging Foundation's
Circle of Distinguished Leaders was instituted to honor those persons
that have brought vision, creativity, and energy to the promotion and
advancement of the packaging industry. Tom Landaal was an advocate for
improved technology and safe working conditions. This recognition by
his peers is a fitting tribute to his enthusiasm for designing the best
system to deliver the best product to his customers and to ensure the
packaging industry remained on the cutting edge for fulfilling customer
needs. I congratulate the International Corrugated Packaging Foundation
for their selection of Thomas Landaal for this honor and hope his
example will inspire the next generation to continue his work. I ask
the House of Representatives to rise with me today and applaud the life
and work of my good friend, Thomas Landaal.

____________________

YEAR OF THE OX

______

HON. ADAM B. SCHIFF

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to extend my best wishes to
the millions of Asian Americans who are celebrating the Lunar New Year,
which ushers in the Year of the Ox. Representing one of the largest
Asian American populations in Southern California, I have had the
distinct privilege in joining many of my Asian American constituents to
commemorate this historic tradition.
The communities of Alhambra, San Gabriel, and Monterey Park have
organized events and festivities for families to gather and celebrate
the Year of the Ox. I am also delighted that this will be the 110th
year that the Annual Golden Dragon Lunar New Year Parade, hosted by the
Chinese Chamber of Commerce of Los Angeles, will be bringing floats,
marching bands, and various forms of entertainment to over 100,000
people. From parades to festivals, all will be able to enjoy the
colorful, rich traditions that have been observed by many Asian
cultures for centuries.
I wish you all the best in the Year of the Ox.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE IMPROVED BURN INJURY
TREATMENT ACCESS ACT OF 2009

______

HON. RICHARD E. NEAL

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce
the Social Security and Medicare Improved Burn Injury Treatment Access
Act of 2009. This legislation provides a waiver of the 24-month waiting
period now required before an uninsured individual becomes eligible for
Medicare coverage for disabling burn injuries, as well as the five-
month waiting period for Social Security disability benefits.
Each year an estimated 500,000 people are treated for burn injuries.
Of these 500,000 injuries, about 40,000 require hospitalization. Fire
and burn deaths average about 4,000 per year.
Burn care is highly specialized. While there are thousands of trauma
centers in the United States, there are only 125 burn centers with a
total burn-bed capacity of just over 1,800. These specialized burn
centers treat about 25,000 patients annually, or on average, 200
admissions per year for each center. U.S. hospitals without burn
centers treat the remaining patients and average less than three burn
admissions per year.
Medical care for serious burn injuries is very expensive, which
places a great financial strain on burn centers, about 40 percent of
whose patients are uninsured. Because of these financial challenges,
burn centers in Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa and South Carolina have
closed in just the past two years.
This is occurring at a time when the Federal Government is asking
burn centers to expand their capacity to deal with mass casualty
scenarios. The Departments of Health and Human Services and Homeland
Security have included burn centers in the Critical Benchmark Surge
Capacity Criteria in the funding continuation requirements for State
plans administered through the Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA). HSS, in conjunction with the American Burn
Association, has created a real-time, web-based burn bed capacity
system in the national emergency preparedness center and funded
Advanced Burn Life Support (ABLS) and clinical, on-site burn nurse
training for 200 public health service nurses as a reserve capacity for
potential mass burn casualty incidents, as well as supporting more than
20 ABLS courses with over 600 first-responders in 10 key areas of the
country.
The 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, DC, and
major accidents like the Rhode Island nightclub fire and North Carolina
chemical plant explosions demonstrate the substantial number of burn
injuries that can result from such events. Over one-third of those
hospitalized in New York on 9/11 had severe burn injuries. The
Department of Homeland Security has recognized that there would be mass
burn casualties in terrorist acts, and there is a need for appropriate
preparedness activities. For example, if the United States should
suffer further terrorist attacks using explosions, incendiary devices
or chemical weapons, most victims would suffer severe burn injuries.
Even a relatively modest number of burn injuries can consume large
segments of the Nation's burn bed capacity. For example, the victims of
the Rhode Island nightclub fire absorbed the burn bed capacity of most
of the northern East Coast of the United States. Mass burn casualties
that reach into the hundreds or thousands would strain the system to
the breaking point.
It is clear that burn centers are a national resource and a critical
link to public health emergency preparedness. Medicare coverage for
serious, disabling burn injuries would enable these burn centers to
remain financially viable and preserve an essential component of our
public health emergency infrastructure.
This legislation follows an approach already taken with respect to
End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS
or Lou Gehrig's disease), both of which result in waivers of the 24-
month waiting period for Medicare eligibility. While these 2 diseases
tend to be progressive in nature, the very initial phase of a serious
burn injury is when things are most acute.
This legislation is similar to H.R. 685, which I introduced in the
110th Congress, except for the inclusion of some important cost
containment provisions. No one with either public or private insurance
at the time of their burn injury will be eligible for the 24-month
waiver. Nor will State public insurance programs be permitted to
restrict coverage for burn patients so as to place the burden solely on
Medicare. The legislation also requires that the individual's
disability status be reevaluated at least once every 3 years to ensure
that those patients who have fully recovered from their burn injuries
will not be able to stay on Medicare indefinitely.
Providing immediate Medicare coverage for uninsured patients
suffering serious, disabling burn injuries is fully justified and a
necessary step. Although not all hospitalized burn injuries would
qualify as ``disabling'' and thus result in immediate Medicare
coverage, this legislation is about providing coverage for the many
uninsured patients suffering from serious burn injuries and ensuring
the survival of a vital national resource that already is in jeopardy,
a situation we cannot accept as we seek to prepare the Nation to deal
with potential mass casualty terrorist events.

[[Page 1730]]

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. RANDY NEUGEBAUER

of texas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, due to a death in the family I was
absent for the following rollcall votes held January 21 and January 22,
2009. Had I been present, I would have voted as indicated for each roll
call listed: rollcall vote 23: ``yea''; rollcall vote 24: ``nay'';
rollcall vote 25: ``yea''; rollcall vote 26: ``nay''; rollcall vote 27:
``yea''; rollcall vote 28: ``yea''; rollcall vote 29: ``yea.''

____________________

IN MEMORY OF AUSTIN CUNNINGHAM

______

HON. JOE WILSON

of south carolina

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, on January 26th, a long-
time friend and favorite son of South Carolina, Austin Cunningham,
passed away. In his lifetime--that spanned almost an entire century--
Mr. Cunningham was a successful businessman, a tireless leader in the
community, a prolific philosopher, and a mentor. He was a valued
advisor to the late Congressman Floyd Spence and Governor Carrol
Campbell leading the efforts to reduce capital gains taxes. His
steadfast belief in the importance and virtue of service was an
inspiration to many, and he left a positive and indelible mark on South
Carolina and the Nation.
Staff writer Lee Tant of the Times and Democrat of Orangeburg, South
Carolina has thoughtfully developed the following fitting tribute to
Mr. Cunningham.

[From the Times and Democrat, Jan. 27, 2009]

Austin Cunningham Dies at 94

(By Lee Tant)

It is hard, if not impossible, to describe the life of
Orangeburg icon Austin Cunningham.
Cunningham, who died Monday at the age of 94, was a
community leader, businessman, writer, lawyer, soldier and
citizen of the year.
He was the definition of a Renaissance man.
His lifetime spanned 18 presidents, 11 recessions, two
world wars and the civil rights movement.
Cunningham was the leader of five companies and in 1998 was
named Outstanding Elder Citizen of the Year for South
Carolina.
A decade later, he was named the Kiwanis Club of
Orangeburg's Citizen of the Year. He also was honored with
the Order of the Palmetto.
Cunningham was involved with nearly everything in the
Orangeburg community. He was constantly willing to be out
front in volunteering and promoting community involvement.
During the 1970s, Cunningham made business trips to Denmark
and Manning while an executive at the Sunbeam Outdoor Co. It
was then he first became interested in Orangeburg. When the
company relocated its executive headquarters to Santee in
1974, Cunningham and his family moved with it.
He said his new home was like an ``island'' because its
residents had to drive at least 50 miles to reach Columbia or
Charleston.
The man who once called cities such as Chicago and New York
home quickly became involved in the community. He joined what
was then the Greater Orangeburg Chamber of Commerce, attended
First Presbyterian Church, and was active in the local
Republican Party.
He retired from Sunbeam to open a Burger King restaurant on
John C. Calhoun Drive in 1975.
Cunningham accepted the chairmanship of the Orangeburg
Regional Hospital's major gifts division four years later.
His work was instrumental in procuring the funding to build
the Regional Medical Center.
Cunningham also became a tireless advocate of the Targeted
Jobs Tax Credit program during the summer of 1983. The
program provided a tax credit for employers who hired
underprivileged teenagers.
During that time, Cunningham served as chairman of the
local Economic Recovery Committee.
To market the program in Orangeburg, Cunningham illustrated
how it not only made good financial sense but also helped the
community.
``Your reward is two-fold. You'll get a good worker for
jobs you want them to do. And when you go to pay your federal
businesses taxes next year, you'll get back 85 percent of
what you paid out,'' he said to encourage local employers.
In the spring of 1984, President Ronald Reagan invited
Cunningham to the White House to honor his efforts in
promoting the program.
Reagan lauded Cunningham and credited him with fostering
partnerships with 77 local businesses that gave 264 jobs to
teenagers in poverty.
``For most of these 16- and 17-year-olds, it was their
first real job. Now that's partnership in action, and
everybody is better off because of it,'' Reagan said.
A July 1983 T&D editorial described Cunningham as ``a one-
man crusade'' that informed the community about the program's
merits. It also noted he was dubbed ``Mr. TJTC'' by the head
of the State Employment Security Commission back then.
However, Cunningham didn't want all the attention and
refused to take credit for it.
He insisted the real heroes were the businesses that hired
the young workers.
He said the success of the program in Orangeburg boded well
for industry and race relations here.
``It's made Orangeburg a better community than it was 10
weeks ago,'' Cunningham said after the program concluded its
first summer.
He served on the People's Assault on Drugs Committee in the
1990s.
Cunningham was also behind getting 132 streetlights
installed in New Brookland as part of efforts by the People's
Assault on Drugs. He said then that drug dealers were
relegated to hanging back in the shadows.
``They can't stand out in the streets anymore. They are not
aggressively stopping people and vying with each other,'' he
said.
Additionally, Cunningham was a patron of the arts.
After hearing the South Carolina State University Choir, he
realized how good it was and, he spearheaded the choir's
partnership with the South Carolina Philharmonic Orchestra.
This led to an annual concert series in Orangeburg.
S.C. State awarded him its Distinguished Service Award at
the 1995 Founder's Day festivities.
When he was named the ``Outstanding Older South
Carolinian'' of the year by the state Department of Health
and Human Services' Office on Aging in 1998, Cunningham used
the honor to make a push for funding county councils on
aging. The annual Elder Hop event on New Year's Day in
Orangeburg was his brainchild as a fund-raiser for the Meals
on Wheels program.
Born in Washington, he lost his journalist father at age
12. Cunningham went to work in the U.S. Supreme Court as a
page at age 14 and subsequently worked under J. Edgar Hoover
at the FBI. He served in the U.S. Army Air Corps during World
War II. He lost two brothers in the war.
After earning a law degree from the University of Virginia,
he did advanced studies at the University of Chicago and
Oxford University.
He married his late wife Jacqueline in 1946. An infant son,
Paul, died in 1954.
He is survived by two daughters, Manhattan psychotherapist
Kathryn Janus (wife of Jeffrey Janus), magazine journalist
Amy Cunningham of Brooklyn (wife of Steven Waldman), son
Austin Cunningham III, a business owner residing in Swansea,
and two school-aged grandsons Joseph and Gordon Waldman of
Brooklyn. His younger sister, Mrs. Clotilde Luce, at age 88,
still works at New York City's renowned Neighborhood
Playhouse School of the Theatre.
As a longtime author of articles for The Times and Democrat
and other publications, Cunningham wrote from his vast
repertoire of life experiences. He offered insight on
historical figures from George Washington and Abe Lincoln to
Bill Clinton. He spent a weekend in a state prison, at his
own request, gathering material to provide insight on life
behind bars.
Most recently, Cunningham was the subject of a story about
his experience as an usher on the podium at Franklin
Roosevelt's presidential inauguration in 1933.
Also, he was honored this past week by the Orangeburg
County Community of Character initiative. The board of
directors voted to create the Austin Cunningham Orangeburg
County Community of Character award. It will be given once a
year to worthy citizens who exemplify the character traits
that make their communities better places to live, work and
play.
A memorial service for Cunningham will be held at noon
Friday at First Presbyterian Church in Orangeburg. The family
will receive visitors from 7 to 9 p.m. Wednesday at Dukes-
Harley Funeral Home.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. GENE GREEN

of texas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would have voted ``Aye'' on
both H. Res. 31 expressing support for the designation of a National
Data Privacy Awareness Day, and H. Res. 84, honoring the heroic action
of the individuals involved with the rescue effort of U.S. Airways
Flight 1549.
Our office holds a twice yearly event, the Paying for College
Workshop, to provide high school seniors and their parents options for
financing a college education. We invite the Sallie Mae Foundation to
join us and they have given out dozens of scholarships over

[[Page 1731]]

the years. Last night we had over 200 people attend the Workshop at
Milby High School in our district, and Sallie Mae provided a $500
scholarship. We had to schedule the event before the 2009 voting
schedule was finalized and for that reason I was not able to be in
Washington for the two votes last night.
I would have supported both resolutions that were voted on last
night, and was a cosponsor of H. Res. 31. People are increasingly using
electronic communications in all walks of life--from social networking
to e-commerce, more and more personal information is being compiled by
online sites. While we have realized incredible efficiencies and other
benefits from new electronic technologies, those technologies have also
raised significant challenges for protecting the privacy of personal
and proprietary information. H. Res. 31 would designate January 28 as
National Data Privacy Day to raise awareness and educate people on safe
practices when submitting personal information online.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO MIKE SHAIN

______

HON. JO ANN EMERSON

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mrs. EMERSON. Madam Speaker, there are all kinds of public servants
in our communities, but we seldom think first of journalists in that
category. In the Eighth Congressional District of Southern Missouri, a
journalist springs to mind as a public servant: Mike Shain of KFVS in
Cape Girardeau. Mr. Shain is retiring after 53 years in the news
businesses (the last 37 at KFVS), and I want to commend him to the U.S.
House of Representatives for his long labors in the service of our
region, our State and our Nation.
Though the craft of news reporting has changed greatly in the time
Mr. Shain has spent in the business, his fair reporting, his work
ethic, and his professionalism have remained constant. Everyone who has
looked at Mr. Shain over a microphone or across a table on the set of
his weekly news magazine knows they have better done their homework.
Mr. Shain takes preparedness to another level--he knows his subject
matter and his audience inside-out.
Whole generations in Southeast Missouri have grown up with the
informed voice of Mr. Shain in their ears. He has not only conveyed to
us the news of the day, but he has also placed that news in context for
his viewership. He has told us what is important as well as why. He has
always had something important to say, which is a tough thing to do
when most of your sentences end in a question mark. Still, Mr. Shain
has been so successful and is so respected because his intellect is
only surpassed by his understanding of the news media and its
responsibilities to the public.
In service to the public, Mr. Shain has shaped minds and informed
opinions among an electorate in Southern Missouri which is serious
about its civic duty, patriotic obligations and the wellbeing of its
neighbors. His name is synonymous with the news--with what is current
and worth understanding. As much as the station that broadcasts him,
Mike Shain is an institution.
Even though regular viewers of our evening news will no longer see
Mr. Shain every day, his presence will continue to be seen and heard in
the generations of newsmen and newswomen who have learned their craft
from him. Mr. Shain's voice will be missed across the Heartland, but
his legacy will endure. I'm proud to have known and worked with Mr.
Shain, and I am glad to thank him on behalf of the entire Eighth
Congressional District of the State of Missouri.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO ROSE FOWLER

______

HON. JOE COURTNEY

of connecticut

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Rose Fowler of the
McSweeney Regional Senior Center who will be retiring after a decade of
service to the seniors of eastern Connecticut.
Rose is a dedicated public servant who works tirelessly in the town
of Coventry, Connecticut. She has been a familiar face in local
politics, serving as chair of the town council and as the moderator on
Election Day. Rose actively volunteers her time with a host of
community organizations, including the town's historical society. She
and her husband Joseph also own and operate the Country Store that is
located on Main Street.
Rose is best known to the people of eastern Connecticut for her work
at the McSweeney Regional Senior Center. For nearly thirty years, the
center has provided services to the residents of ten area communities.
They offer extensive preventive care programs, including a number of
health screenings and support groups. There are also a variety of
social programs which have helped to foster a family atmosphere among
the participants. From exercise classes to arts and crafts and a
variety of trips, the seniors at McSweeney Regional Senior Center have
truly found a second home. These activities have fostered a true sense
of companionship and enjoyment for all who participate and are
indicative of the warmth and friendship that Rose brings to work each
and every day.
Even though I want to congratulate Rose on her well deserved
retirement, I admit that I am saddened by this event. While the
McSweeney Senior Center will continue its tradition of quality service
and support for the region's seniors, it will be difficult to match the
legacy that Rose has left behind. I know that I will miss our
discussions and interactions when I visit with the seniors and that I
will not be alone in this regard. I wish Rose the best as she begins
the next journey in her life and remain confident that whatever she
does, she will continue her legacy of service to the seniors and people
of eastern Connecticut.

____________________

IN RECOGNITION OF THE VIETNAMESE NEW YEAR: TET, YEAR OF THE BUFFALO

______

HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the
Vietnamese New Year: Tet, 2009, Year of the Buffalo. As the Vietnamese
community in Greater Cleveland gathers at St. Helena Catholic Church to
celebrate, I join them in celebration of their rich history and
culture.
Tet is the time of the year to pay homage to ancestors, reconnect
with friends and family and celebrate every hope and possibility rising
with the new year. This year's gathering will once again honor
community volunteers and leaders, showcasing many Vietnamese cultural
treasures including Vietnamese culinary cuisine, music and dance.
09 also marks thirty-four years of service to the community
by the Vietnamese Community in Greater Cleveland, Inc. This
organization has been an invaluable resource for hundreds of
Clevelanders of Vietnamese descent, linking them to needed
resources and preserving the rich heritage of the Vietnamese
people.
I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize Le Nguyen,
President of the Vietnamese Community in Greater Cleveland, Inc., and
every member, past and present, for their dedication to Vietnamese-
Americans of Northeast Ohio.
Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in celebration of the
Vietnamese New Year, Tet 2009: Year of the Buffalo. May every American
of Vietnamese heritage hold memories of their past forever in their
hearts, and find peace and happiness within every new day of the rising
new year.

____________________

THE 36TH ANNIVERSARY OF ROE V. WADE

______

HON. CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY

of connecticut

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise in honor of the
recent 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade.
Citing the constitutional right to privacy, the decision recognized
women's equal standing with men to make decisions about their own
bodies, and constituted a landmark step forward in the ongoing fight
for gender equality.
Roe has advanced both the health care and human rights of women
throughout America. It stands for the simple premise that government
should not, and cannot, tell a person what to do with his or her own
body.
As a proud cosponsor of the Prevention First Act, I certainly
recognize that the term ``pro-choice'' is not synonymous with ``pro-
abortion.''
Instead, to me, the right to choose is the right of a woman to make
her own decisions about her health and future, free of coercion,

[[Page 1732]]

based on medically-accurate information, and with access to all
reproductive health options.
Roe has provided us a legal foundation upon which to build a
framework of reproductive health options for women. Our responsibility,
as we celebrate the decision's anniversary, is to make sure we honor
the tradition of that decision by assuring that women and families
throughout this great country have access to family planning and
reproductive health options so that never again do women have to
retreat to alleyways and dark corners to receive proper medical care.
Madam Speaker, January 22, 1973 marks a landmark day in our nation's
constitutional history--for women, for health, and for individual
liberty.

____________________

SYSTEMS HEALTHCARE APPROACH

______

HON. DAN BOREN

of oklahoma

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. BOREN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in hope of raising the
awareness of the House as to the significant health disparities facing
medically underserved areas, particularly rural areas and those with
large minority populations. Many parts of the country face shortages in
health care providers and services. In the rural areas of my district
in Eastern Oklahoma, we have a deep understanding of the significant
health disparities facing populations in medically underserved areas.
As Congress moves forward with this initiative to stimulate our
nation's prosperity, I urge your consideration of the great need in
underserved areas for coherent health care delivery systems, systems
that integrate primary care, preventive care, specialty care, and acute
care, and that are connected through a health care technology
infrastructure. I would like to work with you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, as this legislation proceeds to focus funding toward projects
that take a comprehensive systemic approach in underserved communities.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF WEST VIRGINIA'S ARMY NATIONAL GUARD PARTICIPATION IN THE
PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURATION

______

HON. NICK J. RAHALL II

of west virginia

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize West Virginia's
Army National Guard for their assistance at the Presidential
Inauguration of Barack Obama on Tuesday, the 20th of January 2009.
West Virginia provided nearly 500 men and women with the National
Guard to usher in President Barack Obama. From crowd control to
communication, West Virginia National Guard troops assisted local law
enforcement in providing security and other services. In addition, the
West Virginia National Guard sent helicopters, airplanes, mobile
satellite-communications trailers, medical gear, and a mobile kitchen.
Our brave men and women witnessed history and gave their all to help at
this historic occasion.
Our heroic men and women in uniform are never far from my thoughts.
They are our Nation's consistent example of valor and courage. In West
Virginia, they earned a Special Category ``First Place'' award in the
Army Communities of Excellence, ACOE, competition in May 2008 for their
strong strategic planning process, communication, and customer-driven
focus. Their excellence reflects the hard work and dedication of the
men and women not only of the West Virginia Army National Guard, but
also of every family member and friend who stands behind them. It is
important to remember that our brave soldiers have given so much and
have expected so little in return. I am proud to take this moment to
recognize the excellence of the West Virginia Army National Guard for
all they do to keep us safe from harm.
Our Armed Forces have paid the debt for the freedom we enjoy today,
and I will continue, as I have in the past, to do everything I can to
honor their sacrifices and service. Our soldiers and their families
remain foremost in the thoughts and minds of southern West Virginians,
and I will continue to devote my all to those who wear or have worn
America's uniform.

____________________

HONORING SPECIALIST TIMOTHY R. LONG

______

HON. ROBERT E. ANDREWS

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Specialist Timothy
R. Long for his service in Iraq. In 1996, when Tim was eleven years
old, I sat with him in his middle school classroom and prepared
Valentine's Day cards for U.S. troops serving in Bosnia. Thirteen years
later, as this Valentine's Day approaches, Tim is stationed in Iraq
serving in the National Guard. On behalf of New Jersey's First
Congressional District and the entire Nation, I would like to thank Tim
for his service and dedication.

____________________

HONORING REAR ADMIRAL DOUGLAS TEESON

______

HON. JOE COURTNEY

of connecticut

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Rear Admiral
Douglas Teeson who is retiring from his position as the president and
chief executive officer of the Mystic Seaport. Admiral Teeson has
dedicated his life to public service and I am honored to stand here
today to offer these remarks.
Admiral Teeson is certainly no stranger to the people of southeastern
Connecticut, where he has lived with his wife Phyllis for many years.
He graduated with honors from the Coast Guard Academy in New London,
Connecticut in 1965 and began his long and distinguished career as a
Coast Guard officer. While in the Coast Guard he served in a variety of
commands, including a term as head of the major training center located
in Yorktown, Virginia. His career came full circle when he returned to
the Coast Guard Academy to serve as the 36th superintendent, where he
remained until his retirement in 2001.
In 2001, Admiral Teeson assumed his role as President and CEO of the
Mystic Seaport, America's premier maritime history museum. Under
Teeson's leadership, the Seaport flourished, adding new collections and
undertaking historic renovations. During his tenure at the Mystic
Seaport, Admiral Teeson oversaw the opening of the Carlton Marine
Science Center and the completion of the new 500 ton ship lift facility
among other important improvements that revitalized this unique
American treasure.
Admiral Teeson has also been an integral part of the fabric of
southeastern Connecticut. Admiral Teeson has served on the Board of
Directors for The New London Day newspaper and as a commissioner for
the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism. Admiral Teeson is
also a recipient of the Eastern Connecticut Chamber of Commerce's
William Crawford Distinguished Service Award, given annually to an
individual who has exemplified the spirit of community service and
contributed to improving the quality of life for all of southeastern
Connecticut. Never has there been a more deserving recipient of this
prestigious honor.
Admiral Teeson's retirement marks the end of an era at the Mystic
Seaport. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Admiral
Teeson on his exceptional career and to wish him well in his
retirement.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. BLAINE LUETKEMEYER

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. Luetkemeyer. Madam Speaker, I would like to state for the record
my position on the following votes that I missed on Monday, January 26,
2009, as a result of an ice storm delaying my flight from Missouri to
Washington, DC.
On Monday, January 26, 2009, I missed rollcall votes 30 and 31. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both rollcall votes 30 and
rollcall vote 31.

____________________

RECOGNIZE THE PARTICIPATION OF THE MINNESOTA NATIONAL GUARD IN THE
INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

______

HON. MICHELE BACHMANN

of minnesota

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, one week ago today Barack Obama was
sworn in as the 44th President of the United States.

[[Page 1733]]

Millions flooded into Washington, DC to witness this historic
occasion, presenting law enforcement authorities with an enormous
logistical and security challenge.
To meet this challenge, the selfless men and women of Minnesota's
National Guard came to Washington to assist with the Presidential
Inauguration and to ensure the safety of the President as well as
everyone present for inaugural festivities.
The superlative conduct and ability of Minnesota's guardsmen helped
to make certain the ceremony and surrounding events occurred as safely
as possible for all attendees, despite the many obstacles present in
such a complex undertaking.
And so it is my honor to recognize and pay tribute to all the brave
citizen-soldiers of the Minnesota National Guard. Their exceptional
service during our President's inauguration is a true source of pride
for all Minnesotans, as is the Guard's continuing and unbroken
tradition of noble service to our State and country.