Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 8 - Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 for April 2, 2009

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 8]
[Issue]
[Pages 9683-10028]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[[Page 9683]]

VOLUME 155--PART 8

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, April 2, 2009

The House met at 9 a.m.
Rev. Bruce Frank, Biltmore Baptist Church, Arden, North Carolina,
offered the following prayer:
Dear Heavenly Father, we call on You today as the sovereign,
almighty, Holy God who can heal our land.
You have said that if wisdom is lacking, ask and You will give it.
And so we're asking for wisdom this day. I pray for these congressional
leaders. Pray You would fill them with wisdom on what to do. Pray You
would give them the courage to do just that.
Pray You surround them with people who will speak truth into their
ears and who will place principle above temporary favor. You have said,
``Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord.''
Pray You give us a recognition of our inadequacy for the task at hand
and a dependence to carry out that task, for You have said, God resists
the proud, but You give grace to the humble, and we're asking for grace
today.
You are a God who abhors dishonest scales. Grant a determination to
do the people's business with the utmost of integrity and remind us
daily of our accountability to You for the service that we give.
May the words that are written behind me ``In God We Trust'' be true
this day, in the name of my God and my Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, I
pray.
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 Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) come
forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas 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.

____________________

WELCOMING REVEREND BRUCE FRANK

The SPEAKER. Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler) for 1 minute.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHULER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend and brother in
Christ, Pastor Bruce Frank, for opening the House of Representatives in
prayer today.
Bruce Frank is the senior pastor at my church, Biltmore Baptist
Church in Arden, North Carolina, where he provides spiritual guidance
and inspiration for over 6,000 members.
Pastor Frank was born in Atlanta, Georgia, and grew up in Oklahoma
and Texas. He and his wife, Lori, have two sons, Tyler and Conner.
Before being called to our church, he served as pastor at Baptist
churches both in Houston and Humble, Texas.
Pastor Frank has brought a renewed sense of spirit and purpose to my
church and its congregants since he joined us in 2008. I am grateful
that he was able to grace us with the same spirit and purpose as he led
us in prayer this morning.
Pastor Frank, we love you.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

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

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE UNIVERSITY STUDIES ABROAD CONSORTIUM

(Ms. TITUS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. TITUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the University
Studies Abroad Consortium. USAC developed out of an informal exchange
of students and professors between the Basque Studies Program at the
University of Nevada, Reno, and the University of the Basque Country in
San Sebastian, Spain. Under the excellent leadership of Dr. Carmelo
Urza, USAC has evolved into one of the largest and most successful
study abroad programs in the United States today. Currently, there are
33 U.S. member universities offering programs in 25 countries at 39
sites, with an annual enrollment of about 2,500 students.
USAC is presently holding its annual meeting at the University of
Nevada, Las Vegas. This brings together staff from the U.S. member
universities and the resident directors of all USAC sites around the
globe.
I salute them for their hard work and dedication, because we know
that studying abroad provides students with a unique opportunity to
develop the knowledge, skills, experience, and attitudes to succeed in
the global society of the 21st century.
I offer this in memory of a key member of the USAC team and a dear
personal friend, Dr. Felix Menchacatorre, who passed away last August.
Estas en el corazon--you are in our heart--Felix.

____________________

BUDGET DEBATE DEFINES CLEAR DIFFERENCES

(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, the debate unfolding
over the budget is really one that has always been a part of our
Nation's dialogue. Do we want a big government and high taxes, which
infringe on our individual freedom, or do we want a limited government
that lets the American people keep more of the money that they earn,
which expands freedom?
Democrats have a budget that says loud and clear: big government
spending is going to be alive and well-fed by

[[Page 9684]]

massive borrowing and increasing taxes by $1.2 trillion. They will
raise taxes not to pay off debt but, rather, to simply spend more
money, mortgaging the future of our students, such as those at
Timmerman School of Columbia.
Republicans have offered a budget that does the opposite. We want to
cut spending, reduce debt, address short-term and long-term challenges,
and provide more relief for American families and small businesses. Our
budget is a clear sign of the confidence we have in the American
people, not big government, to create jobs and put our fiscal house in
order.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September the 11th in the global war on terrorism.

____________________

THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET

(Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, after doubling the national debt under the failed
leadership of George Bush, the Republicans unveiled their budget
alternative yesterday, very appropriately on April 1, April Fool's Day.
Now, there's a pretense that they're going to restore fiscal
stability through budget gimmicks, the spending freeze, no matter how
great the need, bridges falling down, veterans need services, to
educate our kids, budget's frozen. Well, it's frozen, sort of. There is
another part that's not. After the smoke and mirrors are put up, their
real agenda comes through, which is more tax cuts for the wealthy.
Here's the amazing thing. They're going to eliminate all taxes on
capital gains so people who invest for a living don't have to pay
taxes. We have had that argument before. But think of it, it's so
beautiful. The hedge fund managers, who averaged $260 million each year
last year creating toxic assets that are destroying our economy, claim
that their income is carried interest, which is capital gains.
So the hedge fund managers who put our economy in the tank will
contribute zero, zero dollars, under the Republican budget alternative
to helping repair the damage in America.
Good work, guys. April fools.

____________________

BUDGET

(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, unlike what the gentleman
just said, this President's budget spends too much, taxes too much, and
borrows too much. This is the most fiscally irresponsible budget in the
history of the United States.
The spending levels in the budget are just staggering. Under the
President's budget, the government's spending will represent roughly 30
percent of our economy. That's not the American way.
The right way forward is the Paul Ryan alternative budget which trims
wasteful government spending and lets families and small businesses
keep more of their hard-earned money.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the conservative budget
proposal that rekindles prosperity, promotes financial security,
invests in our future, and saves for our children's future.
Let's go, America. It's the right way to go forward.

____________________

{time} 0915
A REPEATED FALSEHOOD

(Mr. BLUMENAUER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. BLUMENAUER. We're going to hear more of our friends from the
other side of the aisle talk about their budget proposal today. It's
ironic that they're proposing things that they couldn't, wouldn't enact
when they ran everything.
But one of the things I find most distressing is their repeated
falsehood about some $3,100 increase in taxes on the American people
based on research done by MIT. They talked about it four times again
last night.
Talking to Professor John Reilly, who actually did the 2007 study,
indicates that they are using an intentional misrepresentation of the
study. In fact, when somebody from the Republicans ``called me on March
20 and asked about it, I explained why the estimate was incorrect and
what they could do to correct it.''
The actual number is one-fortieth of what the Republicans are talking
about. And the fact is that in the budget we have an opportunity for
people who want to be legislators--not communicators--to help us
allocate how those benefits will be utilized.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded not to traverse the
well while other Members are speaking.

____________________

CIGARETTE TAX

(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, all in one week we've had April Fool's Day,
the Democrats' budget, and the largest increase in cigarette taxes
ever. But the American people aren't foolish and they aren't in the
mood for gimmicks.
Yesterday, the Federal tax on a pack of cigarettes went up--way up.
Was this tax raised to get people to stop smoking? Or was it raised to
pay for a massive expansion in SCHIP? Well, both, actually. And that's
a crazy way to run a railroad.
SCHIP needs more money under the Democrats' plan. So we're going to
need more people to start smoking, not fewer. In fact, we're going to
need about 22 million new people to start smoking.
But this tax increase is going to convince people to stop smoking,
which means the SCHIP will be short of funds and the folks in charge in
Congress are going to want to raise taxes again soon.
I'm all for health care for kids, and I'm all for getting people to
quit smoking, but I'm against health care run by bureaucrats and health
care programs funded by cigarette taxes.
The American people must wonder what Democrat leaders are smoking in
Washington these days. And that is no laughing matter.

____________________

BUDGET FACT CHECK: NO COMPARISON

(Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, the Republicans, the ``Party of No,'' are
now the ``Party of No New Ideas.'' The budget plan they released last
week is a rerun of the same failed policies that got our country into
this deep financial and economic crisis, including massive tax cuts for
the wealthiest Americans, huge subsidies to big oil and gas companies,
and no plan to bring down the cost of health care. And their approach
to the financial market is to ask for more deregulation. The plan will
result in deep cuts to vital services like education and public safety.
It's basically the same old thing--the Republican ``Party of No.'' I
ask my colleagues, vote for the Democratic budget and vote against the
Republican alternative.

____________________

CHIEF STEVE WHEELER--TEXAS FIREMAN

(Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, the small town of Cleveland, Texas,
lost one of their finest citizens this week when Fire Chief Steve
Wheeler was killed. Steve was more than a Fire Chief. He was a
fireman's firefighter--dedicated to the people of his town.
Steve decided at 13 he wanted to be a fireman. He worked at the local
barbershop and watched the firefighters next door at the station jump
on fire trucks--and he got the urge to do the same.
After high school, he drove an ambulance and joined the volunteer
fire department. He has held just about every

[[Page 9685]]

position there ever since--most recently, head of the Cleveland
Emergency Management Department. That's the folks that take over during
hurricane disasters.
Steve will be remembered most for the 30 years as Chief of the
Cleveland Volunteer Fire Department, for that firefighter spirit that
he had, and that unwavering devotion to his firemen.
Today, Chief Steve Wheeler answered his last call. Flags will be
lowered; the final radio call will be made; and the final fire bell
will be rung.
Our prayers go out to the Wheeler family, the Cleveland Fire
Department, and the good people of that entire community.
Steve Wheeler--fireman, father, fine Texan.
And that's just the way it is.

____________________

RECKLESS SPENDING

(Mr. BUCHANAN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. BUCHANAN. Madam Speaker, the House will vote today on a Federal
budget that borrows, taxes, and spends more than any other budget in
history. Tax increases and deficit spending on big government programs
won't help the economy. It will discourage job creation and burden
families in the future for additional generations.
We can't spend our way back in terms of the recession and we can't
borrow our way out of debt. The budget before us today would increase
spending by $1.9 trillion over the next 10 years, raise taxes by $1.4
trillion, and add $3.3 trillion in new debt.
This is reckless spending masquerading as sound budgeting. What our
country needs is a responsible budget that scales back spending and
borrowing; a budget that will strengthen our economy and put Americans
back to work; a budget that will leave our children and grandchildren
with better opportunities than we had.

____________________

WE MUST WORK TOGETHER TO FIND SOLUTIONS

(Mr. REICHERT asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks).
Mr. REICHERT. Let's just talk about common sense. Budgets are about
priorities. They're not just blueprints, but plans on how to achieve
goals. Just as families sit down at the kitchen table to map out how to
make ends meet to save for college education or their retirement, so
too must the government put forward a responsible budget.
This budget identifies important priorities--economic recovery,
health care, and energy independence--but I'm concerned. This budget
spends too much, borrows too much, and taxes too much.
We must offer tax incentives to invest and create jobs, not raise
taxes on job creators and small businesses. We must reduce wasteful
spending, not increase the debt by $9 trillion.
We must work together to find solutions to the challenges before us,
not halt progress with ``politics as usual.''
Despite calls to work together, this budget could permit a
government-run health plan to be rammed through Congress without real
consideration to protect seniors or the patient-doctor relationship.
It's not about big government. It's about families, it's about small
businesses, about entrepreneurism.
Let's oppose this budget and advance one that reflects the values
found at kitchen tables across our country.

____________________

OPPOSITION TO THE DEMOCRATIC BUDGET

(Mr. McCAUL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong
opposition to the budget resolution that the majority is forcing on
this House and the American people. This budget is an irresponsible and
unwise increase in Federal taxes with borrowing and spending that will
double the national debt and place a $50,000 burden on each American.
The budget proposes to spend nearly $4 trillion over the next year
that America simply doesn't have. It also lays the groundwork for
radical changes that will further prolong this recession by increasing
government control of health care and increasing taxes on small
businesses and anyone who uses electricity or gasoline.
This budget maxes out America's credit card and buries future
generations in a mountain of debt. This budget and its massive increase
in borrowing and spending will lead to higher taxes and return us to
big government.
Simply put, Republicans want more freedom for Americans. Democrats
want more government control over our lives.

____________________

FREEDOM AND THE BUDGET

(Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California asked and was given permission
to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, if one looks to
the exceptionalism of America, one finds that at its base is freedom.
We've always had an agenda for freedom--freedom with responsibility.
Today, we have a budget that's made up of numbers. People wonder how
does that somehow have anything to do with freedom. Well, if you spend
too much, if you tax too much, if you borrow too much, what it means is
you give greater and greater power to the Federal Government, to
elected representatives, to nonelected bureaucrats to make decisions
for you and your life, not only today, but in the future.
For the young people that are listening, they ought to understand
that the impact of this budget today will be far greater on them than
it will be on me. Why? Because we are about to embark on a budget that
will give us more debt than at any time in the history of America. And
we and those of us who are here will not live long enough to pay it
off.
The young people are the ones that are going to pay for it. They are
in fact going to have less freedom rather than more freedom unless we
come to our senses and vote for a budget that is consistent with the
American agenda of freedom.

____________________

HONORING SECRETARY MIKE DIBERARDINIS

(Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I come to the floor today to honor a
man that exemplifies public service--a man that hails from the big city
of Philadelphia, but who has had a profound impact on my rural
district.
Secretary Mike DiBerardinis has served the Rendell administration and
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with distinction for the past 6 years
as the head of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, or
DCNR.
While I have only had limited interaction with the Secretary
personally, his work for the Pennsylvania Wilds Initiative--a nature
tourism program that encompasses my district--speaks volumes about his
character and his dedication to rural Pennsylvania.
Under the Secretary's leadership, DCNR has taken the PA Wilds from a
concept to a budding program, highlighting the beautiful landscape and
the many attractions of central and northwestern Pennsylvania. From
hiking, to biking, to backpacking, and skiing, Pennsylvania Wilds has
it all.
In fact, this past summer, the Secretary was in my hometown breaking
ground on the State's first Nature Inn, in Bald Eagle State Park--
adding yet another component to an already robust State park system.
So while tomorrow is the Secretary's last day at the helm, I want to
say thank you. Thank you for your service to rural Pennsylvania. Your
leadership and vision has made a lasting impression.

[[Page 9686]]

____________________

PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 85, CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 316 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 316

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 further
consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 85)
setting forth the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal year 2010 and including the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2009 and 2011 through 2014.
The concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. The concurrent resolution shall
be considered as read. No amendment shall be in order except
those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered
only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only
by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as
read, and shall be debatable for 40 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. All points
of order against the amendments printed in the report are
waived except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature
of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of
consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment.
After the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent
resolution for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report
the concurrent resolution to the House with such amendment as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and any
amendment thereto to final adoption without intervening
motion except amendments offered by the chair of the
Committee on the Budget pursuant to section 305(a)(5) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to achieve mathematical
consistency. The concurrent resolution shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question of its adoption.
Sec. 2. After adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 85
and receipt of a message from the Senate transmitting Senate
Concurrent Resolution 13, it shall be in order to take from
the Speaker's table Senate Concurrent Resolution 13 and to
consider the Senate concurrent resolution in the House. All
points of order against consideration of the Senate
concurrent resolution are waived. It shall be in order to
move to strike all after the resolving clause of the Senate
concurrent resolution and to insert in lieu thereof the
provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 85 as adopted by
the House. All points of order against that motion are
waived. The Senate concurrent resolution shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question of its adoption. If
the motion is adopted and the Senate concurrent resolution,
as amended, is adopted, then it shall be in order to move
that the House insist on its amendment to the Senate
concurrent resolution and request a conference with the
Senate thereon.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The gentleman from
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary
30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time
yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislation days within which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.

{time} 0930

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, the resolution provides for further consideration of
the budget under a structured rule. It makes in order four substitute
amendments.
First, let me once again thank Chairman Spratt and Ranking Member
Ryan for all of their incredibly hard work. They obviously have very
significant differences in philosophy, but they strive to make the
Budget Committee a very fair and thoughtful place.
Madam Speaker, the rule before us today will allow Members of this
House to make a very clear choice: Do you believe we should pass a
budget that invests in the American people? Or, do you believe we
should pass a budget that makes the same old mistakes of the past?
My friend from California (Mr. Dreier) and I had a very good debate
on the floor and in the Rules Committee yesterday, and I know that many
of our colleagues will voice their opinions today during the debate.
But I would like to take a bit of time to talk about the choice that
Members will make today.
In addition to the Democratic and Republican budgets, this rule makes
in order proposals from the Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Black
Caucus, and the Republican Study Group. So a wide range of options will
be presented today.
I will vote proudly for the Democratic budget. Our budget reduces the
deficit, it cuts taxes for middle-class families, and it makes critical
investments in health care, education, and clean energy.
We will hear a lot today about the deficit, so let's remember one
thing: The Obama administration inherited an economy in a deep
recession, with a projected annual deficit of over $1 trillion. This
deficit didn't simply appear out of thin air. It was the direct result
of the policies of the Bush administration, along with their Republican
allies in Congress, who inherited a large surplus and then proceeded to
squander it.
Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle will say, ``Don't talk
about the administration, they are gone,'' as though 3 months ago is
somehow ancient history. But we must talk about how we got into this
mess. Those who ignore bad mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat
it.
We believe that the best way, indeed, the only way to effectively
reduce the deficit is to grow the economy, to create good-paying jobs
for middle-class Americans, to improve the health and education of the
American people, to invest in the cutting-edge green energy economy of
the future.
By contrast, the Republican budget proposes slashes in health care
and in nutrition for the most vulnerable Americans. It ignores the
educational needs of our people. And it relies on the same dirty fossil
fuels that threaten our environment and increase our dependence on
foreign oil.
Now, I would like to talk for a moment about a specific difference
between the two budgets on hunger and nutrition. Mr. Dreier got very
upset with me yesterday, I believe he used the word ``shrill,'' when I
suggested that the Republican budget would cut food stamps and other
nutrition programs. He argued that of course Republicans care about
hunger, and that to argue otherwise would be class warfare.
Well, what do you know, when you actually look at the Republican
budget they do in fact cut food stamps. They rescind the food stamp
increases included in the stimulus bill; in other words, cutting the
program below current law by more than $20 billion over 2 years. And if
that weren't bad enough, the Republican budget instructs the
Agriculture Committee to cut an additional $38 billion over 10 years.
Now, where would that $38 billion come from? It can only come from a
couple places, agricultural subsidies or nutrition programs, because
that is what the Agriculture Committee does. And Mr. Ryan said in the
Rules Committee yesterday that they weren't proposing to reopen the
farm bill.
So that means it won't come from the agricultural subsidies; that
means that the additional $38 billion would most likely come from
reducing nutrition programs for the most vulnerable Americans.
Now, here is what that means to the people at home. Because of the
recovery package that we passed a few weeks ago, a family in
Massachusetts will see an increase in their food stamp benefits by
around $39 a month. But the Republican budget eliminates that increase,
literally taking food out of the mouths of Americans already struggling
to make ends meet.
This increase averages out to a little more than $1 a day. Now, many
of my colleagues spend three or four times that amount on a latte.
Maybe $39 a month isn't a big deal to those in this Chamber, but it is
a lot of money for

[[Page 9687]]

people who have been adversely impacted by this lousy economy.
I believe it is wrong to cut food and nutrition programs for
vulnerable people in order to pay for capital gains tax cuts for Wall
Street traders.
Madam Speaker, we all talk about how bad things are on Main Street,
and our budget should be designed to help the people who live on Main
Street and on the side streets as well, whether that is in California
or Massachusetts or somewhere in between. But let me tell you how bad
things are out there, and let me tell you why the Republican budget
will make things worse.
School districts across this country are facing budget shortfalls.
Families are having hard times making ends meet. Unfortunately, some
families don't even have enough money to pay for the school meals, and
the schools are taking drastic measures in response, according to a
February 25 Associated Press article.
According to the article, many schools are literally taking kids out
of the lunch line because their parents can't afford to pay the cost of
a reduced lunch and they are giving them a cheese sandwich, or, in some
cases, giving them nothing simply because their parents can't afford to
pay for the reduced-price school lunch.
According to this article, the School Nutrition Association recently
found that half of the school districts from 38 States surveyed have
seen an increase in the number of students charging meals, while 79
percent saw an increase in the number of free lunches served over the
last year. This means that more families are relying on the Federally
funded school lunch program to help feed their kids; yet, the
Republican budget would basically cut school lunch funding from the
budget, once again making it harder for our children to get the proper
food and nutrition they need.
Now, my good friend from the other side of the aisle will probably
say that this is class warfare, that the Democrats are demagoguing this
issue. Well, let me tell my good friend from California that the
Republican budget requires the Education and Labor Committee to cut
almost $23 billion from programs in their jurisdiction. One of the
biggest programs, if not the biggest program, is the school lunch
program. And if the Republican Party isn't cutting school lunch, then I
would like to hear where they are going to make these cuts. Student
loans, special education, funding for basic education needs?
Let me be clear: A vote for the Republican budget is a vote to cut
programs that are essential and that are helping Americans get through
these tough times today, and it is a vote to ensure that people will
not be able to improve their lives.
Madam Speaker, those of us in this Chamber earn a good salary. No
matter what happens, we will all be fine; but there are a lot of people
whom we represent who won't be, unless we provide some help. These are
difficult times, and we need to rise to the occasion.
So again, Madam Speaker, Members will have the opportunity to make
some very clear choices today. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting the Democratic budget, to believe in the potential of the
American people, to restore the American dream, and to leave a better
America for future generations.

No Free Lunch: Schools Get Tough on Deadbeats

Albuquerque, N.M.--A cold cheese sandwich, fruit and a milk
carton might not seem like much of a meal--but that's what's
on the menu for students in New Mexico's largest school
district without their lunch money.
Faced with mounting unpaid lunch charges in the economic
downturn, Albuquerque Public Schools last month instituted a
``cheese sandwich policy,'' serving the alternative meals to
children whose parents fail to pick up their lunch tab.
Such policies have become a necessity for schools seeking
to keep budgets in the black while ensuring children don't go
hungry. School districts including those in Chula Vista,
Calif., Hillsborough County, Fla., and Lynnwood, Wash., have
also taken to serving cheese sandwiches to lunch debtors.
Critics argue the cold meals are a form of punishment for
children whose parents can't afford to pay.
``We've heard stories from moms coming in saying their
child was pulled out of the lunch line and given a cheese
sandwich,'' said Nancy Pope, director of the New Mexico
Collaborative to End Hunger. ``One woman said her daughter
never wants to go back to school.''

mixed reviews

Some Albuquerque parents have tearfully pleaded with school
board members to stop singling out their children because
they're poor, while others have flooded talk radio shows
thanking the district for imposing a policy that commands
parental responsibility.
Second-grader Danessa Vigil said she will never eat sliced
cheese again. She had to eat cheese sandwiches because her
mother couldn't afford to give her lunch money while her
application for free lunch was being processed.
``Every time I eat it, it makes me feel like I want to
throw up,'' the 7-year-old said.
Her mother, Darlene Vigil, said there are days she can't
spare lunch money for her two daughters.
``Some parents don't have even $1 sometimes,'' the 27-year-
old single mother said. ``If they do, it's for something
else, like milk at home. There are some families that just
don't have it and that's the reason they're not paying.''
The School Nutrition Association recently surveyed
nutrition directors from 38 states and found more than half
of school districts have seen an increase in the number of
students charging meals, while 79 percent saw an increase in
the number of free lunches served over the last year.

``families struggling''

In New Mexico, nearly 204,000 low-income students--about
three-fifths of public school students--received free or
reduced-price lunches at the beginning of the school year,
according to the state Public Education Department.
``What you are seeing is families struggling and having a
really hard time, and school districts are struggling as
well,'' said Crystal FitzSimons of the national Food Research
and Action Center.
In Albuquerque, unpaid lunch charges hovered around $55,000
in 2006. That jumped to $130,000 at the end of the 2007-08
school year. It was $140,000 through the first five months of
this school year.
Charges were on pace to reach $300,000 by the end of the
year. Mary Swift, director of Albuquerque's food and
nutrition services, said her department had no way to absorb
that debt as it had in the past.
``We can't use any federal lunch program money to pay what
they call bad debt. It has to come out of the general budget
and of course that takes it from some other department,''
Swift said.

``dignity and respect''

With the new policy, the school district has collected just
over $50,000 from parents since the beginning of the year. It
also identified 2,000 students eligible to receive free or
reduced-price lunches, and more children in the lunch program
means more federal dollars for the district.
School officials said the policy was under consideration
for some time and parents were notified last fall. Families
with unpaid charges are reminded with an automated phone call
each night and notes are sent home with children once a week.
Swift added that the cheese sandwiches--about 80 of the
46,000 meals the district serves daily--can be considered a
``courtesy meal,'' rather than an alternate meal.
Some districts, she noted, don't allow children without
money to eat anything.
Albuquerque Public Schools ``has historically gone above
and beyond as far as treating children with dignity and
respect and trying to do what's best with for the child and I
think this is just another example,'' Swift said.

I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend
and debating partner, as he has just outlined from Worcester, for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes. And I want to begin by saying
that it was very obvious from the moment that he stood up, Madam
Speaker, that we have been debating over the last couple of days, and I
wish him well in his recovery as he seeks to get his voice back as our
debate proceeds.
I also want to say that as I listened to his account of his concern,
that we all share, for those who are on food stamps, for those who are
suffering during these difficult economic times. I want to congratulate
him for his lifelong commitment to dealing with those who are
suffering, and to say that I stand here with him committed to doing
everything that we possibly can to ensure that those who truly are in
need, those who are on food stamps, do not see the rug pulled out from
under them. That is a commitment that we are proud to make, standing
with him on that. And I will say that I don't believe for 1 minute that
our budget

[[Page 9688]]

would in any way undermine those who are facing the serious economic
challenges that we have.
But I have to say, Madam Speaker, it is interesting to note that the
budget that was sent here to this Congress was, interestingly enough,
entitled, ``The New Era of Responsibility,'' proving once again that,
in Washington, spin seems to trump reality every single time.
Slapping the moniker of ``responsibility'' on a disastrous budget is
far easier than actually crafting a responsible budget. But now is not
the time to be taking the easy way out and abandoning our duties to
wisely and effectively spend the taxpayers' money.
We, as we all know, are facing the gravest economic crisis that we
have faced in nearly three decades. If there was ever a time for true
leadership, it is now. And, regrettably, my colleague's side of the
aisle has chosen this very critical moment to shirk the responsibility
for the great task that is before us.
The Democratic budget imposes new taxes, new taxes on small
businesses, increasing that burden on job creators. So that will mean
more lost jobs, fewer capital investments, and greater strain on our
credit markets.
It also increases taxes on every single American household across
this country with new energy taxes. In fact, families will see their
taxes on energy go up by as much as $3,100 a year.
Now, these are not--these are not, Madam Speaker, as we all know, tax
increases on the super rich, which we regularly hear decried around
here. These are regressive taxes that will hit every single family in
this country. And, Madam Speaker, it is important to note this energy
tax will hit the poorest of families in this country, because they need
to turn the light switch on and turn the microwave on as well.
This budget will have immediate and very, very painful consequences.
But as painful as the short-term impact will be, the long-term
consequences are even more troubling. This budget more than quadruples
the deficit. My friend talked about how this budget reduces the
deficit. All one needs to do is look at the numbers, Madam Speaker.
This budget more than quadruples the deficit. It pushes our national
debt to a level that threatens the solvency of this country for years
to come, in fact, for generations to come.
Now, some Americans may be wondering why the deficit should matter
while so many families are struggling. Well, let me clarify exactly
what it is that we are talking about here.
Republicans are not advocating a complete eradication of the deficit
in 2009. We have had deficits over the past several years. We all
acknowledge that. And while we are committed to reining in wasteful
spending, this time of serious economic challenges is not the time for
sudden or extreme austerity.
Our concern with this budget is not that there is any deficit at all;
our concern is that the deficit itself is so catastrophically huge. It
takes the largest deficit in the last 8 years and expands it
exponentially by 450 percent in this year alone, a 450 percent increase
in the size of the deficit this year alone.
It is either amusing or tragic, depending on how seriously one takes
this issue, to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle whine
that they inherited deficits. They justify their enormously wasteful
budget by saying Republicans ran deficits, too. Yes, there were budget
deficits when Republicans controlled Congress. We all acknowledge that.
We have been fighting two wars; and, yes, we did not go as far as we
would have liked in trimming down wasteful spending. We acknowledge
that.
But what twisted and contorted logic, Madam Speaker, is it to say:
Republican deficits were bad, so we are responding by making them four
times worse. Is this really the Democratic majority's justification for
what it is that we are doing today? Do they really think anyone could
be fooled by such preposterous reasoning? This argument is not just
bizarre, it is downright dangerous. It fails to take seriously the
impact of exponentially growing debt.

{time} 0945

It also fails to take seriously the nature of our current economic
crisis. Some debt is manageable, as any working family knows. Americans
borrow money all the time to buy a new car or pay for college tuition.
At reasonable levels, debt is manageable. But as we have learned very
painfully, irresponsibly and dramatically increased debt can be
catastrophic.
Our Nation's oldest, most prestigious financial institutions have
collapsed under the weight of their irresponsible debts. And now the
Democratic majority is careening down the path that led these
institutions into ruin. Our current economic crisis has come as the
result of irresponsible, unaccountable behavior. We all know that. We
simply cannot begin our recovery unless and until we begin to learn
from our mistakes. The Democratic budget simply repeats and expands on
those mistakes.
But, Madam Speaker, we do have another choice. We, as Republicans,
have put forth an alternative that heeds the lessons of our economic
crisis and applies some common sense to our spending priorities. It
also heeds the lessons of history and previous times of economic
crisis. We have experienced great economic challenges before throughout
our Nation's history. And what have those experiences taught us? Now if
we go back to the recessions in the early 1980s and the early 1960s, we
see very clearly a Democratic President and a Republican President.
President Ronald Reagan and President John F. Kennedy quickly righted
our economies with pro-growth policies that empowered America's job
creators. Again, a Democratic President, John F. Kennedy, and a
Republican President, Ronald Reagan, both put into place pro-growth
policies that empowered the job creators here in the United States.
John F. Kennedy, as I said, and Ronald Reagan after him, understood
that all the government intervention in the world could never match the
power of American entrepreneurship.
Madam Speaker, I am going to quote a Democratic President, President
John F. Kennedy, who in 1962 said the following: ``To increase demand
and lift the economy, the Federal Government's most useful role is not
to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures,
but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private
expenditures.'' Madam Speaker, I'm going to repeat the words of the
great Democratic President, John F. Kennedy. In 1962, as we were
dealing with economic challenges, he said, ``To increase demand and
lift the economy, the Federal Government's most useful role is not to
rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but
to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.''
Madam Speaker, history proved John F. Kennedy right. His pro-growth
reforms reversed the recession and put our economy back on the path to
prosperity. We all know two decades later. My colleague, Mr. Lungren,
and I were part of that ``Reagan Revolution.'' Reagan followed John F.
Kennedy's lead and accomplished the same thing.
Now, Madam Speaker, today Republicans have proposed a budget built on
the Kennedy-Reagan model, a budget that draws upon history's lessons
and will allow our economy to grow once again. Our alternative also
heeds the mistakes that led to our current crisis and rejects the
Democratic majority's policy of massive, reckless new debt for the
American people. This alternative will not eliminate the deficit
immediately, but it responsibly funds our greatest needs while
preventing the deficit from ballooning into an utterly unmanageable
size.
It does not raise taxes on small businesses and working families,
but, in fact, reduces the tax burden they face and empowers them to
lead our economic recovery. It meets our needs as a Nation without
condemning future generations to a mountain of crippling debt. It is
the responsible solution that the American people are expecting. It is
the only budget proposal before us today that will carry us through
this economic crisis and begin the process of the recovery that I know
we all seek in a bipartisan way.

[[Page 9689]]

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from
California for his concern for my voice. And I appreciate the fact that
he admitted that the Bush deficits were a bad thing. That is the first
important step toward a recovery. So I appreciate that. And he mentions
the two wars we fought. I would remind him that they were always off
budget. And the budget the Democrats present today is a more honest
accounting of those expenditures.
At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr.
Andrews.
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I think someone who sells real estate or
teaches school for a living must listen to this budget debate and be
befuddled by what he or she is hearing. Thankfully, today there will be
a chance for that citizen to hear a wide range of alternatives, a wide
range of views as to how we should fix the country's economic problems.
For that, I commend the Rules Committee under Ms. Slaughter's and Mr.
McGovern's leadership, and I hope the minority will vote for the
procedure that lets that wide range of views be heard.
But that person who teaches school or sells real estate has heard
consistently from the minority that their household will get a $3,000-
a-year tax increase. That isn't so. The fact of the matter is that the
hypothetical, mythical energy tax that the minority continuously refers
to is not in the budget. If there ever were to be such a tax, it would
have to come to this floor for a separate vote, a separate debate and
separate consideration. The minority habitually says that small
businesses and families will have their taxes increase. The fact of the
matter is there are instructions to pay for health care that would
probably look to repeal the Bush tax cut for the wealthiest 5 percent
of people in this country, a platform the President ran on and was
elected on. It is absolutely untrue that the 95 percent below that
figure have any sort of tax increase. They don't. In fact, there is a
$1.7 trillion tax reduction for the bottom 95 percent of people in this
country, for middle-class people. We hear that small businesses are
going to have their taxes increase. That is not true. Ninety-eight
percent of the small businesses in this country file tax returns lower
than the adjusted gross income that would be affected by the provisions
that would help pay for the health care bill.
We hear habitually about deficit and debt, and those on the minority
side gnash their teeth and weep that the debt, according to them, will
be doubled in 5 years. They know all about that, because that is
exactly what they just did. They just doubled the national debt in the
last 5 years under their watch.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. ANDREWS. The fact of the matter is that this plan reduces the
deficit by two-thirds over the next 5 years.
Now I do agree with my friend from California that this is about
choice, this is about how to handle our economic distress. President
Obama came to office and said he would do three things. He said he
would pass a bill to stimulate the economy by helping people buy
houses, buy cars, get construction workers back to work and keep people
working and teaching in our schools. He did it. He then said his
administration would lay out a plan to stabilize the collapsing banking
system. Such a plan was laid out at the beginning of last week. And
although it is far too early to measure its results, early signs are
good. And then he said he would lay out a long-term plan for economic
development, jobs and growth that would address the fundamental,
underlying problems of this country. And that is what we are doing
today. Stop living on borrowed money; he is cutting the deficit by two-
thirds. Make us free from imported energy; he sets out a path to do so
that Congress will either follow or not. Deal with health care reform;
he sets out a path to do so that we will deal with through
reconciliation instructions, whether you vote for it or not. And
finally, he sets forth a path to broaden access to education and
improve its quality.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I would be happy to yield my friend additional time if he
would yield to me.
Mr. ANDREWS. Just one moment. I just want to finish this point. I
would love to hear from you.
The other side wants nostalgia. If we were to have a third George
Bush term, their alternative is what it would look like; make permanent
the tax breaks for the wealthiest, reduce what we spend on education,
nutrition, environment, energy and health care, and hope for the best.
This is a choice between the future of promise and the failure of the
past. And if my friend would like to ask me about the failure of the
past, he can certainly do that.
Mr. DREIER. Do I have any other option at all to discuss anything
else? Is that all I can discuss is the failure of the past? If my
friend would yield, and I'm happy to yield my friend 1 additional
minute, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Let me just say that if
we talk about the failure of the past, clearly the ideological baggage
of the past has been the tax, spend and borrow policy which is being
proposed here. Let me say I'm somewhat confused. I know that the
President talked about reducing the deficit by half. Now, of course, if
we run multitrillion-dollar deficits and you cut it down by a $1
trillion or $2 trillion, yeah, you can maybe cut it in half. But my
friend has just said he is going to cut the deficit by two-thirds. I
don't know where that comes from.
Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, has the gentleman read the majority
budget resolution? If the gentleman would read it, he would see that
the deficit is two-thirds at the end of the 5-year cycle.
Mr. DREIER. Let me just say from what it is now, based on the
projections with all the spending that is in here, that will create
deficits that are so extraordinarily high. That is the challenge that
we have got here. When you dramatically increase the size of the
deficits--I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, if I may.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I will yield myself such time as I may
consume. And I'm happy to further engage my friend. And I will say that
we have proposed a 10-year budget. This is a 5-year budget that my
friend has. And I know that if you have multitrillion-dollar deficits
that are going to be run, the dramatic increase in debt servicing is
going to increase the size of those deficits.
I also have to say that it is very interesting, Madam Speaker, my
friend said that I was able to talk about the Bush years. And yes, I'm
very proud of the fact that in 2001 and 2003, dealing with the
aftermath of September 11, an economic recession that existed in the
early part of this decade and corporate scandals, that we were able,
for 55 months, to have sustained economic growth. And I think that that
is something of which we can be proud. But my point is, my arguments
here were bipartisan. And John F. Kennedy was one of our greatest
Presidents. And I'm very proud to say that we are standing on the
shoulders of John F. Kennedy, if that will make my colleagues feel
better. Mr. Lungren and I regularly argue that we are standing on the
shoulders of Ronald Reagan.
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I'm happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. ANDREWS. The gentleman can stand on whomever's shoulders he
wants. I'm afraid that the economic collapse you have left us with is
standing on the chest of the working American.
Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, we are standing on the
shoulders of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan

[[Page 9690]]

to use policies that have historically been very, very successful and
brought about economic recovery through difficult times in our Nation.
At this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to my very good friend
from Gold River, California, our former attorney general and my good
friend, Mr. Lungren.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, John Kennedy's famous words were that a rising tide
lifts all boats. I guess conversely then, a receding tide would lower
all boats.
Isn't that what we are talking about here? How do we get out of this
economic difficulty we are in? My friends on the other side have
correctly pointed out that we spent too much and we borrowed too much
in the last number of years. I have agreed. I have said that ever since
I came back to Congress 4-plus years ago.
But to condemn the actions of the past and then say you're going to
get out of it by repeating it but doubling down on it doesn't seem to
make a whole lot of sense. Look, I was gone from this place for 16
years. My children are grown now. I now have grandchildren. When I
first came here, I had very young children. And I have got to answer to
them at some point in time as to what we did when this choice came this
year. Did we say that it made us feel good to loft ad hominem arguments
at one another, to say that if you are fiscally responsible, what you
are going to do is literally take the food out of the mouths of
children, as I heard the gentleman from the other side say? The
gentleman from the other side said that he has a number of school
districts that can no longer give children lunch.
Why is that? They are having difficult economic times there. They are
finding out they can't tax their people any more. Their receipts aren't
enough at this time to do that. So the gentleman says that all we have
to do is come to Washington, D.C., because, of course, our taxpayers
are different than the taxpayers back home.
Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is, they are the same people.
They are the same people that are going to suffer if we put them on a
road to economic calamity that is going to last for decades.
So we have a responsibility here to look beyond the easy personal
shots and to judge these budgets to see whether or not one of them is
more responsible than the other. I could point out the $1 billion
placeholder that is in the Democratic budget. What is it for? Nobody
knows. It is a hedge against whatever they want to spend it on. I could
point out that my Democratic friends are saying that cap and trade,
which really translates into cap and tax, is a magical, mystical ride
that we are going to take. It is going to cost nobody anything. And so
they criticize us when we say, ``do you know that there is a tax
inherent in this budget?'' Well, tell me how are we going to do this
cap and trade that is based on an auction? An auction means somebody
has to put a price in order to get the ability to spend. But it is
going to come out of nowhere? And my friend from Massachusetts says,
``and the Republican budget is going to allow dirty fossil fuels to be
used.'' Once again we are blaming America.

{time} 1000

I know that the fact of the matter is that we have fossil fuels in
abundance here in the United States, coal for instance; and somehow,
instead of working towards clean coal technology so that we can utilize
our abundant resources, our friends on the other side say somehow
that's evil.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. And Madam Speaker, I
would simply say in response to the cap-and-tax issue about which my
friend has just spoken, that we do share a concern about the poor.
And as I mentioned in my remarks earlier, there is a tax of up to
$3,100 for every American family. That includes the working poor, it
includes those who are impoverished who are still in their homes. And
so the notion that we somehow are doing everything----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield my friend an additional minute. If the gentleman
would further yield, the fact of the matter is, with this proposal that
our colleagues have, they regularly point the finger of blame at us,
that we somehow are trying to hurt the poor by cutting food stamps and
nutrition programs, which is just plain wrong. But they fail to
recognize that the tax burden, with this energy tax imposed on any
family that turns the light switch on, is going to be overwhelmingly
strong.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Well, the gentleman's statement
is only true if you believe that when you buy a carbon credit and pay
for it, that actually amounts to money. If somehow, magically it
doesn't cost anybody anything, even though it's being auctioned on the
market, and then that cost is going to be passed on to the consumer,
which is, in the nature of a tax.
Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would further yield, I would simply say
maybe it is perverse that we somehow believe that if a burden is
imposed on a business, that it is something that is going to have to be
passed on to the consumer. I mean, is that--maybe there's something
wrong with that interpretation.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. What we have here is an argument
that if you can't pay for it back home, you can pay for it here because
somehow we have an unlimited amount of money, and it has no impact on
anybody whatsoever. As if inflation has no impact.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I'm not sure how pointing out that the Republican budget cuts
nutrition is a personal attack. But I guess the truth stings a little
bit.
The fact of the matter is that their substitute rescinds $20 billion
in food stamp funding right off the top. I mean, that's just a fact.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I was just handed a piece here which states that the
distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, our colleague, Mr.
Peterson, the gentleman from Minnesota, has made it clear that he is
not going to allow for a single cut in agricultural subsidies, a story
that has just come out here.
Mr. McGOVERN. So that means it's only food stamps. And the ranking
member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, said that the farm bill was
off the table. So there's a bipartisan, you know, I guess agreement
that the farm bill is going to stand. But your budget----
Mr. DREIER. If my friend would further yield, under your budget how
do you propose to have the cuts in agriculture if you're going to
maintain the food stamp and nutrition program and not bring about cuts
in subsidies?
Mr. McGOVERN. I reclaim my time. Under our budget we do not rescind
the $20 billion in food stamp funding. Beyond that, the Republican
budget freezes all discretionary spending. That potentially cuts off
nutrition assistance to between 500,000 and 1 million pregnant women,
nursing mothers, infants and small children, including monies for the
WIC program.
So, we can sit here and talk about abstractions all we want. The
bottom line is that these programs that we're talking about, these cuts
that are being proposed by the Republican budget, have a direct impact
on real people. And maybe those aren't the people that come to
Washington to lobby, but I'll tell you, the number of people who have
fallen into poverty, the number of people who are still struggling just
to hold on to the middle class, they're dwindling. And so your budget
makes it much worse.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

[[Page 9691]]

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. And, Madam Speaker, I
would simply say to my friend, how does he justify the $3,100 tax that
is imposed on struggling families who are impoverished with the so-
called tax?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Will the gentleman yield on this point?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I really appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in
permitting me to speak to this, because I endured this through the
Budget Committee. I didn't say anything in the Budget Committee. I've
listened to it on the floor.
Does the gentleman know where the $3,100 figure comes from? Does the
gentleman know?
I yield.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. There are several
different studies which show----
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Does the gentleman know where the $3,100 figure comes
from, that your leadership----
Mr. DREIER. There are several different studies.
Mr. McGOVERN. I reclaim my time.
Mr. DREIER. There are studies that show there's an increase. The
highest I've seen is $3,100.
Mr. McGOVERN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California to
tell me what page in our budget that figure comes from.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. It's not a page in the
budget. It's the fact that there is, in fact, a tax increase that
several studies have shown ranged from $1,600 to $3,100 for a working
family in this country.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I reclaim my time.
I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Okay. This $3,100 figure that has been cited by
Republican leadership, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and referenced, I
thought the gentleman from California would talk about it coming from
MIT. That's where it came from, and his colleagues have referenced it
repeatedly on the floor. This is from research by MIT professor John
Reilly, done in 2007.
Republican staffers at one point, since they were citing it, called
him and he said, and I quote, ``called me March 20 and asked about
this. I had to explain why the estimate they had was incorrect, and
what they should do to correct it. But I think this wrong number was
already floating around by that time.'' He pointed out that it actually
was one-tenth of that figure, it was a net welfare that was going to be
$300 per person, that the Republicans are intentionally misrepresenting
the research from MIT.
Now, I would suggest that it's further flawed because we have, in the
budget, left this element to be worked on by people who want a legend.
But this canard ought to be rejected.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. We are really tight on time, Mr. Dreier.
Mr. DREIER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs.
Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, his leadership, and
my colleagues for correcting this number.
Madam Speaker, as we consider the budget proposal for the coming
year, we are facing one of the most important votes in recent history.
We can choose to honor the pledge we made to the American people in the
last election and begin the process of health care reform, make
investments that will lead to energy independence, and invest the
needed funds to reinvigorate our educational system, or we can follow
the same failed policies of the past that brought us to the crisis we
find ourselves in today.
Our budget builds on the integrated approach to lifting us out of the
recession, and returns us to fiscal discipline by cutting the deficit
by two-thirds by 2013.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and on the
leadership's budget blueprint, H. Con. Res. 85.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
I know that the time was limited on the other side, so I'd like to
respond to my good friend from Oregon and say that there are a number
of studies which have indicated what this cost will be. The highest
that I saw was this $3,100 figure.
Now, my friend has just said, this will be worked out later. And in
saying this will be worked out later, that creates a degree of
uncertainty as to exactly what the tax will be on working families.
I am happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Okay. I want it to be clear. I didn't say it would be
worked out. I said that the study that you and Republicans have
repeatedly cited----
Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I wanted to say that there
are several studies. That is one study. And I don't have the other
studies in front of me, Madam Speaker, but I would like to say that it
stands to reason that if this structure is going to be put into place,
the so-called cap-and-trade, talking about exchange of carbon taxes and
the taxes that are out there, they are going to be passed on to
consumers. And a number of studies, other than the MIT study, have
indicated that this will increase the cost burden on working families
throughout the United States of America, regardless of their economic
standing.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. Of course, I am happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would like to clarify that the professor who's
being referenced by your leadership said that it would be one-fortieth
of that amount.
Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, the fact is, Madam Speaker,
there are several other studies which have talked about that tax burden
which is going to be involved, not that single study. They range from
roughly $1,600 to this $3,100 figure that we had in the past.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. Of course. I am happy to yield.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. What do you think, assuming that it is one-fortieth
or larger, what do you think happens to that money?
Mr. DREIER. What do I think happens to that money? I will tell you.
Whatever the tax burden is, it is imposed on the families in this
country who are on food stamps, who are on nutrition programs and who
are struggling to make ends meet but still have to pay their energy
bills.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. My friend from California continually references this
energy tax increase. He's very astute on the rules, Madam Speaker, and
he knows that the way you can set the predicate to raise revenue in a
budget resolution is by a reconciliation instruction.
Would the gentleman care to tell us where the reconciliation
instruction is to raise money for this cap-and-tax that he keeps
talking about?
Mr. DREIER. If my friend would yield, the fact of the matter is it
has not been put into place, and it's very, very clear that there is a
$1 billion place holder there, which is what they're planning to
utilize.
Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his
statement. It is not in place. Therefore, there's no tax in this
budget.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Etheridge.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, you know, a budget's more than just a
document. It really is a statement of our Nation's priorities and
values. And the underlying bill that we're talking about builds on the
work this Congress has done to put our economy back on track and
provide jobs for our people

[[Page 9692]]

and invest in the current economic crisis of building for future needs.
The bill lays out a plan to cut the deficit by nearly two-thirds,
creates jobs and investments, reforms health care, and provides for
clean energy and education.
As a former school chief in my home State, I'm particularly pleased
that the budget prioritizes education and innovation, a critical
foundation piece for building a future.
In recent months, we have seen the economy start to recover as we put
things in place. We'll see that in the months to come.
But let me just share a personal story. Just this past week I was at
a middle school, Meadow Middle School in Johnson County, met with a
bunch of students who will be the first in their family to go to
college. That's what this is all about. We're building for the future.
These youngsters start in middle school making a decision where they're
going. Never has a member of their family been to college. That's what
we're about here today.
Certainly we can argue the details, but, you know, let's keep our
focus on what it's about. It's about the people of America, those
who've lost their jobs, some who've lost hope. But we can give hope to
the next generation. We can provide a foundation for building jobs, and
we can get our economy moving again. But we have to do it together.
This budget resolution is a step in that direction of building a
strong future for America and making a difference--for the leadership
position in the world.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to our very
thoughtful new colleague from Buffalo, New York (Mr. Lee).

{time} 1015

Mr. LEE of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule and,
more importantly, the budget resolution. Having run a business, I know
that, to put together a responsible budget in the middle of a difficult
economic climate, you have to prepare for things to get worse, not
assume they will get better. The majority's budget fails to meet the
commonsense standard by spending taxpayer dollars freely, without the
same ``do more with less'' approach that many of my constituents live
by.
For proof of that, look no further than the fact that independent
estimates suggest, roughly, 250,000 new Federal bureaucrats may be
needed to spend all the money in the President's budget. We should be
looking at paring our employment roles, not expanding the already
bloated Federal Government. Moreover, by continuing to borrow money we
don't have, taxpayers will be on the hook for as much as $1 trillion in
interest payments on this debt. This is only a preview of the massive
burden that will be forced on our children and grandchildren by
Washington's refusal to make tough choices now.
My constituents didn't send me here to evaluate how their hard-earned
money is spent in the abstract. This is about dollars and cents. By
that measure, this budget is reckless spending, and it fails to protect
working families, family farms and small businesses who are struggling
right now. This budget simply spends too much; it borrows too much, and
it taxes too much.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Schrader.
Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to the rule. I
appreciate this opportunity.
I'm not going to bore the rest of the body or the American people
with more discussion about the inherited deficit we've got and about
the necessary recovery plan that has been enacted to put Americans back
to work after the Bush administration destroyed our economy, morally
bankrupted us, as well as financially.
It also is amazing to me that, in the Republican budget I have here,
there is nothing that addresses the long-term cost drivers that the
budget of change has that has been put forward by the President of the
United States and the Democratic Congress. We're dealing with the long-
term cost drivers of health care, with the need for a 21st century
education, and with the fact that we can no longer have our economy
being at the mercy of people in the Middle East.
What is amazing is what is not in this budget. In this budget, the
most explicit piece is about how we get wasteful spending under
control. We just heard the Republican floor leader talk about the fact
that, yes, we did not go after wasteful spending in the last 8 years.
Well, this budget doesn't do it. It is in our budget. We talk about
program integrity. We talk about making sure that seniors are taken
care of with their Social Security, and we talk about preventing fraud
and abuse. That fraud and abuse gives us an $11 return for every dollar
we've invested.
Tax compliance: Instead of letting the wealthy get away with huge tax
breaks that hardworking Americans don't get, we actually have a tax
compliance feature in this budget that actually makes sure we get $5
for every dollar invested.
Medicare-Medicaid: The fraud and abuse that's going on in there with
wealthy people trying to game the system at the mercy of hardworking
individuals and seniors who are destitute is abominable. For getting
after that fraud and abuse in our budget, we actually talk about the
fact that there's a $1.60 return for every dollar invested. Most
importantly, I think we recognize that the States are the incubators of
a lot of innovation. There is a partnership fund established where we
can do some creative work.
A lot of this work has been done in my home State of Oregon. It
yielded tremendous benefits when I was in charge of the appropriations
process back there.
The last comment I'd make, Madam Speaker, as to what is not in the
Republican budget that is in the Democrat budget is: We talk about
performance management. We actually make sure that agencies are held
accountable for every single tax dollar that's being spent, and I'm
sorry to say that that's nowhere in the Republican budget.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to simply say to our new colleague from Oregon, who has just joined us,
that it seems that this budget is dealing with what is little more than
a 5-year fantasy land. We're dealing with a 10-year proposal here, and
the notion of saying, ``within a 5-year period of time,'' these
projections are not taking into reality the huge debt that is going to
be existing beyond that 5 years.
I've asked my friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) to return, and I've
been doing a little research. Our staff has looked into this, and we've
found that the professor about whom my friend was speaking from MIT
did, in fact, say that there would be this one hundred fortieth level,
but it was based on the fact that we would see rebates to those
families provided, and yet there is nothing in this budget that
provides for those rebates.
In light of that----
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. Let me just finish my thought, and then I will yield to
my friend.
The fact is, if you look at that $3,100 figure, it does stand because
the budget does not have a penny for those rebates.
I'm happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. The budget doesn't have anything for the rebates
because the program isn't in the budget. The budget allows----
Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, let me just--
--
Mr. BLUMENAUER. No. Give me the courtesy----

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlemen will suspend. Both the
gentlemen will suspend.
The gentlemen must remember to respect the gavel and not talk over
each other, and yield and reclaim time in an orderly way to have the
debate recorded.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, who controls the time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. At that time, the Chair couldn't tell who
had the time. The gentleman controls his time.

[[Page 9693]]

Mr. DREIER. I think that I control all the time on our side, Madam
Speaker, and I think that I've been yielded to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. While the
gentleman is talking over the Member to whom he has yielded time, it is
difficult to understand who actually has the time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, if I may, what I said was I'm reclaiming
my time. Did the Chair not hear me say that I was reclaiming my time
from the gentleman?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. At the time that the gentleman was speaking,
the gentleman from Oregon was using the time that had been yielded to
him.
Mr. DREIER. Well, there was no amount of time yielded to him, Madam
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, if I may----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Members will respect the gavel. They will yield and reclaim time in
an orderly manner and attempt not to talk over each other so that their
comments can be recorded properly.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I be recognized?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
I would simply like to state to the Chair that the gentleman said
that there was nothing in this budget that specifically referred to
that. When he made his point in response to my question, I asked you to
allow me to reclaim my time. I said it three times loudly and with
enthusiasm, so I don't believe that I was talking over the gentleman. I
was asking to reclaim my time.
Am I wrong?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman needs to respect the gavel,
and the gentleman needs to understand that all comments need to be
recorded, and when comments in the nature of rebuttal are being made
without a clear yielding or reclaiming of time, it is difficult for the
official reporters to make sure that they have all of the comments.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me state very clearly again for the
recording clerk: What I was saying was ``reclaiming my time.'' That was
the statement that I was making as the gentleman was speaking.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
I would say to my friend that, as we look at this issue, there is
nothing in this budget, but there is this $1 billion set-aside there. I
would like to ask my friend if he could guarantee that that $1 billion
will not be used for the so-called cap-and-trade or cap-and-tax plan,
or that it will not be in the budget conference report that we have
returning to us.
I'm happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. In attempting not to be a potted plant but to
respond, there is no detail in terms of a cap-and-trade proposal. There
is an----
Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker,
may I reclaim my time?
I reclaim my time to ask again as I just did of my friend: Can the
gentleman provide a guarantee that that $1 billion will not be used for
this so-called ``cap-and-trade program'' and that it will not be
included in a conference report that comes back to the House?
I'm happy to further yield to my friend to respond.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. The purpose of a budget resolution is to provide a
framework, and if the House and the Senate provide a framework that
involves a fee on carbon pollution, then we will have the chance to
work our will. There is, in this bill, a framework to move forward.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, I will say
that the gentleman has made his point, and so he is not providing a
guarantee that it is not going to be there, and I appreciate his
recognizing that fact.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must ask Members to bear in mind
the principle that proper courtesy in the process of yielding and
reclaiming time in debate, and especially in asking another to yield,
helps to foster the spirit of mutual comity that elevates our
deliberations above mere argument.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of how much time remains
on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 7
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 6\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. I'd like to yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, nobody can make guarantees, but the
framework is to allow the body to work its will. There's no tax.
There's an opportunity for us to have a framework to fight carbon
pollution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Maffei).
Mr. MAFFEI. Madam Speaker, after 8 years of failed policies under the
last administration, we have inherited a massive, unprecedented budget
deficit projected to be well over $1 trillion before the current
President took office. While growing our economy is a major component
of the budget, reducing the deficit is a top priority for everyone.
The budget before us today will cut the deficit by two-thirds by the
end of 2013 with a combination of spending cuts. Now, I'd like to
correct the excesses overnight, but like steering a sailboat, it takes
some time to turn us around while still not capsizing.
Some say we should chop everything except defense in the interest of
leaving less debt to our children, but the fiscal deficit is not the
only thing the policies of the last 8 years has left us with:
We have a huge education deficit, Madam Speaker, where children in
urban and rural areas in my district don't have decent schools
available to them. We have a health care deficit where people even with
insurance cannot get the preventative care they need to avoid bigger
problems. We have an infrastructure deficit, as demonstrated by leaky
sewers and crumbling roads and bridges in my district.
If we reduce the deficit a little more, it will still be substantial
thanks to the policies of the past, but it will leave our children with
poor education, inadequate health care and crumbling infrastructure.
Are we really serving their best interests by doing this?
We must invest in the economy to get rid of the structural deficit
that we inherited. Just as someone might take a second mortgage to fix
the structural integrity of their family house, we must do this as
well. We may have a somewhat bigger mortgage, but we will have a strong
house to pass on to our kids. That's what this Obama budget does.
Otherwise, we will leave our children with a somewhat smaller mortgage
but with no house, with no education, with poor health, and with Third
World infrastructure.
That's not why the people of the 25th District of New York elected
me. That's not why people elected the 44th President of the United
States. The President's budget makes these tough decisions that the
people sent us here to make. We must support it and we must support the
rule.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time
is remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 5 minutes
remaining.
Mr. DREIER. I'd like to yield a minute and a half to our hardworking
colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I have to confess that it's a little
tough to be here on the floor and be accused of wanting to keep money
from the hardworking Americans, as Republicans, when I have had a bill
I have been begging to be allowed to come to the floor that gives a tax
holiday to every hardworking American in the country--to everybody.
Even those who

[[Page 9694]]

don't make enough to pay income tax would get a FICA holiday.
So, to be lectured about our not wanting hardworking Americans to
have a break, give me a break. The bill is there. Let it come to the
floor. I'm told by people all over the Hill and all over America:
Please, see if you can't get the Democratic leadership to give us this
holiday.
Then we have a marriage penalty that is exacerbated in this budget,
made even worse. Then who do you think is going to pay for this extra
energy tax? It'll be passed on, and the people who earn the least will
get hurt the most.
The real secret about this budget, Madam Speaker, should not be lost
in this one act. Secretary of State Clinton was sent to beg the Chinese
to keep loaning us money. What does that say for our future? We're
quickly approaching the irreversible in this spending. It has to stop.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, there is nothing in the underlying budget
resolution that adversely affects the marriage penalty situation for
any middle-class person. Again, 95 percent of families in this country
get a tax cut, not a tax increase. It's just not so.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania, the vice chair of the Budget Committee, Ms.
Schwartz.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Speaker, let me first say that, I think, this is
a very important debate.
Last night, it was suggested that we have not debated this budget
when, in fact, we had 14 hours of markup, of conversation about the
debate in the Budget Committee, and of course, we had hours last night
and hours this morning. This budget resolution is a statement of our
priorities, of our values and of our goals, and it gives direction to
the Congress this next year and for years ahead.
The fact is that the President's budget, embraced by the Democratic
Congress and modified slightly by us, as is our responsibility, is a
change in the direction to this Nation. It is honest. It is fiscally
responsible after years of not being so, and it is extremely difficult,
and it recognizes the difficulty that we have inherited: the economy,
which is, of course, in great difficulty, and the fiscal situation for
our Nation, reflected by the $1.3 trillion deficit that President Obama
and this Democratic Congress have inherited from President Bush and the
Republican Congress.

{time} 1030

It reflects and understands that we have a large debt in this
country, and it restores fiscal discipline by commitment to cut that
deficit in half in 5 years and to restore fiscal responsibility and
fiscal policies that will rebuild this economy and rebuild our Nation.
It is clear that the Republicans want to go back to those failed
policies that led us to this moment, and we simply cannot let that
happen.
The President and the Democratic budget does, in fact, provide relief
for our families and our businesses. It restores fiscal discipline and
a commitment to cut that deficit in half in 5 years. And very
importantly, it makes clear that we have to make investments in our
people, in our businesses, and in our Nation if we're going to grow
economically and restore fiscal discipline.
So it sets the opportunity for the debate on three critical issues:
on energy independence, on education, and on health care reform. That
is the way we are going to rebuild this economy, and we are going to
make those investments, and that's what this budget does. And I hope it
will be embraced by this Congress and this Nation.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of my friend if he has any
further speakers.
Mr. McGOVERN. We have no further speakers.
Mr. DREIER. If my friend from Worcester is prepared to close, I will
yield myself the balance of our time.
Madam Speaker, we all know this has been an interesting debate, a
fascinating one, and I think there is going to be a very clear choice
that is before us.
The American people are hurting. The people whom I represent in
California and people all across this country are suffering because of
the economic downturn that we face today. It is a very serious and a
challenging one, and I believe that every Democrat and every Republican
wants to do what they believe is best to get our economy back on track.
I will tell you that I think that it's important for us to look at
history. We need to look at the history of spending and what it has
created, and we need to look at the history of what it is that gets our
economy growing. Dramatically increasing spending, as study after study
has shown, does nothing to get our economy back on track, to get it
growing.
I believe that those words that were offered by President Kennedy,
that I quoted earlier, in 1962 as he was dealing with a difficult
economic time, when he said, ``to increase demand and lift the economy,
the Federal Government's most useful role is not to rush into a program
of excessive increases and public expenditures but to expand the
incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.''
Now, Madam Speaker, the reason that I point to John F. Kennedy is
that at the beginning of this administration's term and at the
beginning of this Congress, we heard Democrats talk about the need for
us to work in a bipartisan way. So what we're using, Madam Speaker, is
the model of a great Democrat, John F. Kennedy, who recognized that
dramatically increasing spending is not the cure that we need to deal
with this challenge. And history proved John F. Kennedy right.
We know that tax cuts create jobs and jobs create revenues. It's true
that we have a debt and a deficit that need to be addressed. The way to
do that is to grow our economy. Tax increases do not increase jobs. And
so it is absolutely imperative that we put a pro-growth policy into
place, and that's what we do. We grow the economy, we recognize that
there are serious societal needs out there, whether it is nutrition,
whether it is food stamps. We need to address those. And we do provide
for that in our budget. And at the same time, we focus on future
generations by saying we are going to responsibly take the debt that
exists and we are going to take it on a downward slope.
Now, my colleagues continue to talk about the next 5 years. Our
budget focus is on 10 years. Why? Because we know that the 5-year plan
that they have where they talk about reducing the multitrillion-dollar
deficits that we're going to have, that they skyrocket after that 5-
year period of time based on the spending that they plan to have in
their budget.
So, Madam Speaker, we're going to continue with this rigorous debate
that's taken place over the past hour-plus. We will see it happen
throughout the day, and then we're going to have a chance to determine
whether or not we are going to put into place policies that stand on
the shoulders of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan to grow our economy,
reducing the tax burden on working Americans so that they can create
jobs and increase the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury, or are
we going to have a policy which taxes too much, spends too much, and
borrows too much.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, this has been an interesting debate, but
the fact is that Members will have a clear choice. And it's a choice of
whether or not you want to stick to the same old-same old, or whether
you want to go in a dramatically different direction.
If you have loved the last 8 years, then you should vote for the
Republican budget because it's a continuation of the same thing.
If you want a different direction, a direction in which we invest in
our economy, invest in our health care, invest in clean energy, invest
in education and reduce our deficits, then you need to vote for the
Democratic budget.

[[Page 9695]]

The fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, the Republican budget,
among other things, repeals most of the economic stimulus package that
we passed, a stimulus package that is already helping our economy. In
my district, a health IT company has already announced they are going
to hire 500 more people because of the money for health IT in the
economic stimulus package.
And what I find ironic is that so many of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle who voted against the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, you know, and who now will vote against it again by
voting for the Republican budget, are going back to their districts and
will be taking credit for all of this Federal money going to help the
people in their communities.
Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have taken so
many bows, they are humpbacked.
The fact of the matter is we have a problem not just 5 years from now
and not just 10 years from now; we have a problem today. There are
people in my district today who can't put food on the table. There are
people in my district today who are losing their jobs who can't afford
a college education for their kids.
We need to approve the Democratic budget because we need to
understand if we're going to reduce our debt, we need to have our
economy grow, and the only way to grow is by providing smart, sound,
good investments. That's the choice.
And so I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic budget. I am
proud to stand here in support of it. I have two kids, a 10-year-old
son and a 7-year-old daughter. I am voting for this budget because of
them. I want to give them a better future. And that's what this debate
is about.
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 previous question was ordered.
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. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF THE TWO HOUSES

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

H. Con. Res. 93

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on any legislative
day from Thursday, April 2, 2009, through Saturday, April 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 Tuesday, April 21, 2009, or until
the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when
the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Thursday,
April 2, 2009, through Sunday, April 5, 2009, on a motion
offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its
Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or
adjourned until noon on Monday, April 20, 2009, or such other
time on that day as may be specified in the motion to recess
or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to
section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs
first.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of
the Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly
after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and
the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members
of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at
such place and time as they may designate if, in their
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the concurrent
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. 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, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of H. Con. Res. 93 will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on adoption of H. Res. 316.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244,
nays 177, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 183]

YEAS--244

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
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
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gerlach
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
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
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
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
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
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--177

Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Arcuri
Austria
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
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)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ellsworth
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maffei
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon

[[Page 9696]]

McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
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
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf

NOT VOTING--10

Bachmann
Blunt
Griffith
Hinojosa
Klein (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore (WI)
Pascrell
Richardson
Westmoreland

{time} 1104

Mr. ADLER of New Jersey changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. HINCHEY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 85, CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on
adoption of House Resolution 316, on which the yeas and nays were
ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242,
nays 182, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 184]

YEAS--242

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
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
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
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
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
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
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
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
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NAYS--182

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carney
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
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)
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
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
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
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--7

Baird
Hinojosa
Miller, Gary
Moore (WI)
Pascrell
Shuler
Westmoreland

{time} 1114

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.

____________________

FAMILY SMOKING PREVENTION AND TOBACCO CONTROL ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Altmire). The unfinished business is
consideration of the bill (H.R. 1256) to protect the public health by
providing the Food and Drug Administration with certain authority to
regulate tobacco products.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. When further proceedings were postponed on
the bill, all time for debate on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) had expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 307, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended, and on the amendment by the gentleman from
Indiana.
The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Indiana.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 142,
noes 284, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 185]

AYES--142

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bright
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell

[[Page 9697]]

Cantor
Carter
Cassidy
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Etheridge
Fleming
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Hill
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kissell
Kline (MN)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pence
Perriello
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Posey
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Tanner
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Wamp
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--284

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fortenberry
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gerlach
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lummis
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
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
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--5

Blunt
Hinojosa
Miller, Gary
Pascrell
Westmoreland

{time} 1132

Messrs. GRIFFITH and LATTA and Ms. SPEIER changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at
the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. In its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Rogers of Michigan moves to recommit the bill (H.R.
1256) to the Committee on Energy and Commerce with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
In section 919(c)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, as added by section 101(b)(3) of the bill,
amend subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
``(B) Prohibition against use of other funds.--Fees
collected under subsection (a) are the only funds authorized
to be made available for the purpose described in
subparagraph (A).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Rogers) is recognized for 5 minutes to support his
motion.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friends for
bringing up and working on an issue that we all know is troublesome,
smoking in America. We certainly don't want our kids to do it. We
wouldn't wish it on any family. And sometimes we disagree on the
smallest things and the paths to get there. And I think this is one of
those occasions. But some of those differences have huge consequences.
We even offered an amendment to say to the FDA if you're going to give
them this authority, you ought to be able to get nicotine out of
cigarettes. And the majority said ``no.''
So what we are going to do is we're going to have them create this
whole new government structure to approve or authorize or regulate a
drug that, if used as directed, will kill you--for the first time in
the history of the FDA. It is a problem. But as long as we get to this
place of eliminating smoking, maybe we are moving forward.
But here is a huge problem, and I hope my colleagues listen well.
Because for several years during the course of this bill, we have been
told and told again and told again that this will not impact the
general fund of the FDA. It will not. But, in fact, it will. There is a
dangerous loophole in this bill, and we together today can close it. I
will tell you why this is important. Because it does allow in the bill
specifically for money to come from the general fund of the FDA to get
this thing going for as long as 6 months. Six months doesn't seem like
a long time. But let me tell you, the FDA is strapped for resources and
failing in many of its core missions.
Many of us here agree with that. We have often said it is not meeting
its mission requirements. We need to give them more, more resources.
This bill today takes away precious resources from some of the most
dangerous diseases and cures that may be on their way at the time they
don't need it. Do you realize last year the FDA inspected roughly 6,000
of 189,000 food facilities under its jurisdiction? Three percent.
Americans eat food imported from 150 countries where they are processed
in 189,000 plants, scattered from China to Fiji. But in 2007, the FDA
inspected just 96 of those plants.
You pose to the new FDA Commissioner a very dangerous set of policy
decisions. Do I not inspect food plants to get this new regulation
going today or for the next 6 months? The last salmonella outbreak had
550 illnesses and eight deaths. You will make, today, the FDA
Commissioner choose between one more inspection and catching one more

[[Page 9698]]

bad outbreak of salmonella or stepping up and starting to regulate, in
this new way, tobacco at the FDA. The salmonella outbreak cost the
industry about $100 million just for tomatoes last year alone. People
are dying because we are not meeting our obligations for food safety.
This bill jeopardizes the Commissioner from meeting that core and
important element in food safety in the United States.
But that is not all. Chronic pain. We are very close. They have new
technology that is getting close to being approved by the FDA. You will
make that Commissioner stand up and say, ``I'm sorry that you have
arthritis and have waited and prayed every day of your life for that
cure, that new medicine that is going to alleviate your pain and give
you a quality of life. I'm sorry, we have to wait 6 months for that
cure.'' Six months does mean a lot.
Pediatric cancer, we are very close to some great treatments, some
great treatments. If it is your son or your daughter in your family,
are you willing to say, let's wait 6 months for that cure, for that
medicine, for that very treatment that may save your life? You make the
FDA Commissioner choose when you pass this bill today if we don't close
this loophole. It is not done.
Biologic drugs, we all know how important they are, what kind of
cures they can bring, the innovation. They are already hurting
economically. You're telling them, ``wait 6 months for that new cure
for whatever disease ails you because we want to get this bureaucracy
started at the FDA and take some of those resources.'' What scientist
are we going to ask that Commissioner to remove from the bench to do
that study for 6 months to find that cure? That is what we are doing
today if we don't close this loophole.
Alzheimer's, we have some great cures. But they keep telling us they
need additional resources to meet the demands on the new medicines that
are coming forward to either alleviate pain or alleviate the disease or
slow it or even cure it, God help us all if we can do that soon. But
you make the Commissioner decide, today, to stop that research, to stop
that process, to slow down the clinical trial so we can institute this
new bureaucracy on cigarettes at the FDA.
Some pretty exciting stuff on HPV, cervical cancer is in the works.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I will end with this because I can go on and
on about all the diseases that mean so much to all of us, a very simple
thing, close this dangerous loophole, vote for this motion to recommit,
protect the families, stand with them as they pray each night for a
cure for their diseases.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair. All Members are reminded not to traffic the well
while other Members are under recognition.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, this bill will not divert
resources away from other important functions at the Food and Drug
Administration. It is fully funded by a user fee from the tobacco
industry. And that user fee will fund this effort, and none of the
funds to deal with tobacco will come out of other activities at FDA.
But there is an exception. In the beginning, until the user fees are
collected and disbursed, we want FDA to get going. So we allow the FDA
to borrow money, no more than for two quarters, from the general
revenue. But they have to pay it back. That is the only use of general
revenues that would be borrowed under this motion to recommit.
Now, the American Cancer Society is supporting our legislation. Would
they support our legislation if it diverted the FDA from review of
drugs that cancer patients rely on to save their lives? The same is
true of all the other health groups that support our bill. They believe
this bill accomplishes effective tobacco regulation without diverting
the FDA from lifesaving activities that the FDA must undertake.
The bill is supported by 1,000 public health and other groups,
including the Heart Association, the Lung Association, the Cancer
Society and the American Public Health Association. They would not
support this bill if it did what the gentleman from Michigan claims it
does, because his claim is inaccurate. And these groups know that. And
that is why they are supporting the Waxman-Platts legislation.
Simply put, the Waxman-Platts bill makes absolutely clear that the
tobacco program will not detract from FDA's other activities, and we
shouldn't delay the regulation of tobacco, which is really the impact
of this motion to recommit should it be adopted. We shouldn't delay
this long overdue measure based on a misplaced concern about FDA's
other resource challenges.
So I would urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to recommit
and to vote for the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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--ayes 169,
noes 256, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 186]

AYES--169

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ellsworth
Emerson
Etheridge
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
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)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Perriello
Petri
Pitts
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roskam
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walden
Wamp
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--256

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castle
Castor (FL)
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings

[[Page 9699]]

Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
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
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (NY)
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
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 (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--6

Blunt
Hinojosa
Kaptur
Miller, Gary
Pascrell
Westmoreland

{time} 1200

Mr. TEAGUE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. WALDEN of Oregon, RADANOVICH and WHITFIELD changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 298,
noes 112, not voting 21, as follows:

[Roll No. 187]

AYES--298

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Butterfield
Camp
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleming
Fortenberry
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Putnam
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--112

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Bright
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Campbell
Carter
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Guthrie
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Pence
Perriello
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuler
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)

NOT VOTING--21

Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Blunt
Broun (GA)
Cardoza
Carney
Gonzalez
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hinojosa
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lujan
Miller, Gary
Napolitano
Pascrell
Roybal-Allard
Salazar
Velazquez
Westmoreland
Wu

{time} 1207

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the House that I missed
rollcall No. 187. If I had been present I would have voted ``aye'' on
the final passage of H.R. 1256.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 2, 2009, I was
delayed in a Congressional Hispanic Caucus meeting and was not able to
vote on rollcall No. 187. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye'' on passage of H.R. 1256--Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 187, I inadvertently
pressed the ``no'' button. I meant to vote ``aye'' on passage of H.R.
1256.

[[Page 9700]]

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 187 on
H.R. 1256, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``aye.''
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, today the House voted on final passage of
H.R. 1256, The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. I was
unavoidably detained and was unable to be here for the vote. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the bill.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was detained in an elevator in the
Capitol building due to a mechanical malfunction earlier today. As a
result, I missed rollcall vote 187 on passage of H.R. 1256, Family
Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. If present, I would have
voted ``aye.''
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 187 I was held up in a
meeting and unable to vote due to delayed elevators. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 187, due to delayed
elevators. I was unable to get to the Chamber in time to note. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 187, the elevator was
delayed, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 187 I was held up in a
meeting and unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 187 I was held up in a
meeting and unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, on April 2, 2009, I missed
one vote regarding H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on final
passage (rollcall vote 187).

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent on April 1 during
rollcall votes 175 through 182. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall vote 175 to table H. Res. 312; ``yea'' on rollcall
vote 176 on agreeing to H. Res. 305; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 177 on
agreeing to H. Res. 306; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 178 on passage of H.
R. 1575; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 179 on agreeing to H. Res. 290;
``nay'' on rollcall vote 180 on agreeing to the Bean amendment to H. R.
1664; and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 182 on passage of H. R. 1664.
On April 2, I was absent for rollcall 187, final passage of H.R.
1256. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

____________________

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 305 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the
concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 85.

{time} 1208

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 85) setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2009 and 2011 through 2014, with Mrs. Tauscher in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier, 60
minutes of debate remained on the concurrent resolution.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 30 minutes
remaining and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has 30 minutes
remaining.
Who yields time?
Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chair, we resume this morning. When we'd broken off
last night, we'd had a lively but civil and spirited debate. There were
some things said last night that were just so wildly off the mark that
they bear just a minute of consideration to correct the Record.
It was said repeatedly that this resolution was about the biggest tax
increase in history. In fact, don't take it from me. Look at the CBO.
After examining the President's budget, they said it will work out to
be a net tax reduction of $1.7 trillion over a 10-year period of time.
The size of the budget was mentioned several times in the debate.
It's enormous, no question about it, but it's partly swollen by virtue
of what has happened over the past year in the financial services
industry, beginning with the failure of Lehman Brothers, of other firms
on Wall Street, and due to our intervention, which has cost us
substantially and is factored into the budget that we are dealing with
today.
Our friends were blaming that crisis on us. In truth, we all share
some responsibility for it, but it's one of the reasons we have a
swollen number.
Before we begin the debate proper, I would like to recognize for 1
minute the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) because he was an
active participant in the debate last night. This is just to connect it
to where we left off.
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I think there are a couple of points that
the Record should accurately reflect.
Number 1: There is no energy tax in this budget. It's a statement
that has been claimed again and again and again. It's not correct.
Number 2: This budget reduces taxes for middle class Americans by a
net $1.7 billion over time.
Number 3: The budget resolution assumes that the Pomeroy estate tax
plan will be adopted, meaning that individuals will get a $3.5 million
exemption and that couples will get a $7 million exemption from the
estate tax.
Then the final point that, I think, can't be stated enough is: When
our friends on the other side worry about doubling the national debt in
5 years, it's a subject for which they speak with great authority,
because that's exactly what they just did. Their plan doubled that debt
over 5 years. So they do know what they're talking about when that
happens.
Mr. SPRATT. We now would like to return to the broad issue of fiscal
responsibility. For the purposes of leading that debate, I would like
to yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
Mr. BOYD. Madam Chair, I want to thank Chairman Spratt. He and his
staff have provided great leadership over the last month or so on the
development of this budget resolution, and he has had many difficult
positions to reconcile. He has worked closely with myself and with my
Blue Dog colleagues, since the new President came into office, to put
this budget resolution in place.
In March, Madam Chair, for the first time in 8 years, Congress had a
President who sent us a budget blueprint that was honest and that laid
out for the American people all of the expenditures and all of the
projected revenues, projected expenditures, in an honest way so that
the American people could see it.
What do I mean by that?
What I mean is, for the last 7 or 8 years and prior to the new
administration coming in, when the President's budget came to Capitol
Hill, it neglected to include massive spending obligations such as war-
cost funding, Alternative Minimum Tax fixes, the Medicare physician
payment fixes--these are all items that the American people and the
Congress knew that we would do--disaster relief, middle-class tax cuts,
and other tax provisions like the estate tax, which needed to be fixed
because of the convoluted mess that was put in place in 2001 under the
Bush tax plan.

{time} 1215

Therefore, the budget President Obama sent us is honest. But
honestly, it left a lot of us with sticker shock when we saw it because
I don't think many of us and many of the American people realized how
bad the situation had gotten over the last 7 or 8 years. I think we as
a group--and I speak for the group that I work with, the Blue Dogs--we
had two options: We could say ``no'' or we could work constructively to
place this country back on the right track to fiscal discipline and
fiscal responsibility. We chose the latter path, and that is to work
with Chairman Spratt to see if we couldn't get this country back on
track.

[[Page 9701]]

We inherited a mess. The numbers are bad. But we, working together,
we can get back on the right track to start with an honest document, an
honest budget, and this certainly provides that.
Madam Chairman, I have several Members that would like to speak, and
at this moment I am going to yield 2 minutes to a fellow Blue Dog from
Louisiana, one of the leaders of the Blue Dogs, Representative
Melancon.
The CHAIR. The gentleman having the time may yield but not a specific
block of time.
Mr. MELANCON. Thank you for the allotment of time, Mr. Boyd.
Let me start by saying that a budget resolution is not a binding
document. It is a guideline, it is a principle, it is to give guidance
to the Congress and to the administration. It has no taxes that are
included in it. There are, in fact, spending cuts included in it.
Working with Chairman Spratt, who has been diligent in trying to put
together a good spending package, a good budget package, we, as the
Blue Dogs, have consistently asked for help in trying to bring control
over the spending that has occurred in this country over the last 8
years that has given us the deficit we have.
If you go and take a look at the last budget that President Bush put
forward, add into that the offline budgets, the offline spending that
he had, if you put them together then you'll find President Obama's
budget in roughly the same numbers.
We are not fooling the American public anymore. We are trying to say
to the American public, This is what your government has been spending
and you deserve to know that. And as a Blue Dog, what we're saying is
we're here to work with people to try to make this government work for
the American public and the taxpayers of this country.
We have gone for too long with deceit and trying to trick the
American public by thinking that they are not watching what was spent
in the war, by not paying attention that the alternative minimum tax
was funded out of budget, that we were just borrowing and spending,
borrowing and spending. And if we keep this up, there will come a day
when China will tell us when we can borrow and when we can spend, and I
think I would rather have the dictate come from the American public
rather than the country of China that holds our debt.
Mr. BOYD. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for his work, and
obviously, he has laid out what the problems are that exist before us.
And one of the things that we wanted to do in this budget is make sure
that we reincorporated the tools, the fiscal responsibility tools that
were put in place in the 1990s by then-President Clinton, a Democratic-
controlled White House, and a Republican-controlled House and Senate
working together to put in place tools that would discipline the
Congress in the way it collected and spent this money. Those tools were
the PAYGO principle. Pay as you go. If you are going to create a new
program or a new spending program or new tax cut, you had to figure out
where the money was going to come from to pay for it so it would be
budget deficit neutral.
Discretionary spending caps, a very important tool that I am sure
that some on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Ryan and I, would
certainly agree upon.
So those tools were put in place in the 1990s but then allowed to
expire in 2002 shortly after the Bush administration came into power in
January of 2001.
After those tools were allowed to expire, then you begin to see
spending run out of control. And we had increases in all kinds of
spending: defense spending, nondefense discretionary spending,
mandatory--there were new mandatory programs created like the Medicare
Prescription Drug Program without any accommodation for where that
money would come from to pay for that.
So that's the kind of lack of discipline, lack of enforcement tools
and lack of fiscal management that existed in the first 8 years of this
decade. No more.
We have to discipline ourselves, and the Blue Dogs said we want PAYGO
back in the statute. We want the tools that are needed to get us back
on the fiscal track to get back to balance. We want them back in law.
And Chairman Spratt has accommodated us, and he put statutory PAYGO
into this budget resolution, assumes that it will be passed by the
House and the Senate and signed into law; and President Obama has
committed to work with us on that.
So this has been a top priority for the Blue Dogs for years. We want
to see programs like the Medicare Doctor Fix and tax relief and AMT and
disaster relief, we want to see those benefit the American people. We
want to also say to the American people, This is what your government
is doing for you, and this is what it's going to cost you. I think it's
time that we had that kind of straight talk for the American people,
and this budget presumes that kind of straight talk.
So, Madam Chairman, I am extremely proud of what Chairman Spratt has
done to accommodate these provisions that the Blue Dogs have asked for.
On a more specific note, some of the things that we wanted done is we
wanted these new initiatives of the President, we wanted them to be
deficit neutral. Health care reform is going to be a major undertaking
of this United States Congress and the new President, but we think it's
something that's important for us to do for the benefit of the American
people. And Chairman Spratt has put in this budget resolution that we
can do but it needs to be budget-deficit neutral. We don't have to go
out and borrow the money some place to pay for that new program.
Climate change, another provision, energy, the whole climate change
energy debate that we're going to have this year, and some things have
to be done there. We want those provisions to be budget-deficit
neutral. And they will be per this budget resolution.
There is always a debate about the amount of nondefense discretionary
spending. Nondefense discretionary, you take the discretionary
spending, you remove defense from it and then you have your other
domestic discretionary nondefense spending and how much do you increase
that or do you try to. Our objective was to try to get it as close to
inflation with literally no increases until we get back on a good
footing financially. And Chairman Spratt has accommodated that request.
I mean, the number--the increase in that number is 1.9 percent above
inflation. That is a very, very small number. And we know that the
American people are going to have to sacrifice, and we are willing to
get into that sacrifice with them.
I see that we've just been joined, Madam Chairman, by the gentleman
from Kansas, Mr. Moore, and if Mr. Moore would approach the microphone,
I would love to yield him some time.
Representative Moore from Kansas has been a leader in the Blue Dogs
for a number of years now, and I would yield to him.
Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Thank you.
After years of irresponsible fiscal and economic policies, we're
faced with a financial crisis that's affecting the lives of Americans
all across our country. This administration in Congress and our Nation
inherited from the previous administration a $5.8 trillion national
debt which increased that much over the last 8 years. We're now in the
worst recession since the Great Depression.
But Congress and the administration are working to develop a
realistic plan to put our country back on a fiscally responsible path
while making targeted investments and health care and energy research
that will reduce future costs and lay the foundation for future
economic growth. This budget is not perfect, but it does take several
steps, in my mind, that are critical for us to return to the
sustainable fiscal path.
The budget resolution for the first time makes a good-faith effort to
provide us with a true accounting of our Nation's fiscal position and
accounts for items that have been left out of the budget for years.

[[Page 9702]]

Second, the budget goes further than the President's budget in
cutting the deficit by two-thirds over the next 4 years. These deficits
are still too high, and there is no question that difficult choices
need to be made. But we're back on a sustainable fiscal recovery.
And third, this budget gives us the best opportunity for
reinstituting statutory PAYGO. This budget resolution makes sensible
investments in several areas that are key to the long-term health of
our Nation, including education, renewable energy technologies, and
health care reform.
I thank Chairman Spratt for his work on this budget resolution. I
urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. BOYD. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, I would like to remind the American people
that there are some--and my friends on the other side of the aisle--
there are some one-time costs accommodated for in this budget. And some
may not think they are important, but I think they are certainly
government responsibilities.
And one of these is the one-time cost of the census, the 10-year
census. That's coming up soon, and we have to accommodate that census
in the spending bill. So I would remind the American people that that
is being done and that is a nondefense discretionary spending item.
There is also an item in here that relates to Farmers Home
Administration defaults. Obviously, we are in a very unique time in
this Nation's history in terms of home mortgage failures and
foreclosures, and there are some extraordinary costs that are happening
in the Farmers Home Administration as a result of these very difficult
economic times we're in. So I would like to remind the American people
that we have put some additional money in this budget to accommodate
the associated costs with those foreclosures.
Madam Chair, the average level of nondefense discretionary spending
between 1969 and 2008 was 3.8 percent. This budget projects a better
path on spending than there was under the previous President. I and my
Blue Dog colleagues support controls on nondefense discretionary
numbers as a way to get our country back on track, and we have made
tremendous progress in this budget to control government spending and
growth.
Madam Chairman, to close out the few moments that I have left, I
would like to call on my friend from Louisiana again, Mr. Melancon.
Mr. MELANCON. Thank you, Representative Boyd.
A budget is only as strong as those who are here to enforce it. The
Blue Dogs have been committed to fiscal responsibility and
accountability for over 15 years, and we will be here to make sure that
the House follows this blueprint for putting our government and the
economy on a fiscally sustainable path. We are here to work with all in
this Congress for a budget, for a country, for a government that works
for the people again.
Mr. BOYD. I thank my friend, Mr. Melancon.
And I would say as we close, Madam Chair, to the American people and
to my chairman, Mr. Spratt, I want to thank him for the great work he's
done, and to the ranking member on the Republican side, Mr. Ryan. He's
a wonderfully smart man, and we reach out a hand to work with him as we
bring the country out of these very difficult economic times that we
have.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I will yield myself 5 minutes at
this time.
Madam Chair, I just heard one of my colleagues say the cap-and-trade
proposal is not in this budget. Let me show you the stalking horse
that's in this budget. Page 30 on the chairman's mark, it says in their
reserve fund on increasing energy independence, we can have legislation
that provides for and limits reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Now, we just heard Mr. Blumenauer out on the floor a little while ago
saying, ``Cap-and-trade. That's what cap-and-trade is. Our proposal to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions is cap-and-trade.''

{time} 1230

Now, it might not say cap-and-trade here, but you're saying we're
going to achieve what cap-and-trade is.
One more point. You reconcile the Energy and Commerce Committee. What
does that mean for people who don't know what reconciliation means? It
means they're telling the Energy and Commerce Committee you can do
whatever you want within your jurisdiction, $1 billion of savings. So
you can have a $1.3 trillion cap-and-trade tax increase, and then have
a $1.2999 trillion spending program out of it, and you satisfy your
reconciliation instructions.
I heard somebody say, you know, the debt goes up under all these
budgets. That is true. I've got news for everybody. The national debt
is going to increase. It's going to go up under anybody's budget, under
any conceivable scenario. You know why? The baby boomers are retiring.
We've got 40 million people who are going from paying taxes into the
programs who are going to retire and collect money from these benefits.
So the debt's going up, no two ways about that.
The question is, what are we doing about it? Do we have a really bad
fiscal situation right now? Have we inherited a mess? Yes. The question
is, what are we doing to clean up this mess? Are we making it better or
are we making it worse?
I would suggest that the budget that is here before the floor makes
it so much worse. We have a plan that we will talk about later that
gets our debt and our borrowing under control. This is a budget that
sends our budget deficit and debt out of control, doubling it in 5\1/2\
years, tripling it in a little over 10. More money going out the door
in borrowing, raising the national debt under this Presidency than
under all prior presidencies combined.
So let's see if we're really being fiscally conservative here. Let's
review the budget of our Federal agencies.
The annual average increases in government agencies over the last 8
years, under a Republican President, Democrat and Republican Congress:
legislative branch got an annual increase of 6.1 percent; the
judiciary, an annual increase of 5.9 percent; education, an annual
increase of 10.2 percent; Health and Human Services, annual increase of
7.7 percent; Justice, annual increase of 7.0 percent; Labor, annual
increase of 9.1 percent; State Department, an annual increase of 11.9
percent; Transportation Department, annual increase of 6.5 percent.
Let's go to the executive office of the President. We had some problems
there with Katrina, 87.3 percent annual increase. Total outlays of our
government, from our government agencies over the last 8 years: an
annual increase of 6.4 percent.
So what's Congress doing this session? Are we being fiscally
conservative? Are we being frugal? Are we watching taxpayer dollars?
Look at the family budget. Do you think the family budget is going up
an average of 6.4 percent a year? Inflation's not even 1 percent. Do
you think State and local governments are going up that fast?
Let's look at what we just passed a month ago. An increase in this
year's budget from the stimulus, the Education Department, get this, an
increase of 196 percent, and this budget says let's throw on top of
that a 13 percent increase.
HUD, an increase of 34 percent this year. What's going on top of that
in this budget? Another 18 percent increase in their budget.
Labor Department, an increase this year, 38 percent in their budget.
What does this do? Another 5 percent on top.
State Department, $600 million increase in stimulus. What are they
saying in this budget? Let's increase the State Department by 41
percent.
The Environmental Protection Agency, good agency, they do smart,
important things. In the stimulus bill this year, they got a 92 percent
increase in their budget. What does this budget bill propose? Let's
give them another 35 percent increase this year in their budget.

[[Page 9703]]

Madam Chair, this is reckless. This is reckless spending. Name me a
family in Janesville, Wisconsin, that's going to get a 92 percent
increase in their family budget. Name me a local government in your
communities that's going to get a 196 percent increase in their budget
this year.
We are spending like drunken sailors--wait, I apologize to the
drunken sailors of America for that comment. This is reckless. This is
why this budget doubles our national debt in five-and-a-half years and
triples it in 10 years.
Madam Chair, at this moment, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for the time.
You know, in the confusion and the smoke and mirrors of what
frequently passes for floor debate, the budget every year actually
offers us very clear contrasts between priorities and the vision and
the direction for the Nation.
America is at a historic crossroads. We have severe recession, record
foreclosures, lack of credit, growing deficits, and high unemployment.
This year alone, Congress has spent $787 billion on an economic
stimulus and another $480 billion on what's called an omnibus. This
does not take into account the TARP spending, the Federal reserve
lending programs that currently expose over $5 trillion in government
capital to financial institutions and companies.
We are in the midst of an all-out economic downturn not experienced
in generations, and yet, while families are cutting back from their own
spending and reprioritizing their budgets, the Federal budget just
keeps spending. Families and small businesses, and even local and State
governments, have to make tough decisions, quite frankly decisions this
Congress has been unwilling to make.
This isn't a budget. It's an invoice. It's at best a $3.5 trillion
IOU deliverable to every hardworking family across the country,
courtesy of Washington, DC. You earn it; we'll spend it.
The administration and the Congress had an opportunity to produce a
responsible budget that would do more than throw borrowed money at old
problems. Instead, we're debating a budget that proposes more spending,
more taxing, more borrowing and no reforms.
If the majority's budget is supposed to represent a new era of
responsibility, I'd hate to see what this Congress considers to be
irresponsible. Washington continues to ask hardworking families to make
tough decisions on their own, but the double-speak coming out of our
Nation's capital is quite the opposite.
The Democratic budget we are reconsidering today will not end
Washington's spending spree but further saddle future generations with
irresponsible spending priorities of this Congress and this
administration. It assumes a peak deficit using terms and numbers that
are inconceivable.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. PUTNAM. I thank the gentleman.
It is important that we adopt the Republican budget that offers no
new taxes, lower spending, and lower deficits, and a lesser burden on
future generations, who are going to be expected to carry America into
the 21st century as a strong capitalistic and free society and not the
Venezuelan model that we are creeping ever closer to each day.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Madam Chair, I'd like to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Chairman, from the G-20 summit in England to
factories in France to the streets of our Nation, the economic crisis
is causing and exacerbating societal chaos.
Now, the Democrats' $3.6 trillion budget, that spends too much,
borrows too much, and taxes too much, will wreak the chaos of the
financial institutions within our political institutions and, thereby,
further the economic disorder within our midst.
Thus, let us remember what working Americans already know: Big
Government does not stop chaos. Big Government is chaos. And we cannot
build a stable economy on government spending.
I urge rejection of the Democrats' $3.6 trillion budget that spends
too much, borrows too much, and taxes too much.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this moment, Madam Chair, I'd like to yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), the House
Republican Conference chairman.
Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The budget brought to the floor by the Democratic majority today
spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much, and the American
people know it.
This Democrat budget will double the national debt in 5 years, triple
it in 10; 2010 spending alone is $3 trillion, 25 percent of GDP. More
than $1 trillion in tax increases in the majority's budget. The 2010
deficit estimated at $1 trillion, and independent estimates suggest a
deficit of nearly $1 trillion a year for the next 10 years.
The numbers tell the tale. The Democratic majority is proposing the
most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history. But this isn't
just about the numbers. It's not about dollars and cents alone.
It's about who we are as a country. It's about the American dream,
and it's about our kids. It's about those small business owners and
working families and family farmers that are dreading the idea of
paying higher taxes during these hard times, higher marginal rates,
higher national energy tax on every American household. And it's about
our kids who may not even know or understand what they have to fear in
the mountain range of debt that we are piling on.
It reminds me of a time a few years back I went to the CVS, forgot my
wallet. I was with my 10-year-old daughter, and I reached down and I
grabbed her purse, and I took out her little kid's debit card to pay
for my Coke. I felt so guilty about it. I still feel bad about it
today. Truth is, that's exactly what we're doing here.
Let's not do this to our kids. Let's not borrow from the next
generation of Americans things that we ought to be dealing with in
sacrifices and hard decisions today. Every American family, every
American business is answering these challenging times by sitting down
around tables, sitting down around desks, and with sacrifice and
frugality, they're finding their way through these challenging days.
Congress should do no different.
Let's reject this Democrat budget. Let's reject runaway Federal
spending of those who believe we can borrow and spend and bail our way
back to a growing economy, and embrace fiscal discipline and reform and
tax relief in the Republican alternative that will truly put our fiscal
house in order and get this economy growing again.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I would like to yield 2 minutes
to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin
for his leadership on our alternative budget because, indeed, it is
important that we bring forward a budget that is fiscally responsible
because the Democrat budget does spend too much, tax too much, borrow
too much, and it compromises hope and opportunity for future
generations, and that is of such concern to me.
It is something that should not be lost in this debate, that after
232 years in this great Nation and 43 Presidents and the debt that was
accrued there and for many of us, like me, that's too much. This budget
is going to more than double that, and it is reckless.
I do think it is irresponsible that my grandchildren, one who is
10\1/2\ months old, one that will arrive in June, are going to be
burdened with a $70,000 price tag because of the actions of this House.
Indeed, I do see that as irresponsible, and it is something that angers
me.
It also angers me that section 303 of this bill, it does have an
energy tax in there. You can call it anything you want to, but
according to MIT, not according to Marsha, but according to

[[Page 9704]]

MIT, $3,128 per household. Now, that $8 a week tax rebate that you're
going to see in your check certainly goes away when compared with
$3,128.
And Madam Chairman, a previous speaker said we've inherited a mess,
the numbers are bad, these deficits are going to continue. You know
what, they must have liked the deficits so much that they're going to
double and triple them, because that is exactly what they're doing with
these actions. Those deficits and that debt should be coming down, but
these actions are going to see it double. They're going to triple it.
So you must have liked it an awful lot because you're certainly dishing
out more of it in the actions you're taking.
Someone else said this budget is just a guideline. You know what,
Madam Chairman, isn't it interesting, if you don't spend everything
that's in that guideline, all of the sudden the bureaucracy yells,
well, look what, they cut us. Let's act responsibly.
Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, for a rejoinder, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I want to ask my friend from Tennessee who
just spoke, if she's still here, that when she makes reference to MIT
analysis about the so-called cap-and-trade, first of all, as my friend
from Wisconsin knows very well, the way that we raise revenue in a
budget resolution is to direct reconciliation instructions. And I
frankly think his interpretation of the Energy and Commerce instruction
is incorrect. It's for health care.
But I want to go back to what our friend from Tennessee just said
about the MIT study, and I will ask unanimous consent at the
appropriate time to enter this letter into the Record, a letter dated
April 1 from Professor John Reilly, I believe is his name, who is the
author of that study. I will read what he says.

{time} 1245

He said, ``It has come to my attention that an analysis we conducted
examining proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has been
misrepresented in recent press releases distributed by the National
Republican Congressional Committee.
``The press release claims our report estimates an average cost per
family of a carbon cap-and-trade program that would meet targets now
being discussed in Congress to be over $3,000. But that is nearly 10
times the correct estimate, which is approximately $340.''
Is the gentlelady still on the floor? I would yield to my friend, the
ranking member, to explain--is that the study on which you're relying?
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I can't speak for her. Let me ask the
gentleman this. It's my understanding that that MIT study comes up with
these calculations based on the fact that people are getting rebates to
offset the higher energy costs. I think that's right.
Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I believe that's true. But I would
like you to answer the fundamental question: Is that the study on which
you're relying?
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I can't answer the question because the
gentlelady said it. But here's the interesting point. Since you just
acknowledged that that study rests upon the fact of having rebates go
back to taxpayers, then why is it that this budget you're bringing to
the floor repeals the rebates? This budget says the Making Work Pay tax
credit goes away.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ANDREWS. If I can just ask for 30 more seconds.
Mr. SPRATT. I'm glad to yield 30 seconds. Maybe Mr. Ryan would yield
some more time as well.
Mr. ANDREWS. The budget doesn't repeal any rebate whatsoever. What it
does is set up a process where, if the Congress wants to deal with cap-
and-trade, it will evaluate all the different ways the money could be a
raised, the ways rebates could be paid, and whatnot.
I'm just very troubled that the minority continues to rely,
apparently, on a study that the author claims is just being blatantly
misrepresented.
Mr. SPRATT. Does the gentleman desire further time to rejoin?
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I will simply say: Let's put the MIT study
aside for a moment and look at the Congressional Budget Office. The
Congressional Budget Office is saying it's going to hit families an
average of $1,600 a year. That's still a lot. It's more than the Making
Work Pay tax credit.
But I think it's also fairly revealing that since the chairman's mark
takes away the Making Work Pay tax credit, the only way to get it back
is impose a cap-and-trade regime to get those revenues. Even the
Congressional Budget Office says the tax increase on families buying
energy will far exceed the amount of the Make Work Pay tax credit.
No matter how you slice it, no matter how you dice it, people are
going to get an energy tax increase if you pass that bill.
Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, this argument we've heard ad nauseam
here that there's $3,100 per home rests on two arguments. The first is
that there is an instruction to raise the revenue in the budget. Mr.
Dreier admitted on the floor earlier that's not the case. Then, the
$3,100 rests upon this MIT study--and the author of the study has now
told us that's a misrepresentation.
I think a lot of the other claims that the minority makes about the
budget are equally invalid.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Might I ask for a unanimous consent agreement
then, just to make sure we're sure about this--to play it doubly safe--
I would like to ask unanimous consent to remove the Commerce Committee
reconciliation instructions out of this bill to make sure that that
doesn't occur.
Mr. ANDREWS. I would object to that.
The CHAIR. The Chair cannot entertain that request in the Committee
of the Whole.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of our caucus, the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I want to thank the gentleman from South
Carolina, Madam Chair, and commend him for the outstanding job that he
has done and, most notably, as we heard from the President the other
day, the civility in which you and Mr. Ryan conducted the hearings.
Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are honorable people.
They put forward proposals in an honorable fashion. They have done so
for several years. This President and this administration inherited a
deep and cavernous hole--from which it will take great effort, but we
will make a steady ascent out of--not without having to face the
largest deficits in the history of this country that were thrust upon
this new President and this new Congress.
Yes, it was tried in the past to send more money, tax dollars back to
the Nation's wealthiest 1 percent. Yes, they were lax in terms of
oversight and review in what transpired on Wall Street that has brought
this Nation the great difficulty that it is working through now.
The answer isn't the way it's been done in the past. The answer is in
the hope that this administration and, under the tireless work of Mr.
Spratt, that we provide the American people--not the Nation's
wealthiest 1 percent, not the barons on Wall Street--but the American
people with an opportunity to invest in their health care, to invest in
their energy systems.
The other ``do nothing approach'' of wanting to continue to export
$200 billion abroad annually to pay taxes to Russia and the OPEC
nations and Venezuela is counterproductive.
It doesn't help grow our economy here, it doesn't invest in the
American people, it doesn't give them what they need in terms of health
care and in education. And they are inextricably tied and linked to our
future.
In a knowledge-based society, what we need is the budget that has
been put before us today--that brings values back and educates our
people, puts them back to work and gives them energy that will allow us
to be independent from our foreign competitors.
Mr. SPRATT. Could I inquire of the Chair how much time is left on
both sides?

[[Page 9705]]

The CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina has 7\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 17 minutes remaining.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I will yield myself 2 minutes.
The only thing that's on the ascent in this budget is the national
debt, the budgets of our government agencies, the tax burden on the
American people, the deficits. Because after you lower the deficit a
little bit, it goes right back up.
You know what is ascending in this budget is the fact that the
national debt goes to double of what it is today in 5\1/2\, triples in
10\1/2\ years. That's what's on the ascent.
Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman who just spoke. We're good
friends. And he is an honorable man. We just have honorable
disagreements. The chairman and I have a lot of respect for one
another. We're friends. We have honest disagreements. I wish we would
have more debate about this because we are really, truly debating the
fiscal future of this Nation right here.
I asked for this unanimous consent to have what we call
``reconciliation'' taken out of the bill. What that means is they are
setting up a procedural device so that they can bring through
nationalizing our health care system, a brand new energy tax on top of
all our energy, the largest tax increase in American history, the
biggest debt increase ever.
They can bring this thing through here in just a few hours of debate
in the people's House, no more than 20 hours of debate in the other
Chamber, with no amendments. They can get this agenda passed so fast
with this procedural stunt that the American people won't know what hit
them.
I just have to ask a question. You know, should we be giving any
government agency a 200 percent increase in their budget this year? The
Education Department is great. It's education. Six cents on the dollar
on education spending which, by the way, comes from the Federal
Government. All the rest is State and local government.
Name me a family in America that just got a 196 percent increase in
their family budget. We just gave that to the Department of Education.
This budget says: Let's give them another 13 percent increase.
In February, we passed a bill giving the Environmental Protection
Agency a 92 percent increase in their budget this year. This bill says
that wasn't enough.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
This bill says that wasn't enough. Let's give them another 35
percent. The problem is this: We're chasing ever-higher spending with
ever-higher taxes, and the taxes never catch up with the spending. So
the debt we're increasing is the highest we've ever seen. It is just so
reckless, so irresponsible.
Madam Chair, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from
Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).
Ms. JENKINS. Before ever serving in elected office, I spent nearly 20
years practicing public accounting--helping individuals and businesses
balance their budgets. Balancing budgets is my business, and I'm
certain of one thing--this budget spends too much, taxes too much, and
borrows too much.
I recently asked my constituents in Kansas how this budget will
impact them. I heard stories from small business owners who are afraid
that higher taxes will force them to close their doors and lay off
employees, as well as from middle-class families scrimping to pay their
bills and just save a little each month.
One family wrote this: ``We are not asking for money from the
government--just that they carefully take care of the taxes we pay. We
consider paying taxes our responsibility as American citizens. But we
also need to be able to have enough to live on.''
Gimmicks don't hide the fact that this budget will triple the
publicly held debt in 10 years, bringing it to $17.3 trillion by 2019,
and will increase the tax burden on working families across the Nation
to allow for massive new spending plans to grow government.
My constituents in Kansas sent me to Washington to protect their
hard-earned paychecks. It's very disappointing that this budget falls
so short of the fiscal discipline rhetoric that we have heard so much
about lately.
The House should reject this budget resolution and adopt a
responsible plan to curb spending, create jobs, and control debt. Our
children's future depend on it.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the vice
ranking member of the House Budget Committee, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As I listened
closely to my friends on the other side of the aisle, there's a couple
of themes that continue to reoccur. One theme is: It's not our fault.
This mess was inherited. We sympathize with President Obama. He
inherited a mess.
Well, Madam Chairman, he did inherit a mess--but he inherited a mess
from a Democratic-controlled Congress.
In 2007 the deficit stood at $161 billion. Now, this year, for 2009,
it's going to be $1.8 trillion--a tenfold increase under the Democratic
watch in just 2 years. They inherited their own mess.
In December of 2006, unemployment stood at 4.4 percent. Now, 8.1
percent. Up 84 percent. On January 3, 2007, the Dow stood at 12,400.
Most recently, it is now down 40 percent. The economic calamity
happened on their watch.
Now, Madam Chair, I don't blame them for everything, but I don't
understand how they accept responsibility for nothing. Absolutely
nothing.
Madam Chair, what is so ironic, and it would be laughable if it
wasn't so sad, is we have had Democratic leaders come to the floor on
previous budgets to decry the size of the national debt, to decry the
size of the deficit.
When the deficit was less than $400 billion, and falling--still too
great a number--the majority leader of the House, then minority leader,
Mr. Hoyer, the gentleman from Maryland, said this was equivalent to
fiscal child abuse. Fiscal child abuse. And now we have a deficit of
four and five times that--and stone-cold silence from the other side.
Madam Chair, reckless doesn't do justice to this budget. This is a
radical budget. Radical. Never in the history of America have so few
voted so fast to put so many in debt. More debt will be run up on this
Democratic budget--this radical budget--in 10 years than has been run
up in the entire history of our Republic. A sea of red ink for
generations to come.

{time} 1300

Now, part of that generation to come is my 7-year-old daughter and my
5-year-old son. I know the people on the other side of the aisle, they
love their children, they love their grandchildren. But it is clear
they don't love my children; because if they did, this radical budget
would not be coming to the floor to put this level of debt which will
bankrupt our Nation and crush the next generation, it wouldn't be on
the floor. It would not be on the floor.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I give the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HENSARLING. And one other point I would like to make. I don't see
the gentleman from New Jersey on the floor now. But in speaking about
the national energy tax, it reminds me of that old joke, which I will
not and cannot repeat on the floor but whose punch line is: Now we know
what you are, now we are just haggling over price.
The Congressional Budget Office says the national energy tax is going
to cost the average American family at least $1,600. We know what you
are: You are a national energy tax. Now we are just haggling over the
cost that will be imposed on struggling, hard-working families in
America imposed by the Democrats.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from California, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr.
Nunes.

[[Page 9706]]

Mr. NUNES. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I had to come back down here because I heard folks on the other side
of the aisle saying that there was no energy tax in here, and last
night out here on the floor late in the evening we talked about cap-
and-trade.
A lot of Americans don't know what cap-and-trade means, but cap-and-
trade is an energy tax. It is not a baseball cap, it has nothing to do
with international trade. It is an energy tax. It is a tax on
everything that you use.
So I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to please
explain to me where this $2 trillion comes from if it is not a tax.
Does it come out of the sky? Do we print it at the Federal Reserve? Do
we borrow it from the United Nations? But there is $2 trillion in this
bill that has got to come from somewhere. So it is disguised as cap-
and-trade, but it is a flat-out energy tax, unless someone can explain
to me what it may be.
So what do we know about this budget? We know that it has a cap-and-
tax, energy tax, $2 trillion. We know that we are going to have the
largest tax increase in American history. We know that at the end of
President Obama's first term that he will have amassed more debt than
every single President that this country has ever had. More debt. Those
are the things that we know.
So unless the majority can tell us what is going to happen, where
this money is going to come from, I don't know what they are smoking
but somebody's hallucinating, and we need to figure that out, Madam
Chair.
So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this budget. Let's go back, let's
determine where these taxes are coming from, because this is absolutely
reckless.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. I want to thank the gentleman for his hard work, and I
thank you and your staff also for creating this alternative budget. It
is a budget I believe that you can be very proud of.
Madam Chair, this alternative budget for fiscal year 2010 would
provide $106.4 billion for veterans health care and programs. This
budget is $540 million above the administration's request.
The Republican alternative also reduces spending, it brings our
national debt under control, and creates 2.1 million jobs, actually,
more than the Democrat plan, all while not raising taxes.
This alternative budget also reflects the priorities of the House
Committee on Veterans Affairs, the Republican views and estimates for
FY 2010, which included ensuring a seamless transition from DOD to VA.
It also provides for the innovative programs to help veterans gain job
skills and good-paying jobs, and making sure the VA provides world-
class health care to veterans; and, ensuring that veterans disability
compensation claims are adjudicated quickly and accurately. I believe
all of these are issues for which both Republicans and Democrats would
equally embrace.
Madam Chair, while I am supportive of the increase that the
President's budget proposed for veterans, the overall budget request,
for which we are having to vote on here, is nothing more than the same
old shell game that we have come to know here in Washington, D.C.
President Obama had promised this open and transparent budget;
however, this budget contains many of the same tax hikes and gimmicks
that hide the real truth from the American people about the real fiscal
situation.
Earlier this year, it was rumored and later confirmed by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Eric Shinseki, that the administration
was planning a proposal to bill veterans' health insurance to pay for
VA treatment of their service-connected injuries. I, like many of my
fellow veterans, was outraged by this proposal. We strongly believe
that the same military values help guide us in our military service,
and define the principles and allow us to say unto the administration
that you should not be billing veterans to pay for their disabilities.
It is one of the solemn obligations of government.
The budget views and estimates of the Republicans on the House
Veterans' Affairs Committee took a very strong stand, while the
Democrats' position was very muted. It wasn't until the veterans
service organizations met with President Obama at the White House did
this proposal then get out unto the American people. Only then did some
of my Democrat leaders here in the House then, in order to get in front
of that parade, said, ``Oh, yes, I am just as outraged.''
I look at it like this: Character is defined at the moment of
calling. What do you do at the moment of call? Are you muted, or do you
stand up and take charge and take control? It didn't happen, and I was
greatly disappointed.
Thank you, for the time Mr. Ryan and I thank you and your staff for
your hard work on this alternative budget. It is a budget of which we
can be proud.
Madam Chair, the Republican Alternative for Fiscal Year 2010 Budget
Resolution would provide $106.4 billion for Veterans healthcare and
programs. This budget is $540 million above the Administration's
request.
The Republican Alternative also reduces spending, brings our national
debt under control, creates more than 2.1 million more jobs than the
Democrat plan all while not raising taxes.
The Republican budget alternative reflects the priorities of the
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Republican Views and Estimates for
FY 2010 which include:
ensuring a seamless transition from DoD to VA;
providing innovative programs to help veterans gain job skills and
good paying jobs;
making sure VA provides world class health care to veterans; and
ensuring the veterans disability compensation claims are adjudicated
quickly and accurately.
Madam Chair, while I am supportive of the increase that the
President's budget proposes for veterans, the overall budget request is
really nothing more than more of the same old Washington shell game.
Instead of proposing an open and transparent budget, as President Obama
and the Democrats promised, this budget contains many of the same tax
hikes and gimmicks that hide the truth from the American people about
our real fiscal situation.
Earlier this year it was rumored, and later confirmed by Secretary of
Veterans Affairs Eric Shineski, that the Administration was planning a
proposal to bill veterans' health insurance to pay for VA treatment of
their service connected injuries.
I, like many of my fellow veterans, was outraged by this proposal and
I strongly believe that the same military values that guided me and my
fellow servicemembers should define how our government provides
benefits and assistance to them now as veterans.
The prospect of VA collecting from third-party insurers for care
provided for service-connected conditions is contrary to these military
values and our obligation as a grateful Nation.
This proposal was soundly rejected by the Republican Members in our
FY 2010 Views and Estimates and in the March 18th letter to the
President by all members of the Republican House leadership and all of
the Republican members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
It was only after the voice of reason was heard from Republicans and
numerous veteran service organizations that President Obama dropped his
proposal.
However, by dropping his proposal the President left a $540 million
hole in the VA budget. And, I am proud to say that the Republican
Alternative budget includes $540 million to fill the gap.
While I am happy that this crisis was averted and this outrageous
proposal was rejected, the fact that President Obama would even
consider such a proposal is worrisome to me and other veterans
advocates.
Madam Chair, the overall Democratic budget is not good for Americans,
including veterans. The Democratic budget contains a $1.5 trillion tax
hike. This includes tax hikes on veterans and their families, and
veterans who own small businesses.
It is unfortunate that Democrats continue to try to pass the largest
tax hike in American history. This is the wrong message to send to our
veterans and their families when our country is in a recession.
Madam Chair, we are a nation at war, and we will win these wars. The
best way to maintain morale of our servicemembers is to make tough
decisions here that will engender their confidence in our capacity to
preserve the vitality of this nation while they fight for its freedom.
I believe that the Republican alternative helps do exactly that,
while honoring the

[[Page 9707]]

promises we have made our veterans and their families.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina has 7\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, a Vietnam veteran, a
colonel in the Border Guard, Silvestre Reyes.
Mr. REYES. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for his leadership of the committee and for the inclusive
process that he has utilized to come up with this budget resolution.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 85, and I urge my
colleagues to vote for this budget because, at a time when Americans
are looking for leadership, at a time when they are looking for this
new administration to keep our country safe, this budget resolution
provides the tools to do just that. It provides increased support for
our national security, it increases the funding for the Department of
Defense and for the veterans budget. It also funds above the
administration's defense request.
These additions help this country meet its military goals, it
supports the efforts to reform the acquisition program, it supports the
efforts to improve facilities, it supports and sets out important steps
to help our country care for our wounded, our ill, and our injured
servicemembers.
The resolution matches the President's request for overseas
operations. Having his separate request is important. It provides the
transparency that has been missing in describing the real cost of the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This funding is important as we sustain our efforts in Iraq with an
eye towards responsibly reducing troop levels throughout the coming 2
years. This funding is also important because it supports the
administration's new Afghanistan strategy, and the intelligence
community stands committed to supporting the new strategy using every
means possible to attain success in Afghanistan.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. REYES. Our intelligence professionals stand ready to not only
continue their support to the war fighter, but also to continue their
support to the policymakers that are working on issues that affect not
just our country but the entire world.
Again, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. Americans are
smart. They know who got us in this mess. They know what administration
inherited a surplus and what administration inherited a mess. The
record is clear. The dog they have sent out isn't hunting.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I assume the gentleman from South Carolina has
the right to close. Is that correct, Madam Chair?
The CHAIR. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Does the gentleman from South Carolina have
any other speakers?
Mr. SPRATT. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New Hampshire
(Ms. Shea-Porter).
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I come from the middle class. I was a military
spouse, and my husband is now a veteran; my children and my husband all
have a chronic disease, asthma; my mother is elderly; and, I pay
college tuition for kids.
I looked at this budget from this prism: Does it help the middle
class, the military and military families and vets, and those families
with medical problems, the elderly, and families with kids in school?
The answer is a resounding ``yes.'' And that is why I support this
budget that supports the middle class.
Ninety-five percent of Americans will get a tax cut. This budget
helps our military become better prepared and it supports military
families. It increases VA funding by more that 11 percent in 2010. It
will help reduce health care costs and help Americans get insurance
coverage.
Budgets are moral documents stating our Nation's priorities. We are
finally investing in America and in our middle class, and I am
delighted to support this budget.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I take it the chairman has no other speakers?
Mr. SPRATT. I have one other speaker in addition possibly to myself.
How much time is left?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina has 4 minutes remaining,
and the gentleman from Wisconsin has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SPRATT. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I take it the gentleman is waiting for the
Speaker to come.
Madam Chair, there is a virtual conga line forming around the Capitol
right now to come and get money. We are spending so much money these
days. We have got to get this spending under control. It is out of
control. And because the spending is out of control, the debt is going
out of control.
But I want to talk about something else in the closing minutes of the
general debate here, and that is about the biggest problem in America
today: Jobs. We don't have enough of them. In my hometown of
Janesville, Wisconsin, they closed down the General Motors plant. It is
about three-quarters of a mile from my house. Two of my neighbors had
their jobs there. Gone. High unemployment everywhere.
So the real question is, what are we doing to get jobs back in this
economy, to get out of this deep recession, this the longest recession
since 1945?
I would say that it is important to focus on one fact. Small
businesses are the engine of economic growth in this economy. Seventy
percent of our jobs come from small businesses. That is who got us our
prosperity, that is who is going to get us our prosperity back.
And so what does this budget do for small businesses? Do you know
what it says to small businesses? We are going to raise your taxes.
You have got to remember, Madam Chair, that the people who pay those
rates that are being increased, those tax rates that are being
increased in this budget are small businesses. They file their income
taxes as individuals.
So we hear speaker after speaker after speaker saying, we are not
doing these irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent, the
rich.
Look, Madam Chair, preying on people's emotions of fear and envy may
be a good political slogan, but it doesn't create jobs. Tapping into
the legitimate anger and anxiety in America today is not leadership.
Because what this does with these tax increases on small businesses is
it demonizes those successful small businesses that are getting us our
jobs, and it demoralizes those small business men and women in America
who are trying to become successful. It tells them, you know what? If
you work hard, if you achieve, if you take a risk, if you innovate, if
you become an entrepreneur in this country, we are going to tax you, we
are going to demonize you. You are one of the evil people.

{time} 1315

That is not America. That is not what this country is all about. We
believe we ought to help people become successful. We want to reward
work. We want that entrepreneurial, innovative spirit in America to
come alive again.
The problem with this budget at the end of the day is it shuts off
the wealth machine, the job creation machine of America. It makes it
harder for those small business men and women to survive. The big
reason why I voted against that stimulus package is because only 1
percent of it was actually dedicated toward encouraging small
businesses to keep and create jobs. The rest of it was spending or tax
rebates. There is a big difference here, a huge difference.
The American people finally have a very clear choice. Do you want
bloated government? Do you want spending where every government agency
gets double and triple-digit increases in their budget? Do you want
record deficits, record tax increases and record debt increases? Or do
you want to get this stuff under control? Do you want to get spending
under control? Do you want to get borrowing under control?

[[Page 9708]]

Do you want to get our deficits under control? Do you want to get taxes
low so we can create more jobs?
At the end of the day, it is all about freedom. The budget they are
bringing to the floor gives us less of it. The budget we are going to
bring gives us more of it. That is what America is all about. America
is the land of opportunity. We help people when they are down on their
luck. We help people who cannot help themselves. But we create an
entrepreneur activity. We create a country that rewards freedom, risk
taking, advancement and success. Those are good things. This budget
squelches that. This budget extinguishes those great aspects of
America, the American ideal we have come to know and love. I say we
keep it and reject this budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Could the Chair inform me how much time is now remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield myself 3 minutes.
It has been difficult to sit here and listen to the cascade of
unfounded facts. It is hard to respond to everything that has been
said. But a few things need to be said clearly as we move forward with
this debate. First of all, last night in particular, but again today,
Member after Member got up and talked about the biggest tax increase in
history. It is not here. It is not in this particular budget
resolution. If you read CBO's analysis of the President's budget, you
will see that CBO, not me, CBO finds that there is a net reduction of
$1.7 trillion due to tax cuts that are incorporated in this budget
resolution. For example, we have been saying for years that we would
renew the middle-income tax cuts when it came time to, those that were
middle-income tax cuts adopted between 2001 and 2003. Well, the date
for their expiration is approaching, and we are coming forward with
what we have said consistently for the last several years, we are
renewing those tax cuts, the marital tax relief, child's tax credit,
the 10 percent bracket, the Pomeroy substitute for estate taxes. We
provide in this budget resolution for the renewal and the extension of
those tax cuts. And as a result we have a net tax cut of $1.7 trillion.
Then there has been a lot of limiting of the size of the deficit for
this year and next year. And as the Lord knows, I share the concerns. I
pride myself on having been a budget hawk, on having brought together
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and for the first time in 30 years
actually, actually balanced the budget of the Federal Government. We
did it.
Well, what has happened this year with the swollen budget that we
have seen before us is that we have had a catastrophe in the financial
markets. And much of the cost of that, the TARP, Fannie Mae, Freddie
Mac, AIG, FDIC, the list goes on and on, and the costs that have come
out of the Treasury are reflected in the swollen spending level of
today. It isn't acknowledged, but spending is projected in the
President's book here to come down from $3.9 trillion to $3.5 trillion,
$400 billion per his recommendations here. You wouldn't have known that
to listen to the cascade of facts coming forth.
Finally, as to spending levels, NDD, nondefense discretionary, often
looked upon as an index as to whether or not Congress is exercising
restraint in spending, the increase in NDD is about 4, 4\1/2\ percent.
Defense, national defense, we want a strong national defense. We have
always stood for that as Democrats and still do. We think we should
restrain, however, the defense spending level. And it is restrained by
the President to a 4 percent increase. Some would say that is a modest
increase, but it is a big sum of money. We will be spending over $660
billion on national defense at that level.
For all of these reasons, the resolution before us should be ready
and up for debate on the House floor.
I would now like to yield the balance of my time, 1 minute, to the
Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank
him for his extraordinary mastery of the budget and for presenting us
with the opportunity to vote for a statement of our national values
here today.
Madam Chair, President Thomas Jefferson wisely stated that ``Every
difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.'' That is so.
But some are. The difference of opinion over this budget is a
difference of principle, in fact, more than one principle. This budget
is a statement of our national values and upholds the American
principles of opportunity, security, responsibility and fairness.
It upholds the principle of fairness with tax cuts for the middle
class, for 95 percent of the American people. It upholds the principle
of fairness with health care for all Americans as a right, not a
privilege. The budget will not only create a healthier America, but by
lowering health care costs, health care reform is entitlement reform.
By curtailing the rising costs of Medicare and Medicaid, health care
reform will significantly reduce the deficit.
This budget upholds the principle of opportunity by advancing the
President's investments in education from early childhood through post-
secondary education and training. It supports the President's goal of
improving education and training a workforce that is prepared to
compete and succeed in the global economy.
This budget upholds the principle of security. The first
responsibility we have as elected officials is to keep the American
people safe. I am proud that in doing so, this budget gives the biggest
increase ever to our veterans, the first time a President has submitted
a budget which exceeds the veterans' independent budget. I hasten to
add that in the last Congress, the new direction Congress exceeded the
veterans' benefits under the leadership of Chet Edwards and Mr. Spratt
as well. On the battlefield, the military promises to leave no soldier
behind. And when they come home, we promise to leave no veteran behind.
This budget upholds the principle of responsibility. The budget
resolution begins the process of turning around the Republican budget
legacy of deep deficits, mounting debt and economic decline due to the
Bush administration's reckless fiscal policy. It takes steps to put the
budget back on a fiscally sustainable path by restoring fiscal
responsibility and cutting the deficit by more than one-half by 2013.
It upholds the principle of responsibility for our planet by
investing in science, technology and renewable energy resources to
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That is a national security
issue, an economic issue, an environmental health issue and a moral
issue, if you believe as I do that this planet is God's creation and we
have a moral responsibility to preserve it. It is God's beautiful gift
to us, and it is our responsibility to convey it to the next generation
intact.
Mr. Spratt, thank you again for this budget which will create
economic growth, make America healthier and honor our veterans.
Decisions are liberating. By deciding to support this budget, Members
are freeing themselves from past mistakes and stale assumptions. They
are unleashing the possibilities of the future. This budget is the
logical progression of the bold initiatives already taken in the first
3 months of this year. By providing health care for 11 million American
children in the SCHIP Act and the recovery bill and the omnibus bill's
investments in NIH cancer research and in health IT, this Congress has
done more for health care in America than has been done in decades.
In terms of education, with the investments we made in the Recovery
Act, the omnibus, the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, and now this
budget, we have done more for education than has been done in any one
other period of time in our history.
On energy proposals, we plow new ground. As President Obama said,
``We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars
and run our factories.'' We have made the investments that will spur
new growth of energy that we can produce here in America, creating new
green collar jobs for American workers. This budget also allows for
fiscally responsible legislation

[[Page 9709]]

that will promote energy independence over the long term.
In terms of science, we have made bold and new investments in the
area of science in both the Recovery Act and the omnibus. We also just
passed a landmark public lands bill that will protect 2 million acres
of natural heritage, the most sweeping conservation legislation in
decades. So in terms of energy and the environment, we have made
historic progress.
This budget is in stark contrast to the Republican budget's hollow
shell. We must always strive to find common ground here in the
Congress. However, when the American people voted for change in
November, they did not vote to send us here to split the difference.
They sent us here to make a difference. Sadly, that difference of
opinion on this budget is a difference of principle.
Mr. Spratt, again, I thank you and members of the committee for
giving us the privilege of upholding America's principles of fairness,
opportunity, security and responsibility today by voting ``aye.''
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, last fall the American people voted for
change and today we are seeing its vision implemented. As such, I rise
in strong support of the Democratic budget.
For too long America has been distracted with misplaced priorities
such as unnecessary wars, tax cuts for the ultra wealthy, and spending
on unnecessary weapons systems. At the same time, our leaders were
often negligent when it came to honouring our solemn commitment to the
hard working men and women of America. It will take time to reverse
failed Republican policies, but I believe the Democratic budget will
lead America in a new direction by providing urgently needed health
care reform, bringing back our tradition of progressive taxation,
improving our education, and confronting global warming.
Everyday, we hear more bad news about companies laying off their
workers--a sad occurrence that has increased the already alarming
levels of Americans who lack access to health insurance. Madam Chair,
access to health care is a human right and enacting today's legislation
will bring us one step closer to desperately needed reform. This bill
will do so by improving quality, expanding coverage, addressing the
rising costs that create so much budget heartache for hardworking
citizens. This bill will also add an important provision into the
Budget Reconciliation which will allow for expedited consideration for
health reform later this year. I enthusiastically support the inclusion
of this provision as a means to move this critical legislation to the
President's desk this year.
At the State of the Union, President Obama made it clear he wanted to
cut the budget deficit in half; this budget fulfils that promise.
Today's legislation takes the record deficit that President Obama and
the 111th Congress inherited in 2009, and cuts it to $586 billion in
2013.
Madam Chair, for too long the broken ideology of trickle down
economics has promoted tax cuts for the very rich as the solution to
our nation's economic woes. After years of economic decline and
stagnation it is evident this ideology is not viable. The Democratic
budget will instead provide over $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to nearly 9
out of 10 Americans. This is done by giving Alternative Minimum Tax
(AMT) relief, eliminating the estate tax, giving hard working a fair
shot at higher education with tax relief in higher education. The
Democratic budget funds these tax cuts by closing corporate loopholes
and the ``tax gap.''
In this era of global competition, it is imperative that we give our
students the world class education without staggering amounts of debts.
The bill will continue to increase Pell grant funding, expand early
childhood education programs, and expand federal school meals
initiatives.
While some may see that this budget is too ambitious, I say that the
state of our economy demand nothing less. I urge my colleagues to
support this bill.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chair, today I rise in support of the fiscal year
2010 budget resolution. Today's vote on the budget is a critical one,
not only because it finally invests resources in domestic priorities,
but because it also takes into consideration the needs of our families.
Our economy is suffering, financial markets are in turmoil, and back
home in Michigan we are facing an unemployment rate of 12 percent. My
colleagues on the other side of the aisle suggest cutting our spending,
while also providing huge tax cuts for their fat cat friends and more
subsidies for oil and gas companies. These are not the folks that need
government tax breaks and subsidies.
If it is not the government who will pump money into our economy,
provide tax cuts to our families and make health care and education
more affordable, then who will? We know that our banks are not lending,
families are living paycheck to paycheck, and our small businesses and
companies are struggling to maintain their payroll. The status quo is
not an option.
For the first time in eight long years we have a President who
proposed a budget that takes into consideration the long-term stability
of our country and provides a strong economic plan to guide us out of
this recession. To that end, Congress proposes cutting the deficit by
nearly two-thirds by 2013, reducing discretionary spending to its
lowest level ever, and including initiatives to cut waste, fraud and
abuse, saving taxpayers nearly $50 billion. And for the first time,
Congress and the administration are including the costs of the Wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget, no longer hiding the costs in
supplemental legislation.
Yes, Congress and this administration is tackling a lot at once, not
only because the last administration left a platter of problems at our
feet, but also because we can no longer afford to put off health care
reform, or climate change, or quality education. Our country and our
economy need a long-term solution.
Through this budget we will begin to tackle the rising costs of
healthcare by reducing high administrative costs and rooting out
inefficiencies. We will ensure that Medicare physician payments provide
clear incentives for better quality care and ensure that primary care
physicians are compensated for the hard work that they do. All of these
steps will set the stage for health care reform and provide a down
payment for legislation this summer.
This budget also continues our investment in education by raising the
maximum Pell grant award, including additional assistance to help more
low-income students complete college. This is critical to ensuring that
our current and future employers continue to have a highly educated
workforce. We need to keep our workforce competitive with our neighbors
abroad and I strongly believe that ensuring access to education for all
is one way to do that.
Finally, we will look towards laying the foundation for climate
change legislation this summer by ensuring that funding and tax
incentives in the stimulus bill receive significant funding--producing
new sources of energy and creating green jobs across the country.
Further, it will set aside funding to be used to pay for climate change
legislation that the House and Senate are working on as we speak. This
will ensure that the final product that makes it to the President's
desk is paid for, allowing for responsible legislation that will cut
greenhouse gas emissions, promote energy independence, and create new
jobs in the energy sector.
I want to commend the leadership of the Obama administration and
Chairman Spratt for all of their hard work to put together this budget
proposal. I know that producing a budget that will address the problems
of the last eight years, while also investing in the priorities of our
families, was not an easy task. However, it is high time that the
budget helps all Americans, not just the wealthy. Let this budget be a
message that Congress has heard our families loud and clear--we want to
ensure your families are healthy, your children receive quality
education, and your paychecks stretch a bit further than they used to.
This is particularly true for the people of the 15th District--you can
rest assured that I am working tirelessly to help you through this
tough time. Together we can, and we will, turn our country's economy
around.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I want to say a few words in
support of the Fiscal Year 2010 House Budget Resolution. This important
legislation builds on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to
create jobs and strengthen the American economy for the long-term. It
also restores honesty and transparency to the congressional budget
process and puts our nation on a clear path to recovery.
I want to especially commend House Budget Committee Chairman John
Spratt, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag, and the
leadership of the Blue Dog Coalition for their outstanding work in
crafting this budget. As a Blue Dog, I am pleased that the budget
incorporates many of the Coalition's principles--namely, commitments to
statutory Pay-As-You-Go budget discipline, deficit neutral health care
reform, eliminating $50 billion in waste and abuse in government
spending, and cutting the deficit in half by Fiscal Year 2013.
Concerning the deficit, it is important to recall that America's
fiscal house was in order when the Bush Administration took office
eight years ago. There was a projected ten-year

[[Page 9710]]

budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. The nation would have had the
resources then to pay down the national debt, protect Social Security
for future generations, and accommodate tax relief for hardworking
American families.
In a few short years, the surplus disappeared and the national debt
mushroomed. Rather than a $5.6 trillion surplus, Congress is now
confronting a record $1 trillion deficit in 2009 alone. In fact, the
nation is facing deficits in 2009 and 2010 that would be greater as a
share of the economy than in any year since World War II.
According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the current
recession ``is compounding the underlying long-term fiscal pressures
resulting from rapidly rising health care costs, the aging of the
population, past tax cuts, and war costs. If we continue current
policies . . . the nation is on a path to amass $10 trillion in
cumulative deficits over the next decade, during which time the deficit
will not fall below 5 percent of GDP.'' Both as a member of the Blue
Dog Coalition and, more importantly, as an American citizen, it was
troubling to see that our nation's commitment to fiscal discipline was
being so recklessly squandered during these eight years.
This budget resolution finally puts America's budget house in order.
In addition to ensuring budget discipline, it makes vital investments
in a number of areas. The House Budget Resolution strengthens education
by providing additional funding for new initiatives in early childhood
education and raising the Pell Grant award. It includes provisions to
reduce health care costs while improving access to quality medical
care.
The House Budget Resolution also supports veterans by increasing
Veterans' Affairs funding by 11%. Finally, it increases our investments
in renewable energy and energy efficiency by 18% in 2010 to promote
clean energy technologies, industries, and jobs.
The House budget makes many of these investments at a lower level of
nondefense discretionary funding than President Obama's original
request. I also am pleased that it includes tax relief for middle-
income taxpayers and small businesses, as well as an accurate
accounting of the costs of our military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
This budget is good for Georgia and good for America. I am pleased to
support it and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of its adoption.
Mr. PETERS. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the budget
resolution. Like the President, I came to Washington this year at a
time when we are both inheriting record budget deficits, and battling
the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. I am a strong
believer in fiscal discipline, and I understand that the current budget
deficits are unsustainable. However, I also know that it is next to
impossible to bring our nation out of a deep recession and balance our
budget at the same time. This budget is a blueprint for generating
economic expansion. As our economy begins to grow again, deficits will
be reduced over time.
This budget makes a great deal of progress on deficit spending,
cutting the record budget deficit inherited from the last
administration in half over the next five years. The budget also
reaffirms the commitment of this Congress to the PAYGO rules, which
require that new spending and tax cuts be offset by cuts in spending or
new revenue so new measures do not increase our deficit and our
national debt. The budget also ends the use of accounting tricks to
hide costs of certain spending. For example, for the first time the
budget includes both a full-year estimate for the cost of the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan for the budget year as well as estimates for
future costs.
The quickest way to restore balanced budgets is to increase growth,
and at a time when our economy is simply not functioning this plan has
the investments and incentives to make that growth happen. This budget
includes substantial middle class tax cuts, and makes critical
investments in education, health care reform, and energy independence
that are necessary to revive the economy and ensure that our nation
leads the globe in next generation technologies.
In Michigan and Oakland County, this means investments in programs
like MEP, which helps small manufacturers retool and retrain as they
implement the next generation of manufacturing practices and green
technologies. It also means investments in new advanced vehicle
technologies, which will help ensure that the next generation of green
vehicles are designed and built in Michigan, not overseas.
Madam Chair, I was elected to office along with President Obama
because voters were demanding change. This budget delivers on the
promises we made to voters last fall, by restoring fiscal discipline,
delivering middle class tax cuts, making critical investments in our
future, and laying the groundwork for future reforms. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this blueprint for job creation and
robust economic growth in America.
Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Con.
Res. 85 Democrat budget resolution. Our economy is in chaos, every day
more Americans lose jobs, and our retirement savings are dwindling. The
only response Democrat leadership and this White House seems to have is
to spend more. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
forgotten that a successful economy comes from the ground up, not from
the government down.
Do I have to remind the Speaker that ``money doesn't grow on trees?''
This money comes from the American people, directly from their wallets
which are growing thinner and thinner by the day. What they need from
us isn't a larger government, but a government that tightens its belt
as they are forced to do. A government that helps the private sector
get back on its feet and prosper. A government that creates a level
playing field for American employers on the world market.
The past few months we have all become economics majors as we try to
interpret and make decisions on complex financial markets. There is no
question in my mind that everyone in this body wants to return to our
country's historic economic success. I think there's considerable
disagreement on how we get there, but I think at least we can start
with the statement that we all want to end up in the same place. A
place where our children can start a business or find a high quality,
high paying job. Today's discussion--and indeed the focus of the entire
Congress--should be on how to renew the American Dream.
I do not subscribe to Keynesian economics. Every thin dime this
Congress spends--or more appropriately borrows--is the functional
equivalent of a thick quarter the children of Kansas and the rest of
America have to pay back later, and I have yet to see a government job
that pays for itself. I don't believe that massive deficit spending as
we see in this budget proposal is going to create private sector jobs
in the short-term or revive our economy. In the short time he has been
in office, we have already amassed $3 trillion in debt for a total of
$8.7 trillion. $8.7 trillion is a lot of money, money we don't have and
money that our children and grandchildren will be forced to pay back.
One of the very worst things that we, the Congress, can do is follow
economic policies that result in raising taxes on American citizens and
employers. We have enjoyed economic success in the past in large part
because of our relatively low tax rates. To raise taxes will, in my
view, not only hurt American wallets immediately, but also stifle the
prospect of economic prosperity in the near future. Sadly this is where
the administration is headed.
The president has made a big deal recently about Republicans being
the ``party of no.'' I am ready to say ``yes.'' To say yes to policies
that will help rebuild a sound economy for today and the future. We
need to pursue common sense economic policies that work--while reducing
the size and scope of a government that has strangled growth. We need
to move toward competitive business tax rates to compete with the rest
of the world. Ireland, though it too has been caught up in the
worldwide downturn, is well poised to recover as it welcomes companies
and fosters growth. We desperately need a common sense approach to
regulation, with cost-based justification of the rules our bureaucrats
impose on those who create jobs. We need to be energy independent. It's
well past time that we adopt a ``loser pays'' approach to litigation as
the United Kingdom follows. Finally, I hope we discuss the rising cost
of health care (in addition to ensuring health care access), which is
one of the biggest burdens on our economy. I believe a consumer-based
approach to health care delivery will benefit patients and our economy.
These ideas build the fundamental strength of our economy. That is
how we can and will renew the dream and renew opportunity for ourselves
and our children.
I'll close by saying that, although we are struggling today, I am
confident and optimistic that the American people will overcome this
downturn, as we always have. My concern is that borrowing and spending
will prolong the pain instead of fixing the problem.
I look forward to our discussion today.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, a budget is a moral document that demonstrates
our values and priorities. I want to congratulate Chairman Spratt for
again bringing forth a budget that represents values of which we can be
proud. This budget would make real investments in

[[Page 9711]]

education, hometown security, veterans' programs, healthcare, and
research and development while halving the budget deficit in four
years.
I am pleased that this Fiscal Year 2010 budget continues to follow
the pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) principle that the House restored at the
start of the 110th Congress in January 2007. This ensures that every
new dollar of spending is offset and will not worsen the deficit.
Although the budget resolution does not set tax or spending levels, it
does lay out the plan for the coming years to spend money and to raise
revenues.
This budget validates the President's Inaugural declaration that we
will ``restore science to its rightful place.'' This resolution
restores science to its rightful place in terms of our national
innovation investment by providing $31 billion for the science and
research programs. In these troubled economic times, it is important to
understand that while research lays the foundation for our long-term
prosperity, research also creates jobs now. A report by the Information
Technology and Innovation Foundation estimated that each additional $1
billion investment in research would create approximately 20,000
American jobs a year. This investment would provide jobs not just to
scientists but also to research students, electricians who wire the
labs, lab technicians who run the instrumentation, construction workers
who will renovate the buildings, and many more. This job creation is
comparable to or better than job creation for other spending, even in
the short term, and over the long term, nothing produces jobs tomorrow
like research today.
This budget would make a significant investment in our nation's
energy future by building on the significant funding and tax incentives
for renewable energy and energy efficiency that were contained in the
recovery bill. The budget increases investments in energy programs by
18.4 percent to create new sources of renewable energy, to improve
energy efficiency, and to expand research and technological
development. The budget is committed to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and ensures that Congress has the flexibility to consider
legislation for increasing our nation's energy independence.
Madam Chair, this budget honors our commitment to our nation's
children by investing in education. The budget follows on the bold
investments made by the economic recovery bill and provides further
support for early childhood education. The budget supports education at
a young age through a range of approaches, including strengthening and
expanding early childhood education programs, home visiting programs,
and child nutrition programs such as school meals. I am pleased that
the budget also would help make college more affordable and accessible
for students in New Jersey and throughout the country by increasing
funding for Pell grants and providing additional assistance for low-
income high school graduates. The budget further would expand our
scientific workforce by tripling the number of graduate fellowships in
science.
I am pleased that the budget addresses the fact that 46 million
Americans are uninsured, with more than 8 out of 10 of those uninsured
living in working families. Specifically, data from The Henry J. Kaiser
Family Foundation show that 16 percent of New Jersey's residents were
uninsured in 2007. This is despite the fact that health care spending
has grown to about $7,026 per person as of 2007. According to a report
from the Institute of Medicine, working-age Americans without health
insurance are more likely to receive too little medical care too late
and to receive poorer medical treatment throughout their lives. As a
result, they are sick more often and die at a younger age. This budget
resolution supports the President's goal for health care reform and
provides opportunities for the relevant committees to work this year to
draft reform legislation that will help more Americans get health
insurance, reduce health care costs, and improve patient safety.
I strongly support the provisions in the budget that would invest
$53.3 billion for veterans' programs, an increase of 11.5 percent over
the 2009 level. I am pleased that the budget reverses the policies of
the previous administration and restores health care eligibility for
non-disabled veterans with modest incomes. This funding is more
important than ever to treat the 908,690 Iraq and Afghanistan war
veterans, many of whom suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder,
traumatic brain injuries, or blast-related injuries.
I also am voting for the two alternatives offered by Mr. Scott and
Ms. Lee because, although each is imperfect, each in different ways,
they would advance the principles of equality and justice in our
society and the peaceful resolution of international problems. I expect
that neither of those alternatives will prevail over the well-crafted
compromise of Mr. Spratt, yet they are worthy of support.
Madam Chair, the budget produced by the Budget Committee, under the
leadership of Representative Spratt, reflects values of which we can be
proud. It supports healthcare, science and engineering research,
education, veterans, and national security programs while maintaining
our commitment to fiscal responsibility. By adopting this budget and
supporting the designated funding levels throughout the appropriations
process, we would be investing in priorities important to our future.
Mr. STARK. Madam Chair, I rise today in measured support of H. Con.
Res. 85, the FY 2010 Budget Resolution.
A budget is a moral document that should reflect our priorities as a
nation and act as a blueprint for the investments our nation needs to
be healthy and prosperous. By this measure, the budget resolution
before us is not a perfect document. It does, however, provide for
vital investments in health care, jobs, education, and the environment
that will spur both short-term and long-term economic growth and make
our country healthier and more humane.
This budget unfortunately continues to provide far too much money for
defense--51 percent of discretionary spending. The $532.6 billion for
defense includes billions for out-dated or just plain bad weapons
systems and ideas, such as missile defense, space-based weapons, and
the V-22 Osprey. Cutting these and other wasteful defense programs
would save nearly $69 billion. These savings could be invested in
reforming our education system, ending hunger, and rebuilding our
infrastructure. The Congressional Progressive Caucus alternative budget
would allow for those important investments and I am proud to support
it.
While the budget before us is not perfect, it does steer us--after
eight years headed the wrong way--in the right direction. It sets the
stage for long overdue comprehensive health reform, while providing
latitude for us to make improvements to Medicare. Within these budget
parameters, we will be able to address structural problems with
physician payment policies to increase access to primary care, provide
incentives for coordinated patient-centered care, manage chronic
diseases, and improve quality. We will build on what works in our
existing system by creating a public health insurance plan available to
everyone and preserving our existing employer-based system. This budget
will allow us to make investments in our people and our future,
yielding long-term benefits in both tangible cost savings and improved
quality of life by finally achieving quality, affordable health care
for all.
This budget provides a framework for economic prosperity and builds
on the investments made by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
in education and energy. Under this budget, education from early
childhood through college is given top priority. It allows for the
expansion of early childhood education programs and creation of a nurse
visitation program that will assist new mothers raise healthy children.
The bill also creates a framework to permanently reform the Pell Grant
program and ensure that it provides yearly increases for students most
in need of assistance.
Creating a clean energy economy will not only allow us to avoid the
catastrophic consequences of global warming, it will also create jobs
and spur innovation. This budget includes a roadmap for a comprehensive
response to global warming and provides for investments in energy
efficiency and technology that will lead to good paying jobs across the
country. Already, the energy funds in the recovery bill are creating
jobs in my district through the financing of a new solar panel
manufacturing facility. These types of projects will become more common
with the passage of this budget.
This budget clearly distinguishes the priorities of the new Congress
and President Obama--jobs, universal health care, and a first rate
education system--from the misplaced priorities of past Republican
budgets--tax cuts for the wealthy, war, and an eviscerated safety net.
I urge all of my colleagues to embrace priorities that put the health
and wellbeing of people ahead of the narrow interests of the well
connected and support this budget.
Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, I am deeply disappointed that the FY 2010
budget resolution considering today represents another missed
opportunity for both sides of the aisle to come together for the future
of our country. Frankly, it continues down a very dangerous path that
has been business as usual in the House for far too long. For our
children and grandchildren we must come to grips with the financial
crisis looming on the horizon.
We all know that we face enormous fiscal challenges in terms of the
deficit, the debt,

[[Page 9712]]

and solvency of entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare,
and Medicaid. Addressing these issues in a meaningful and bipartisan
way will take strong bipartisan commitment--the kind of commitment that
is sorely lacking in the budget resolution that will be voted on in the
House.
The statistics accompanying the nation's long-term fiscal health are
astounding. The national debt has topped $11 trillion for the first
time in history. While the White House claims that the president's
budget proposal would increase the deficit by $6.9 trillion over ten
years, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that this
figure will be closer to $9.3 trillion, more than a third higher than
the administration's projection. By 2019 the government could be paying
over $800 billion annually just in interest on this amount. China is
one of our biggest bankers and now holds the paper on about one out of
every 10 American dollars. Standard and Poor's Investment Service
predicts loss of our triple-A bond rating as early as 2012. Moody's
predicts 2018.
The American people are hurting. The U.S. unemployment rate hit 8.1
percent in February, the highest in more than 25 years. If that isn't
troubling enough, leading economists are predicting the jobless rate
could hit double digits by year's end.
Many of those lost jobs are coming from the U.S. manufacturing base,
or what's left of it. The decay in U.S. manufacturing is real. Drive
across the cast iron bridge linking Trenton, New Jersey, with
Morrisville, Pennsylvania, and read the outdated sign: ``Trenton Makes,
the World Takes.'' There was a time when Trenton made the steel used
for the world's longest suspension bridges, its cars, and farm tools.
The sign today could be: ``The World Makes and America Takes.''
This Congress must face the reality of America's long-term financial
future and start a process that will reverse the downward slide we're
facing. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Congress acting
alone will not make the hard choices necessary to right our ship of
state. The partisan divisions are too deep. We need a process outside
of Congress to come to grips with the burden of debt we are piling on
our children and grandchildren.
The American people--our constituents--understand that we are in
serious trouble and that regular order in the House offers no way
forward. The American people have no confidence in this Congress's
ability to think outside of the box and come up with bipartisan
solutions to the country's most pressing issues. A recent Peter Hart/
Public Opinion Strategies survey confirmed that 56 percent of
registered voters say a bipartisan commission rather than the regular
congressional process is the best means to begin tackling our growing
budget deficit and national debt.
There is a plan on the table right now that this House could act on
to set up such a national commission. Jim Cooper and I--a Democrat and
a Republican--have been working together on legislation--the SAFE
Commission Act--that would establish a bipartisan commission to address
entitlement spending, other spending and tax policy. When we
reintroduced the bill last month, there were exactly 26 Republicans and
26 Democrats joining the effort as original cosponsors. Everything is
on the table, because to reverse the current financial path, we must
look at the big picture. And when the commission makes its legislative
recommendations to Congress after extensive public hearings around the
country, Congress is required to vote up or down, like the base-closing
process, on the plan.
The Cooper-Wolf SAFE Commission Act has garnered support from the
Heritage Foundation, Brookings Institution, Committee for a Responsible
Federal Budget, Concord Coalition, National Federation of Independent
Business, Business Roundtable, The Peterson Foundation and former U.S.
Comptroller General David Walker. Newspapers across the country,
including the Washington Times, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Winchester
Star, Dallas Morning News and the Tennessean, have editorialized about
SAFE being the only way forward. National syndicated columnists,
including David Broder, Robert Samuelson and David Brooks have all
written favorably about this proposal.
I submit for the record David Broder's piece ``Hiding a Mountain of
Debt'' from last Sunday's Washington Post which speaks to the inability
of Congress to tackle entitlement reform through regular order and
suggests the Cooper-Wolf SAFE Commission as a bipartisan process that
could help lawmakers face reality.
If there are other ideas about how to come to grips with the
mountains of debt under which we are burying our children and
grandchildren--that can pass--I implore our colleagues to offer them.
We just can't continue with the same old tired process, drawing lines
in the sand while the tsunami of debt comes crashing toward America's
shore.
That process is on full display today with the business as usual tone
on this year's budget resolution. The current process is broken. The
SAFE Commission offers an opportunity to make a difference for the
country's future, rather than just continuing to score political points
as we see in the debate today.
The SAFE Commission process could be the foundation for a renaissance
in America. It can renew Americans' confidence in the ability of our
elected leaders to act and provide the opportunity to order priorities,
create jobs and provide a quality of life unsurpassed in America. It
can ensure that we have the funding for education, cutting edge
technology, medical research, infrastructure improvements and other
programs critical to providing a bright future for the next generation
of Americans.
Why is every budget plan today from both sides of the aisle missing
this critical component? For our country's future, this Congress and
this administration must come together and work to set up a bipartisan
panel to deal with America's long-term financial future to give hope to
our children and grandchildren. The time bomb of debt is ticking and
it's on our watch to act before the explosion buries our country.

[From the Washington Post, March 29, 2009]

Hiding a Mountain of Debt

(By David S. Broder)

With a bit of bookkeeping legerdemain borrowed from the
Bush administration, the Democratic Congress is about to
perform a cover-up on the most serious threat to America's
economic future.
That threat is not the severe recession, tough as that is
for the families and businesses struggling to make ends meet.
In time, the recession will end, and last week's stock market
performance hinted that we may not have to wait years for the
recovery to begin.
The real threat is the monstrous debt resulting from the
slump in revenue and the staggering sums being committed by
Washington to rescuing embattled banks and homeowners--and
the absence of any serious-strategy for paying it all back.
The Congressional Budget Office sketched the dimensions of
the problem on March 20, and Congress reacted with shock. The
CBO said that over the next 10 years, current policies would
add a staggering $93 trillion to the national debt--one-third
more than President Obama had estimated by using much more
optimistic assumptions about future economic growth.
As far as the eye could see, the CBO said, the debt would
continue to grow by about $1 trillion a year because of a
structural deficit between the spending rate, averaging 23
percent of gross domestic product, and federal revenue at 19
percent.
The ever-growing national debt will require ever-larger
annual interest payments, with much of that money going
overseas to China, Japan and other countries that have been
buying our bonds.
Reacting to this scary prospect, the House and Senate
budget committees took the paring knife to some of Obama's
spending proposals and tax cuts last week. But many of the
proposed savings look more like bookkeeping gimmicks than
realistic cutbacks. The budget resolutions assume, for
example, that no more money will be needed this year to bail
out foundering businesses or pump up consumer demand, even
though estimates of those needs start at $250 billion and go
up by giant steps.
Republicans on the budget committees offered cuts that were
larger and, in some but not all instances, more realistic.
But the main device the Democratic budgeteers employed was
simply to shrink the budget ``window'' from 10 years to five.
Instantly, $5 trillion in debt disappeared from view, along
with the worry that long after the recession is past, the
structural deficit would continue to blight the future of
young, working families.
The Democrats did not invent this gimmick. They borrowed it
from George W. Bush, who turned to it as soon as his
inherited budget surpluses withered with the tax cuts and
recession of 2001-02. But Obama had promised a more honest
budget and said that this meant looking at the long-term
consequences of today's tax and spending decisions.
There are plenty of people in Congress for whom the CBO
report was no surprise, and some of them have proposed a
solution that would confront this reality. Kent Conrad, the
chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Judd Gregg, its
ranking Republican, have offered a bill to create a
bipartisan commission to examine every aspect of the budget--
taxes, defense and domestic spending, and, especially,
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Congress would be
required to vote promptly, up or down, on its
recommendations, or come up with an alternative that would
achieve at least as much in savings.
In the House, Democrat Jim Cooper of Tennessee and
Republican Frank Wolf of Virginia have been pressing a
similar proposal but have been regularly thwarted.

[[Page 9713]]

The roadblock in chief is Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the
House. She has made it clear that her main goal is to protect
Social Security and Medicare from any significant reforms.
Pelosi has not forgotten how Democrats benefited from the
2005-06 fight against Bush's effort to change Social
Security. Her party, which had lost elections in 2000, 2002
and 2004, found its voice and its rallying cry to ``Save
Social Security,'' and Pelosi is not about to allow any
bipartisan commission to take that issue away from her
control.
The price for her obduracy is being paid in the rigging of
the budget process. The larger price will be paid by your
children and grandchildren, who will inherit a future-
blighting mountain of debt.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Chair, I rise in support of House Concurrent
Resolution 85 (H. Con. Res. 85). This resolution builds on the work of
this Congress to put our economy back on track, addressing the current
crisis and building for future needs.
A budget is more than just a document, it is a statement of our
priorities. This is an especially important budget and comes as our
nation faces a number of challenges in our struggling economy. Across
the country, millions of families are facing foreclosure or have lost
their jobs, savings, or access to health care. We have seen the failure
of many of our financial institutions, and a lack of credit that is
necessary for our small businesses to grow. In my own state of North
Carolina, the unemployment rate has risen to a historic high of 10.7
percent.
This budget begins to reverse the Bush Administration's failed
policies and restore America's economic strength. H. Con. Res. 85
invests in priorities like health care, education, and energy
independence to create jobs and get our economy back on track. As the
former Superintendent of Schools in North Carolina, I know that the
best investment we can make is in our children. I am pleased that H.
Con. Res. 85 strongly supports early learning, including the
President's initiatives to help strengthen and expand early childhood
education and school meals initiatives. This budget also makes college
more affordable and accessible by increasing Pell grants and providing
additional assistance to help more low-income high school graduates
attend and complete college. Education is the key to economic growth,
future success, and access to opportunity for our citizens.
The legacy left by the previous administration includes mounting debt
and economic decline and we must return to a fiscally sustainable path.
In addition to education, this budget makes investments in health care,
energy independence, and other areas in a fiscally responsible way.
This budget cuts the deficit in half over four years and bolsters
PAYGO, the rule requiring Congress to find revenue to offset spending
proposals. As a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I am also
pleased that this budget supports $1.5 trillion in tax cuts for low and
middle income families.
This Budget Resolution provides a strong blueprint for our economic
future. I support H. Con. Res. 85, and I urge my colleagues to join me
in voting for its passage.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Chair, I rise today in
opposition to the majority's Budget Resolution.

cap and Trade

The majority and President Obama's budget proposal calls for the
passage of Cap and Trade legislation.
The President estimates that the auction associated with Cap and
Trade will bring in more than $640 billion.
The administration admitted that number would be more like $1
trillion and possibly as high as $2 trillion.
Cap and Trade is a regressive tax because those with less income
spend more of their paychecks on energy.
This plan will raise taxes on an average family by $1,600 annually.
Furthermore, if the United States acts without the support of China
and India, Cap and Trade will only force more jobs out of the country.
Beyond the loss of jobs, Cap and Trade will tax every American for
using energy.

Size of Deficits/National Debt

If raising your taxes by $1,600 a year wasn't enough; President Obama
and the Democrat Majority's budget resolution will increase your share
of the national debt by more than $20,000 in four short years.
Today, every American's share of the National Debt is $36,000.
By the end of President Obama's first term in office, the national
debt will have exploded to $54,000 per American.
This is a picture of my grandchildren. If you want to saddle your
children and grandchildren with this type of debt then I would
encourage you to vote for the majority's budget resolution.
If you do not, there is an alternative way forward. The Republican
budget alternative taxes you less, spends less and borrows much less.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chair, I rise this morning
to state my strong support for the budget resolution.
I'm excited to see that American working families will once again be
prioritized.
It is a sight for sore eyes to see the President present an honest
budget, putting an end to years of masking the costs of things we have
to pay for, like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is good news for working and middle-class families who have been
struggling to keep their heads above water. For far too long, these
families have been bearing the brunt of misplaced priorities, above
all, the ever-rising cost of healthcare.
Too many never see a doctor until they visit an emergency room. The
cost to employers, local, state and the federal government is
unsustainable.
It is shameful that while the United States spends more than every
other nation in the world on health care, we fail to care for everyone.
This budget makes a down payment on health care reform, invests in
working families, and sets America on a fundamentally new course. I
urge my colleagues to support this critical investment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chair, adequate investment in our transportation
and other public infrastructure is the foundation for future economic
growth, and in these troubled times, it is needed more than ever.
The Budget Resolution before us today recognizes the importance of
infrastructure investment-- investment that will not only jump-start
our economy now, but continue to pay dividends for many years into the
future.
The Resolution provides a solid foundation for the surface
transportation authorization act that must be completed this year. If
the Resolution is applied over the six-year period from fiscal year
2010 through fiscal year 2015, it provides a base allocation of $324
billion for highway, highway safety, and transit programs. Importantly,
this allocation restores $82 billion of highway contract authority that
had been eliminated from the baseline because of FY 2009 rescissions
that the baseline assumed to recur in all future years.
As a point of comparison, the budget resolution proposed by the
Senate Committee on the Budget does not restore this $82 billion of
highway contract authority. I will insert into the Congressional Record
a state-by-state chart comparing the FY 2010 highway contract authority
apportionments under the House and Senate budget resolutions (assuming
the current law programs and formulas), to illustrate how devastating
the Senate proposal would be for many States.
In addition, the House Budget Resolution establishes a Reserve Fund
to allow the base allocation of $324 billion to be adjusted upward as
necessary to accommodate higher funding levels to the extent they can
be supported by the Highway Trust Fund. This Reserve Fund provides the
flexibility necessary to accommodate surface transportation
authorization legislation as it is developed and shaped by Congress
this year.
For the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), the Resolution provides
the full amounts authorized by H.R. 915, the ``FAA Reauthorization Act
of 2009'', as ordered reported by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure on March 5, 2009. Specifically, the Resolution allocates
$4.0 billion for AIP in FY 2010, increasing to $4.1 billion in FY 2011,
and $4.2 billion in FY 2012. This funding will allow the AIP program to
keep pace with inflationary cost increases, and begin to address the
investment gap in airport safety and capacity needs.
For passenger rail, the Resolution accommodates the President's
proposal for a new Federal commitment to high-speed rail transportation
by increasing investment to $1 billion in FY 2010. Building on the $8
billion for high-speed rail provided in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, this additional funding will lead to the
creation of several high-speed rail corridors across the country
linking regional population centers.
For environmental infrastructure, the Resolution assumes $2.4 billion
for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program in FY 2010, consistent
with the President's budget and H.R. 1262, the ``Water Quality
Investment Act of 2009'', as passed by the House on March 12, 2009. I
welcome and strongly support the President's proposal to significantly
increase Federal support for restoring and maintaining the nation's
water quality. It is indeed a refreshing change from the previous eight
years, which saw some of the lowest funding levels requested by any
administration since the creation of this program.
Finally, the Resolution rejects the Office of Management and Budget's
proposal to change

[[Page 9714]]

how programs funded by contract authority are treated for budget
scoring purposes. This proposal, had it been adopted, would have
converted the mandatory contract authority that currently funds our
highway, highway safety, transit and airport grant programs to a simple
authorization of appropriations for budget scoring purposes. I am
pleased that the Resolution continues to recognize the unique nature of
trust-funded programs by rejecting this misguided proposal.
I thank Chairman Spratt and the Committee on the Budget for their
strong support for transportation and infrastructure programs, and I
urge my colleagues to support the Resolution.

FY 2010 FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY CONTRACT AUTHORITY COMPARISON OF HOUSE BUDGET RESOLUTION AND SENATE BUDGET
RESOLUTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Budget Senate Budget
State Resolution (H. Con. Resolution (S. Con. Difference
Res. 85) Res. 13)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................................... $750,502,172 $516,451,803 -$234,050,368
Alaska........................................... 439,554,461 302,479,599 -137,074,861
Arizona.......................................... 734,391,521 505,364,622 -229,026,899
Arkansas......................................... 491,318,142 338,095,044 -153,223,098
California....................................... 3,429,330,000 2,359,845,892 -1,069,484,108
Colorado......................................... 519,743,051 357,654,101 -162,088,950
Connecticut...................................... 488,622,768 335,995,383 -152,627,385
Delaware......................................... 163,152,846 112,271,703 -50,881,142
Dist. of Col..................................... 145,767,381 100,307,258 -45,460,123
Florida.......................................... 1,895,296,186 1,304,234,359 -591,061,827
Georgia.......................................... 1,279,712,245 880,623,534 -399,088,711
Hawaii........................................... 166,547,342 114,523,644 -52,023,698
Idaho............................................ 285,381,912 196,383,095 -88,998,817
Illinois......................................... 1,296,279,966 892,020,673 -404,259,294
Indiana.......................................... 951,906,101 655,046,481 -296,859,621
Iowa............................................. 451,070,541 310,397,616 -140,672,924
Kansas........................................... 376,911,793 259,176,473 -117,735,320
Kentucky......................................... 652,507,863 449,017,053 -203,490,810
Louisiana........................................ 657,198,643 452,242,292 -204,956,351
Maine............................................ 174,639,887 120,551,562 -54,088,325
Maryland......................................... 596,761,038 410,652,679 -186,108,360
Massachusetts.................................... 604,230,800 415,488,222 -188,742,578
Michigan......................................... 1,037,618,157 713,504,389 -324,113,768
Minnesota........................................ 625,566,887 430,476,787 -195,090,100
Mississippi...................................... 466,071,827 320,721,163 -145,350,663
Missouri......................................... 889,273,176 611,943,309 -277,329,867
Montana.......................................... 366,277,284 252,050,954 -114,226,329
Nebraska......................................... 286,487,562 197,142,114 -89,345,448
Nevada........................................... 311,525,651 214,373,365 -97,152,286
New Hampshire.................................... 166,488,270 114,483,223 -52,005,047
New Jersey....................................... 972,008,432 668,876,265 -303,132,167
New Mexico....................................... 364,249,524 250,653,966 -113,595,557
New York......................................... 1,660,321,081 1,141,694,643 -518,626,438
North Carolina................................... 1,039,925,752 715,614,469 -324,311,283
North Dakota..................................... 241,653,208 166,290,394 -75,362,815
Ohio............................................. 1,321,137,088 909,125,872 -412,011,216
Oklahoma......................................... 570,787,695 392,779,712 -178,007,984
Oregon........................................... 456,610,251 314,209,806 -142,400,446
Pennsylvania..................................... 1,623,581,576 1,116,433,610 -507,147,966
Rhode Island..................................... 193,230,364 135,659,996 -57,570,368
South Carolina................................... 620,987,972 427,326,829 -193,661,143
South Dakota..................................... 268,773,569 184,953,497 -83,820,072
Tennessee........................................ 824,732,715 567,531,810 -257,200,905
Texas............................................ 3,168,619,579 2,180,458,508 -988,161,071
Utah............................................. 313,958,483 216,047,035 -97,911,448
Vermont.......................................... 168,547,458 115,983,429 -52,564,030
Virginia......................................... 976,733,110 672,128,732 -304,604,378
Washington....................................... 633,569,542 435,980,466 -197,589,075
West Virginia.................................... 416,728,500 286,769,231 -129,959,270
Wisconsin........................................ 734,296,976 505,300,612 -228,996,364
Wyoming.......................................... 257,349,706 177,091,532 -80,258,174
--------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL........................................ 37,527,938,057 25,824,428,808 -11,703,509,249
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table is based on Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) technical assistance, and illustrates the
estimated distribution of FY 2010 contract authority under the House and Senate budget resolutions (assuming
current law programs and formulas). To have sufficient funds to meet all criteria of the Equity Bonus
calculation, as in effect in FY 2009, an estimated $39 billion in contract authority would be required for
apportioned programs. To perform the calculations with the amounts provided by the House and Senate budget
resolutions, FHWA altered the funding floor element of the Equity Bonus calculation by lowering the 121
percent floor that is in effect for FY 2009 to 117.5 percent for the House resolution, and 80.8 percent for
the Senate resolution.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chair, I rise to voice my concern over this
proposed budget. As many of my colleagues have said, it taxes too much,
borrows too much and spends too much.
And it will raise taxes during a recession when we shouldn't even be
discussing tax hikes. Why do they want to raise taxes? Not to pay down
the deficit but instead to fund another massive expansion of
government. This plan, as proposed by the Administration, would place
an immense burden on middle-class families.
They want to raise taxes on homeowners by limiting the mortgage tax
interest rate deduction. We're facing a wave of foreclosures and should
be encouraging responsible homeownership. Instead, this tax will
discourage homeownership and further weaken the economy by delaying
housing recovery efforts.
The proposal also furthers the Administration's plan to raise taxes
on charitable contributions, discouraging Americans from donating to
charities and nonprofits. This comes at a time when these organizations
are needed most by struggling families. We should be encouraging
Americans to help one another, not the opposite.
Madam Chair, the budget also paves the way for higher taxes on small
businesses by reversing cuts to the death tax, punishing thrift,
discouraging entrepreneurship and devastating family-owned small
businesses.
This is certainly change, and not for the better.
Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chair, one of the most momentous votes I have cast
as a Member of Congress occurred in my first year of service. It was a
vote for President Clinton's budget, which made some difficult
choices--among them, cutting spending and raising taxes to balance the
federal budget. While controversial, I knew the Clinton budget charted
the best course for the U.S. economy over the long run.
It came as no surprise, but my support for the Clinton budget became
the primary issue in my first reelection campaign, which I won by only
a whisker. Many of my colleagues were not so fortunate.
Today, the country is again in a perilous economic position--much
more so than in 1993. And a new President is again outlining an
ambitious economic agenda that could transform American society.
As in 1993, I intend to support the budget. President Obama inherited
an economy and federal balance sheet in total disarray. He has made the
difficult decision to prioritize long-delayed investments in health
care reform, clean energy, and education, and to pay for them with
responsible reversals of Bush Tax cuts for the most fortunate among us.
I believe he has done so in an honest manner by, among other things,
putting the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on budget for the
first time.
The budget isn't perfect--no budget is. I would prefer more deficit
reduction in its out years. But the President has his priorities right,
and is making the investments that this

[[Page 9715]]

nation has put off for too long. This Congress should support him and
pass this budget.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, as the House of
Representatives begins to consider the President's Fiscal Year 2010
Budget, I would like to highlight a number of priorities. First, I
would like to begin by saying President Obama has inherited an
extensive deficit from the previous administration--the result of
mistaken policies, misplaced priorities and an era of profound
irresponsibility. This was no April Fools joke. Our budget deficit is a
real problem with real consequences for the American people.
For too long, we have ignored the tough choices we needed to make and
failed to address the big challenges our economy faces.
This lack of responsibility has left our nation with an economy in
recession and an untenable fiscal situation--$1 trillion a year
deficits on average over the coming decade.
The FY2010 budget submitted by the President is up front and honest
about the challenges we face. Unlike the previous administration which
assumed revenue from the Alternative Minimum Tax overwhelming the
middle class and not accounting for the Medicare doctor's fee fix and
the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are no budget
gimmicks in President Obama's budget to cover up the mess we're in.
I urge the President to include funding for summer jobs for youth.
Our youth, and individuals that have opted not to go to college or
institutions of higher learning, need to be engaged and employed.
Employment will provide them with skills and aptitudes that are
necessary to be productive in society. I urge funding for our youth.
I support the President's call for healthcare reform. I urge the
Budget Committee to account for the cost of healthcare reform to ensure
that the 45 million uninsured Americans (four million of which are
children) have access to quality and affordable healthcare.
In addition, I urge the Committee to account for the following:
Funding the Minority AIDS Initiative at $610 million this year (an
increase of nearly $200 million) to build capacity among minority run
non-governmental organizations and to conduct outreach services among
minority communities.
Funding the Ryan White CARE Act at $2.8 billion this year (an
increase of $578 million) to support care and treatment programs at the
local level to address the needs of people living with HIV/AIDS.
Funding the CDC Prevention activities for HIV, STD, TB and Viral
Hepatitis at $2.28 billion (an increase of nearly $1.2 billion) to fund
testing initiatives and support innovative prevention efforts at the
local level.
Funding for Housing for people living with HIV/AIDS (HOPWA) at $360
million (an increase of $50 million) to provide supportive housing for
people with AIDS.
Zeroing out funding for ineffective abstinence only until marriage
programs to recover $99 million in funding. These programs have been
proven to be ineffective.
Funding for comprehensive sex education programs that will be
authorized by the REAL Act with at least $50 million this year to
reduce spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases and reduce
unintended pregnancies.
A $200 million increase in funding for the National Center on
Minority Health and Health Disparities at NIH.
Reserve funding ($3.5 billion) for the Health Equity and
Accountability Act (not yet enacted).
I commend the President for requesting an increase of $15 billion for
the Department of State and other international programs in FY2010,
which is a 40% increase over the FY2009 level. I urge the Budget
Committee to include this increase in the budget resolution. I am
hopeful that these additional funds will go towards the Global Fund to
Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; USAID; migration and refugee
assistance; peacekeeping efforts in Darfur; education, healthcare and
cultural exchange programs; child survival and health programs; and
development assistance.
As the President begins to withdraw troops from Iraq, I also urge the
Budget Committee to account for the need to increase Iraqi humanitarian
assistance by $1.17 billion in FY2010.
I support the robust funding for our troops and America's national
defense. I support reducing funding for the failed Ballistic Missile
Defense program and reallocating those funds within the Defense
Department to fund increases in shipbuilding, troop readiness, military
and civilian pay, cancer research, and mental health services.
I have consistently fought for funding to weed out waste, fraud and
abuse within the Department of Defense. The Defense Department has
already saved an estimated $89 billion between FY01 and FY07 by
implementing 1,682 of the Government Accountability Office's
recommendations. President Obama's FY2010 Budget Overview reflects a
similar commitment, as has the House Budget Committee under Chairman
Spratt's leadership.
As the economy continues to worsen, I urge the Budget Committee to
account for the increased need for income security programs, such as
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Unemployment Insurance,
Medicaid, and the Recovery Act's COBRA subsidy.
I urge the President to consider including the necessary budget
authority to account for the cost of increasing the federal minimum
wage and indexing it to inflation. In addition, the Committee should
consider the cost of reforming current asset tests for economic
assistance. As more and more Americans lose their jobs, it makes little
sense to force families to drain their savings to the extent necessary
to qualify for certain temporary economic assistance programs.
Finally, the President should also consider the cost of redefining
the Federal Poverty Level, which is currently $22,050 for a family of
four (100%). I urge the creation of a Decent Living Standard Threshold
to determine the amount of annual income that would allow an individual
to live beyond deprivation at a safe and decent, but modest, standard
of living.
The housing crisis lies at the center of the economic problems we
face today. After the series of TARP bills, the Congress has just found
out that bank executives have used over $100 million in TARP funds to
pay for executive bonuses and other forms of compensation. I urge the
President to reverse eight years of underfunding of the nation's
affordable housing programs and we are pleased that the Administration
has proposed a HUD budget that increases funding for the Department by
19 percent. I urge the President to match this aggressive budget
authorization and to support large investments into the Community and
Regional Development and the Income Security functions in order to
account for increases in Affordable Housing programs.
Specifically, the President should consider including the necessary
budget authority to fund the Section 8 public housing operating subsidy
at 100% of need. In addition, the President must also consider
providing sufficient budget authority for the renewal of all Section 8
vouchers currently in use.
Although the public housing capital fund received an injection of $4
billion in the recent stimulus package, this only represents 12.5
percent of the estimated $32 billion backlog in deferred capital needs.
The President should include sufficient budget authority to allow
housing authorities to address ongoing and deferred maintenance needs.
In addition, I urge the President to support the Administration's
proposal to fund the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund at $1
billion and to fully fund the Community Development Block Grant
program. I also urge full funding of HUD's housing programs for the
elderly, disabled, and Native Americans, as well as for those programs
that prevent homelessness. I support an increase in funding for the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which allows states, localities,
and nonprofits to buy up and rehabilitate abandoned and foreclosed
properties.
I urge the President to account for funding efforts to combat and
reduce juvenile crime and efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders. I
strenuously urge the full funding of the Second Chance Act, which
provides transitional assistance to assist ex-offenders in coping with
the challenges of reentry. Removing barriers to reentry has proven to
reduce recidivism, which in the long run reduces crime. In addition,
the President should account for much needed increases in youth crime
intervention programs. Research has shown that targeting funding
towards intervention rather than incarceration is more effective at
reducing crime and saving the taxpayer money in the long run.
I have long supported efforts to increase funding for the Justice
Assistance Program, the Juvenile Justice Program, Civil Rights
Enforcement, the COPS Program, the Byrne Justice Grant Program, and
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance. I urge the President to
account for sustaining many of the important increases for these
programs that was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act.
As the Chairwoman of the Children's Caucus, I support the President's
efforts to reform and expand the Pell Grant program. Pell Grants are
way to make education affordable to disadvantaged youth. This is very
important to me.
I would like to see continued and sustained increases in education
funding, especially for Title I and IDEA. Even though Congress is to
consider the reauthorization of the No Child

[[Page 9716]]

Left Behind Act this year, the Budget Committee should still account
for the need to address the substantial funding shortfalls of this
program over the last eight years. The American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act made substantial increases, but I urge the President
to account for sustaining many of these new investments.
The President must also account for needed increases in funding for
Head Start, TRIO (including Upward Bound), GEAR UP, Youth Build, and
vocational education programs. In addition, I urge the President to
account for funding for expanded grants to states for workplace and
community transition as authorized in the Higher Education Opportunity
Act. These grants will better assist and encourage incarcerated
individuals who have obtained a secondary school diploma or its
recognized equivalent to acquire educational and job skills.
I urge this body to account for fully funding the historic increases
in funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and
Minority Serving Institutions authorized in the Higher Education Act
reauthorization enacted last year.
I support the President's efforts at increasing spending for
infrastructural projects. The President's priorities are reminiscent of
the New Deal where this country invested in building up our Nation. The
President has made a significant effort at achieving this by his
signing of HR 1, the Stimulus Act.
In the Stimulus Act, the President authorized money to be spent on
infrastructural projects that were shovel ready, i.e., ready to be
started within 120 days. I know that America could use this money.
Indeed, Houston would benefit. Houston's Metro Rail needs to complete
its RAIL service in certain quadrants of Houston. The project has been
twenty years in the making. I have worked with Leadership and Chairman
Oberstar to ensure that METRO Rail projects get the funding that they
need to be completed.
Completion of this mobility project would decrease congestion and
pollution as Houstonians would travel via rail instead of using their
cars. This would increase Houston mobility and the health of
Houstonians as they would be forced to walk around instead of using
their private transport.
The House Budget Committee has shown a commitment to increased
funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. I commend the
President's budget for including a $25 billion above baseline increase
for the VA over the next five years.
Other Priorities: Fully fund the Community Development Block Grant;
Increased funding for the Public Housing Capital Fund to continue to
address eight years of stagnant funding under the Bush Administration;
fully fund the Child Care and Development Block Grant; fully fund the
Social Services Block Grant; increased funding for HOPE VI; fully fund
the Neighborhood Stabilization Program; increased funding for the
Affordable Housing Trust Fund; support for the creation of a National
Infrastructure Bank; continued funding for Hurricane Katrina recovery
and rebuilding efforts; increased funding for the Environmental Justice
Small Grants Program; increased funding for the National Underground
Railroad Network to Freedom program at the National Park Service. This
is important to me. I worked to get funding for urban parks in the
Stimulus bill. This increases the health and overall well being of
constituents. It is necessary in urban meccas like Houston.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Perlmutter) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Tauscher, Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent
resolution (H. Con. Res. 85) setting forth the congressional budget for
the United States Government for fiscal year 2010 and including the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2009 and 2011 through
2014, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. SPRATT. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any
extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 85.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from South Carolina?
There was no objection.

____________________

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 316 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the
concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 85.

{time} 1329

In the Committee of the Whole

H. Con. Res. 85

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring),

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2010.

(a) Declaration.--Congress declares that this resolution is
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010
and that this resolution sets forth the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal year 2009 and for fiscal years 2011 through
2014.
(b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Major functional categories.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House.
Sec. 202. Reconciliation in the Senate.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 301. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for health care reform.
Sec. 302. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for college access,
affordability, and completion.
Sec. 303. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for increasing energy
independence.
Sec. 304. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for America's veterans and
servicemembers.
Sec. 305. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for certain tax relief.
Sec. 306. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for a 9/11 health program.
Sec. 307. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for child nutrition.
Sec. 308. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for structural unemployment
insurance reforms.
Sec. 309. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for child support.
Sec. 310. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the Affordable Housing Trust
Fund.
Sec. 311. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for home visiting.
Sec. 312. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program trigger.
Sec. 313. Reserve fund for the Surface Transportation Reauthorization.
Sec. 314. Current policy reserve fund for Medicare improvements.
Sec. 315. Current policy reserve fund for middle class tax relief.
Sec. 316. Current policy reserve fund for reform of the alternative
minimum tax (AMT).
Sec. 317. Current policy reserve fund for reform of the Estate and Gift
Tax.

TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Adjustments for direct spending and revenues.
Sec. 402. Adjustments to discretionary spending limits.
Sec. 403. Point of order against advance appropriations.
Sec. 404. Oversight of Government performance.
Sec. 405. Budgetary treatment of certain discretionary administrative
expenses.
Sec. 406. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.
Sec. 407. Adjustments to reflect changes in concepts and definitions.
Sec. 408. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

TITLE V--POLICY

Sec. 501. Policy on middle-class tax relief and revenues.
Sec. 502. Policy on defense priorities.

TITLE VI--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

Sec. 601. Sense of the House on veterans' and servicemembers' health
care.

[[Page 9717]]

Sec. 602. Sense of the House on homeland security.
Sec. 603. Sense of the House on promoting American innovation and
economic competitiveness.
Sec. 604. Sense of the House regarding pay parity.
Sec. 605. Sense of the House on college affordability.
Sec. 606. Sense of the House on Great Lakes restoration.
Sec. 607. Sense of the House regarding the importance of child support
enforcement.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2009 through 2014 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $618,057,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $646,810,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $562,033,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $606,043,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $570,107,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $587,945,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $579,135,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $576,023,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $589,895,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $584,670,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $603,828,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $595,476,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $40,885,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,797,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $45,320,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,461,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $49,146,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,642,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $53,742,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,123,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $59,160,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,773,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $64,388,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $59,292,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $35,389,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,973,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $31,139,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,467,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $31,493,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,407,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $33,373,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,465,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $34,419,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,614,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $35,686,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,835,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $43,919,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,952,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $5,489,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,267,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $5,539,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,322,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $5,732,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $6,098,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,133,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $6,227,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,512,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $56,009,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,834,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $37,387,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,450,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $38,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,237,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $39,249,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,058,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $39,348,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,754,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $40,017,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,957,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $24,974,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,070,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $23,690,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,951,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $24,691,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,998,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $21,644,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,540,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $22,497,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,063,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $23,182,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,150,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $694,439,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $665,437,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $60,933,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $85,638,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $26,181,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,954,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $9,561,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,645,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $17,247,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,585,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $11,226,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$2,500,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $122,457,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $87,784,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $88,151,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,695,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $89,071,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $96,474,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $90,047,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,851,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $90,866,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $96,150,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $91,809,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $96,793,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $23,811,000,000.

[[Page 9718]]

(B) Outlays, $29,983,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $18,308,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,303,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $21,232,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,530,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $21,311,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,722,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $21,202,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,155,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $21,270,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,752,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $164,276,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $73,219,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $93,689,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $140,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $107,858,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $141,108,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $117,121,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $118,391,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $115,931,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $118,888,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $125,788,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $120,959,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $380,158,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $354,397,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $383,911,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $388,746,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $364,910,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $367,628,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $369,852,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $368,556,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $389,719,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $384,359,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $400,451,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $400,173,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $427,076,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $426,736,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $449,653,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $449,784,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $505,171,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $504,962,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $513,824,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $513,591,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $558,235,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $558,381,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $616,315,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $616,150,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $520,123,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $503,020,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $536,169,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $539,918,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $510,575,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $513,410,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $478,039,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $478,323,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $483,386,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $482,745,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $485,396,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $483,758,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $31,820,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,264,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $20,255,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,378,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $23,380,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,513,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $26,478,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,628,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $29,529,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,679,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $32,728,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,728,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $97,705,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $94,831,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $106,365,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $105,468,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $112,842,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $112,386,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $108,702,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $108,103,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $113,803,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $113,151,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $116,021,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $115,480,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $55,783,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,853,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $52,857,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $51,630,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $53,892,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,503,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $53,738,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,441,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $53,569,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,526,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $54,247,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,058,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $30,405,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,629,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $21,979,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,757,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $22,316,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,147,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $22,737,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,795,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $22,750,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,492,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $23,415,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,629,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $288,955,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $288,955,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $284,085,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $284,085,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $323,266,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $323,266,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $387,483,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $387,483,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $470,452,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $470,452,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $560,137,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $560,137,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $14,450,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,788,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $9,422,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,893,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $8,052,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,903,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $6,518,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,750,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $5,543,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,122,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $3,865,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,962,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$78,206,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$78,206,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$68,774,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$68,774,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$71,993,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$71,993,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$74,970,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$74,970,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$77,945,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$77,945,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -$79,861,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$79,861,000,000.
(21) Overseas Deployments and Other Activities (970):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $82,648,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,129,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $130,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $92,774,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $76,530,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,694,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,830,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,085,000,000.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE.

(a) Health Care Reform.--
(1) Not later than September 29, 2009, the House Committee
on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws to reduce
the

[[Page 9719]]

deficit by $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009
through 2014.
(2) Not later than September 29, 2009, the House Committee
on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws to reduce the
deficit by $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009
through 2014.
(b) Investing in Education.--Not later than September 30,
2009, the House Committee on Education and Labor shall report
changes in laws to reduce the deficit by $1,000,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2014.
(c) Single Engrossment.--The House may direct the Clerk to
add at the end of a bill addressed by this section the text
of another measure addressed by this section as passed by the
House to form a single engrossed reconciliation bill within
the meaning of section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.

SEC. 202. RECONCILIATION IN THE SENATE.

(Senate reconciliation instructions to be supplied by the
Senate.)

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

SEC. 301. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR HEALTH CARE
REFORM.

The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that makes improvements to health care in
America, which may include making affordable health coverage
available for all, improving the quality of health care,
reducing rising health care costs, building on and
strengthening existing public and private insurance coverage,
including employer-sponsored coverage, and preserving choice
of provider and plan by the amounts provided in such measure
if such measure would not increase the deficit or decrease
the surplus for either time period provided in clause 10 of
rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

SEC. 302. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR COLLEGE ACCESS,
AFFORDABILITY, AND COMPLETION.

The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that makes college more affordable or
accessible or that increases college enrollment and
completion through reforms to the Higher Education Act of
1965 or other legislation, including increasing the maximum
Pell grant award annually by an amount equal to one
percentage point more than the Consumer Price Index, by the
amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not
increase the deficit or decrease the surplus for either time
period provided in clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives.

SEC. 303. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INCREASING ENERGY
INDEPENDENCE.

The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that--
(1) provides tax incentives for or otherwise encourages the
production of renewable energy or increased energy
efficiency;
(2) encourages investment in emerging energy or vehicle
technologies or carbon capture and sequestration;
(3) limits and provides for reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions;
(4) assists businesses, industries, States, communities,
the environment, workers, or households as the United States
moves toward reducing and offsetting the impacts of
greenhouse gas emissions; or
(5) facilitates the training of workers for these
industries (``green collar jobs'');
by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would
not increase the deficit or decrease the surplus for either
time period provided in clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.

SEC. 304. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR AMERICA'S VETERANS
AND SERVICEMEMBERS.

The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that--
(1) enhances health care for military personnel or
veterans;
(2) maintains the affordability of health care for military
retirees or veterans;
(3) improves disability benefits or evaluations for wounded
or disabled military personnel or veterans, including
measures to expedite the claims process;
(4) expands eligibility to permit additional disabled
military retirees to receive both disability compensation and
retired pay (concurrent receipt); or
(5) eliminates the offset between Survivor Benefit Plan
annuities and veterans' dependency and indemnity
compensation; and
does not authorize the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to
bill private insurance companies for treatment of health
conditions that are related to veterans' military service, by
the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would
not increase the deficit or decrease the surplus for either
time period provided in clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.

SEC. 305. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR CERTAIN TAX
RELIEF.

The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that provides for tax relief that supports
working families, businesses, States, or communities, by the
amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not
increase the deficit or decrease the surplus for either time
period provided in clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives.

SEC. 306. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR A 9/11 HEALTH
PROGRAM.

The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that would establish a program, including
medical monitoring and treatment, addressing the adverse
health impacts linked to the September 11, 2001, attacks by
the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would
not increase the deficit or decrease the surplus for either
time period provided in clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.

SEC. 307. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR CHILD NUTRITION.

The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that reauthorizes, expands, or improves
child nutrition programs by the amounts provided in such
measure if such measure would not increase the deficit or
decrease the surplus for either time period provided in
clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.

SEC. 308. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR STRUCTURAL
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REFORMS.

The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that makes structural reforms to make the
unemployment insurance system respond better to serious
economic downturns by the amounts provided in such measure if
such measure would not increase the deficit or decrease the
surplus for either time period provided in clause 10 of rule
XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

SEC. 309. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR CHILD SUPPORT.

The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that increases parental support for
children, particularly from non-custodial parents, including
legislation that results in a greater share of collected
child support reaching the child, by the amounts provided in
such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit
or decrease the surplus for either time period provided in
clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.

SEC. 310. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING TRUST FUND.

The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that capitalizes the existing Affordable
Housing Trust Fund by the amounts provided in such measure if
such measure would not increase the deficit or decrease the
surplus for either time period provided in clause 10 of rule
XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

SEC. 311. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR HOME VISITING.

The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that provides funds to states for a program
or programs of home visits to low-income mothers-to-be and
low-income families which will produce sizeable, sustained
improvements in the health and well-being of children and
their parents, by the amounts provided in such measure if
such measure would not increase the deficit or decrease the
surplus for either time period provided in clause 10 of rule
XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

SEC. 312. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR LOW-INCOME HOME
ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TRIGGER.

The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that makes the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program more responsive to energy price increases
by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would
not increase the deficit or decrease the surplus for either
time period provided in clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.

SEC. 313. RESERVE FUND FOR THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
REAUTHORIZATION.

The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this

[[Page 9720]]

resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that reauthorizes surface transportation
programs or that authorizes other transportation-related
spending by providing new contract authority by the amounts
provided in such measure if such measure establishes or
maintains a solvent Highway Trust Fund over the period of
fiscal years 2009 through 2015. ``Solvency'' is defined as a
positive cash balance. Such measure may include a transfer
into the Highway Trust Fund from other Federal funds, as long
as the transfer of Federal funds is fully offset.

SEC. 314. CURRENT POLICY RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE
IMPROVEMENTS.

(a) Procedure.--The chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that would increase outlays
by an amount not to exceed $87,290,000,000 in fiscal years
2010 through 2014 and, for the purposes of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, by an amount not to exceed
$284,970,000,000 in fiscal years 2010 through 2019 by
reforming the Medicare payment system for physicians to--
(1) change incentives to encourage efficiency and higher
quality care in a way that supports fiscal sustainability;
(2) improve payment accuracy to encourage efficient use of
resources and ensure that primary care receives appropriate
compensation;
(3) improve coordination of care among all providers
serving a patient in all appropriate settings; or
(4) hold providers accountable for their utilization
patterns and quality of care.
(b) Applicability.--For the purposes of section 401(a) of
this resolution, the revisions made pursuant to this section
shall apply only to a measure that includes the policies and
the amounts described in this section.

SEC. 315. CURRENT POLICY RESERVE FUND FOR MIDDLE CLASS TAX
RELIEF.

(a) Procedure.--The chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that would decrease revenues
(or increase outlays, as appropriate) by an amount not to
exceed $698,571,000,000 in fiscal years 2010 through 2014
and, for the purposes of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, by an amount not to exceed
$1,848,523,000,000 in fiscal years 2010 through 2019, by
extending certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 for middle class tax relief, including the--
(1) 10 percent individual income tax bracket;
(2) marriage penalty relief;
(3) child credit at $1,000 and partial refundability of the
credit;
(4) education incentives;
(5) other incentives for middle class families and
children;
(6) other reductions to individual income tax brackets; and
(7) small business tax relief.
(b) Applicability.--For the purposes of section 401(a) of
this resolution, the adjustments made pursuant to this
section shall apply only to a measure that includes the
policies and the amounts described in this section.

SEC. 316. CURRENT POLICY RESERVE FUND FOR REFORM OF THE
ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX (AMT).

SEC. 317. CURRENT POLICY RESERVE FUND FOR REFORM OF THE
ESTATE AND GIFT TAX.

(a) Procedure.--The chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that would decrease revenues
by an amount not to exceed $72,033,000,000 in fiscal years
2010 through 2014 and, for the purposes of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, by an amount not to exceed
$256,244,000,000 in fiscal years 2010 through 2019 by
reforming the Estate and Gift Tax so that only a minute
fraction of estates owe tax, by extending the law as in
effect in 2009 for the Estate and Gift Tax.
(b) Applicability.--For the purposes of section 401(a) of
this resolution, the adjustments made pursuant to this
section shall apply only to a measure that includes the
policies and the amounts described in this section.

TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 401. ADJUSTMENTS FOR DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES.

(a) Adjustments To Maintain Current Policy.--
(1) Subject to the condition specified in paragraph (3),
when the chairman of the Committee on the Budget evaluates
the budgetary effects of a provision in any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report for the purposes
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this resolution, or
the Rules of the House of Representatives relative to
baseline estimates that are consistent with section 257 of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, he shall exclude from his evaluation the budgetary
effects of such provision if such effects would have been
reflected in a baseline adjusted to maintain current policy.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies only to a provision with respect
to which the chairman of the Committee on the Budget has
exercised his authority to make budgetary adjustments under
sections 314, 315, 316, and 317 of this resolution.
(3) Paragraph (1) shall apply only if the House of
Representatives has previously passed a bill to impose
statutory pay-as-you-go requirements, or the measure
containing the provision being evaluated by the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget imposes such requirements, and
only if such bill is designated as providing statutory pay-
as-you-go-requirements under this subsection.
(b) Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).--
Prior to consideration of a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report making appropriations for
fiscal year 2010 that appropriates $3,200,000,000 in funding
for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program and
provides additional appropriations of up to $1,900,000,000
for that program, then the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget may revise the budgetary treatment of such additional
amounts and allocate such additional budget authority and
outlays resulting from that budget authority to the Committee
on Appropriations.
(c) Deposit Insurance.--When the chairman of the Budget
Committee evaluates the budgetary effects of a provision of a
bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report for
the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
resolution, or the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
chairman shall exclude the budgetary effects of any provision
that affects the full funding of the deposit insurance
guarantee commitment in effect on the date of enactment of
Public Law 110-343, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
of 2008.

SEC. 402. ADJUSTMENTS TO DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

(a) Program Integrity Initiatives.--
(1) Social security administration program integrity
initiatives.--
(A) In general.--Prior to consideration of any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report making
appropriations for fiscal year 2010 that appropriates
$273,000,000 for continuing disability reviews and
Supplemental Security Income redeterminations for the Social
Security Administration and (except as provided in
subparagraph (B)) provides an additional appropriation of up
to $485,000,000, and that amount is designated for continuing
disability reviews and Supplemental Security Income
redeterminations for the Social Security Administration, the
allocation to the Committee on Appropriations shall be
increased by the amount of the additional budget authority
and outlays resulting from that budget authority for fiscal
year 2010.
(B) Asset verification.--The additional appropriation of
$485,000,000 may also provide that a portion of that amount,
not to exceed $34,000,000, instead may be used for asset
verification for Supplemental Security Income recipients, but
only if and to the extent that the Office of the Chief
Actuary estimates that the initiative would be at least as
cost effective as the redeterminations of eligibility
described in subparagraph (A).
(2) Internal revenue service tax compliance.--Prior to
consideration of any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report making appropriations for fiscal year 2010
that appropriates $5,117,000,000 to the Internal Revenue
Service for Enforcement and provides an additional
appropriation of up to $387,000,000 for Enforcement to
address the Federal tax gap, and provides that such sums as
may be necessary shall be available from the Operations
Support account in the Internal Revenue Service to fully
support these Enforcement activities, the allocation to the
Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the amount
of the additional budget authority and outlays resulting from
that budget authority for fiscal year 2010.
(3) Health care fraud and abuse control program.--Prior to
consideration of any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report making appropriations for fiscal year 2010
that appropriates up to $311,000,000, and the amount is
designated to the health care fraud and abuse control program
at the Department of Health and Human Services, the
allocation to the Committee on Appropriations shall be
increased by the amount of additional budget authority and
outlays resulting from that budget authority for fiscal year
2010.
(4) Unemployment insurance program integrity activities.--
Prior to consideration

[[Page 9721]]

of any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference
report making appropriations for fiscal year 2010 that
appropriates $10,000,000 for in-person reemployment and
eligibility assessments and unemployment insurance improper
payment reviews for the Department of Labor and provides an
additional appropriation of up to $50,000,000, and the amount
is designated for in-person reemployment and eligibility
assessments and unemployment insurance improper payment
reviews for the Department of Labor, the allocation to the
Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the amount
of additional budget authority and outlays resulting from
that budget authority for fiscal year 2010.
(5) Partnership fund for program integrity innovation.--
Prior to consideration of any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that provides discretionary
budget authority for a Partnership Fund for Program Integrity
Innovation in the Office of Management and Budget in an
amount not to exceed $175,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 and
that designates the amount for the Partnership Fund for
Program Integrity Innovation in the Office of Management and
Budget, the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations
shall be increased by the amount of the additional budget
authority and outlays resulting from that budget authority
for fiscal year 2010.
(6) Procedure for adjustments.--Prior to consideration of
any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report,
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make the
adjustments set forth in this subsection for the incremental
new budget authority in that measure and the outlays
resulting from that budget authority if that measure meets
the requirements set forth in this subsection.
(b) Costs of Overseas Deployments and Emergency Needs.--
(1) Overseas deployments and related activities.--If any
bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report makes
appropriations for fiscal year 2009 or fiscal year 2010 for
overseas deployments and related activities and such amounts
are so designated pursuant to this subparagraph, then new
budget authority, outlays, or receipts resulting therefrom
shall not count for the purposes of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 or this resolution.
(2) Emergency needs.--If any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report makes appropriations for
discretionary amounts and such amounts are designated as
necessary to meet emergency needs, then new budget authority
and outlays resulting therefrom shall not count for the
purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 or this
resolution.

SEC. 403. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), any
bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report
making a general appropriation or continuing appropriation
may not provide for advance appropriations.
(b) Exceptions.--An advance appropriation may be provided
for fiscal year 2011 for programs, projects, activities, or
accounts identified in the report to accompany this
resolution or the joint explanatory statement of managers to
accompany this resolution under the heading ``Accounts
Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in an aggregate
amount not to exceed $28,852,000,000 in new budget authority,
and for 2012, accounts separately identified under the same
heading.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance
appropriation'' means any new discretionary budget authority
provided in a bill or joint resolution making general
appropriations or any new discretionary budget authority
provided in a bill or joint resolution making continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2010 that first becomes
available for any fiscal year after 2010.

SEC. 404. OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE.

All committees are encouraged to conduct rigorous oversight
hearings to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in all aspects
of Federal spending and Government operations, giving
particular scrutiny to issues raised by the Federal Office of
the Inspector General or the Comptroller General of the
United States. Based upon these oversight efforts, the
committees are encouraged to make recommendations to reduce
wasteful Federal spending to promote deficit reduction and
long-term fiscal responsibility. Such recommendations should
be submitted to the Committee on the Budget in the views and
estimates reports prepared by committees as required under
301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

SEC. 405. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DISCRETIONARY
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 13301 of the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990, and section 4001 of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the joint explanatory
statement accompanying the conference report on any
concurrent resolution on the budget shall include in its
allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 to the Committee on Appropriations amounts for
the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social
Security Administration and of the Postal Service.
(b) Special Rule.--For purposes of applying section 302(f)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, estimates of the
level of total new budget authority and total outlays
provided by a measure shall include any off-budget
discretionary amounts.

SEC. 406. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.

(a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and
aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--
(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.
(b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised
allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates included in
this resolution.
(c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this
resolution, the levels of new budget authority, outlays,
direct spending, new entitlement authority, revenues,
deficits, and surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal
years shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by
the Committee on the Budget.
(d) Adjustments.--The chairman of the Committee on the
Budget may adjust the aggregates, allocations, and other
levels in this resolution for legislation which has received
final Congressional approval in the same form by the House of
Representatives and the Senate, but has yet to be presented
to or signed by the President at the time of final
consideration of this resolution.

SEC. 407. ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN CONCEPTS AND
DEFINITIONS.

Upon the enactment of any bill or joint resolution
providing for a change in budgetary concepts or definitions,
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall adjust any
appropriate levels and allocations in this resolution
accordingly.

SEC. 408. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

The House adopts the provisions of this title--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of
Representatives and as such they shall be considered as part
of the rules of the House, and these rules shall supersede
other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent
with other such rules; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
the House of Representatives to change those rules at any
time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the
case of any other rule of the House of Representatives.

TITLE V--POLICY

SEC. 501. POLICY ON MIDDLE-CLASS TAX RELIEF AND REVENUES.

It is the policy of this resolution to minimize fiscal
burdens on working families and their children and
grandchildren. It is the policy of this resolution to extend
the following tax relief consistent with current policy--
(1) relief for the tens of millions of middle-income
households who would otherwise be subject to the Alternative
Minimum Tax (AMT) under current law;
(2) middle-class tax relief; and
(3) elimination of estate taxes on all but a minute
fraction of estates by reforming and substantially increasing
the unified tax credit.

In total, this resolution supports the extension of
$1,700,000,000,000 in tax relief to individuals and families
relative to current law. This resolution supports additional,
deficit-neutral tax relief, including the extension of AMT
relief, the research and experimentation tax credit, the
deduction for State and local sales taxes, the enactment of a
tax credit for school construction bonds, and other tax
relief for working families. The cost of enacting such
policies may be offset by reforms within the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 that produce higher rates of tax compliance to
close the ``tax gap'' and reduce taxpayer burdens through tax
simplification. The President's budget proposes a variety of
other revenue offsets. Unless expressly provided, this
resolution does not assume any of the specific revenue offset
proposals provided for in the President's budget. Decisions
about specific revenue offsets are made by the Ways and Means
Committee, which is the tax-writing committee.

SEC. 502. POLICY ON DEFENSE PRIORITIES.

It is the policy of this resolution that--
(1) there is no higher priority than the defense of our
Nation, and therefore the Administration and Congress will
make the necessary investments and reforms to strengthen our
military so that it can successfully meet the threats of the
21st century;
(2) acquisition reform is needed at the Department of
Defense to end excessive cost growth in the development of
new weapons systems and to ensure that weapons systems are
delivered on time and in adequate quantities to equip our
servicemen and servicewomen;

[[Page 9722]]

(3) the Department of Defense should review defense plans
to ensure that weapons developed to counter Cold War-era
threats are not redundant and are applicable to 21st century
threats;
(4) sufficient resources should be provided for the
Department of Defense to aggressively address the 758
unimplemented recommendations made by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) since 2001 to improve practices
at the Department of Defense, which could save billions of
dollars that could be applied to priorities identified in
this section;
(5) the Department of Defense should review the role that
contractors play in its operations, including the degree to
which contractors are performing inherently governmental
functions, to ensure it has the most effective mix of
government and contracted personnel;
(6) the Department of Defense report to Congress on its
assessment of Cold War-era weaponry, its progress on
implementing GAO recommendations, and its review of
contractors at the Department as outlined in paragraphs (3),
(4), and (5) by a date to be determined by the appropriate
committees;
(7) the GAO provide a report to the appropriate
congressional committees by December 31, 2009, on the
Department of Defense's progress in implementing its audit
recommendations;
(8) ballistic missile defense technologies that are not
proven to work through adequate testing and that are not
operationally viable should not be deployed, and that no
funding should be provided for the research or development of
space-based interceptors;
(9) cooperative threat reduction and other nonproliferation
programs (securing ``loose nukes'' and other materials used
in weapons of mass destruction), which were highlighted as
high priorities by the 9/11 Commission, need to be funded at
a level that is commensurate with the evolving threat;
(10) readiness of our troops, particularly the National
Guard and Reserves, is a high priority, and that continued
emphasis is needed to ensure adequate equipment and training;
(11) improving military health care services and ensuring
quality health care for returning combat veterans is a high
priority;
(12) military pay and benefits should be enhanced to
improve the quality of life for military personnel and their
families;
(13) the Department of Defense should make every effort to
investigate the national security benefits of energy
independence, including those that may be associated with
alternative energy sources and energy efficiency conversions;
(14) the Administration's budget requests should continue
to comply with section 1008, Public Law 109-364, the John
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2007, and that to the extent practicable overseas military
operations should no longer be funded through emergency
supplemental appropriations; and
(15) when assessing security threats and reviewing the
programs and funding needed to counter these threats, the
Administration should do so in a comprehensive manner that
includes all agencies involved in our national security.

TITLE VI--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

SEC. 601. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON VETERANS' AND SERVICEMEMBERS'
HEALTH CARE.

It is the sense of the House that--
(1) the House supports excellent health care for current
and former members of the United States Armed Services--they
have served well and honorably and have made significant
sacrifices for this Nation;
(2) the President's budget will improve health care for
veterans by increasing appropriations for VA by 10 percent
more than the 2009 level, increasing VA's appropriated
resources for every year after 2010, and restoring health
care eligibility to additional nondisabled veterans with
modest incomes;
(3) VA is not and should not be authorized to bill private
insurance companies for treatment of health conditions that
are related to veterans' military service;
(4) VA may find it difficult to realize the level of
increase in medical care collections estimated in the
President's budget for 2010 using existing authorities;
therefore, this resolution provides $540,000,000 more for
Function 700 (Veterans Benefits and Services) than the
President's budget to safeguard the provision of health care
to veterans;
(5) it is important to continue providing sufficient and
timely funding for veterans' and servicemembers' health care;
and
(6) this resolution provides additional funding above the
2009 levels for VA to research and treat mental health, post-
traumatic stress disorder, and traumatic brain injury.

SEC. 602. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON HOMELAND SECURITY.

It is the sense of the House that because making the
country safer and more secure is such a critical priority,
the resolution therefore provides robust resources in the
four budget functions--Function 400 (Transportation),
Function 450 (Community and Regional Development), Function
550 (Health), and Function 750 (Administration of Justice)--
that fund most nondefense homeland security activities that
can be used to address our key security priorities,
including--
(1) safeguarding the Nation's transportation systems,
including rail, mass transit, ports, and airports;
(2) continuing with efforts to identify and to screen for
threats bound for the United States;
(3) strengthening border security;
(4) enhancing emergency preparedness and training and
equipping first responders;
(5) helping to make critical infrastructure more secure and
resilient against the threat of terrorism and natural
disasters;
(6) making the Nation's cyber infrastructure resistive to
attack; and
(7) increasing the preparedness of the public health
system.

SEC. 603. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON PROMOTING AMERICAN INNOVATION
AND ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS.

It is the sense of the House that--
(1) the House should provide sufficient investments to
enable our Nation to continue to be the world leader in
education, innovation, and economic growth as envisioned in
the goals of the America COMPETES Act;
(2) this resolution builds on significant funding provided
in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for scientific
research and education in Function 250 (General Science,
Space and Technology), Function 270 (Energy), Function 300
(Natural Resources and Environment), Function 500 (Education,
Training, Employment, and Social Services), and Function 550
(Health);
(3) the House also should pursue policies designed to
ensure that American students, teachers, businesses, and
workers are prepared to continue leading the world in
innovation, research, and technology well into the future;
and
(4) this resolution recognizes the importance of the
extension of investments and tax policies that promote
research and development and encourage innovation and future
technologies that will ensure American economic
competitiveness.

SEC. 604. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING PAY PARITY.

It is the sense of the House that rates of compensation for
civilian employees of the United States should be adjusted at
the same time, and in the same proportion, as are rates of
compensation for members of the uniformed services.

SEC. 605. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON COLLEGE AFFORDABILITY.

It is the sense of the House that nothing in this
resolution should be construed to reduce any assistance that
makes college more affordable and accessible for students,
including but not limited to student aid programs and
services provided by nonprofit State agencies.

SEC. 606. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON GREAT LAKES RESTORATION.

It is the sense of the House that this resolution
recognizes the importance of funding for an interagency
initiative to address regional environmental issues that
affect the Great Lakes, and that coordinated planning and
implementation among the Federal, State, and local government
and nongovernmental stakeholders is essential to more
effectively addressing the most significant problems within
the Great Lakes basin.

SEC. 607. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT.

It is the sense of the House that--
(1) additional legislative action is needed to ensure that
States have the necessary resources to collect all child
support that is owed to families and to allow them to pass
100 percent of support on to families without financial
penalty; and
(2) when 100 percent of child support payments are passed
to the child, rather than administrative expenses, program
integrity is improved and child support participation
increases.

The CHAIR. No amendment to the concurrent resolution is in order
except the amendments printed in House Report 111-73. Each amendment
may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered
only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read,
and shall be debatable for 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and an opponent.

{time} 1330

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Woolsey

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
House Report 111-73.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment made in order by the
rule.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 in the nature of a substitute printed in
House Report 111-73 offered by Ms. Woolsey:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2010.

Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2010 is

[[Page 9723]]

hereby established and that the appropriate budgetary levels
for fiscal years 2011 through 2019 are set forth.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2010 through 2019:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2010: $1,873,257,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,212,418,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,530,079,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,568,867,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,651,231,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2,778,285,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,884,437,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $3,000,767,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,105,848,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,214,880,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 2010: $207,271,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $123,787,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $169,687,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $53,530,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $17,573,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2,333,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: -$12,593,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: -$28,218,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: -$44,959,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: -$64,154,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2010: $3,624,687,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $3,073,855,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $3,205,250,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $3,458,856,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $3,667,585,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $3,841,631,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $4,054,487,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $4,236,563,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $4,428,912,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $4,701,771,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2010: $3,394,034,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $3,250,245,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $3,257,052,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $3,455,136,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $3,654,202,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $3,819,843,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $4,032,841,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $4,201,655,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $4,383,317,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $4,662,115,000,000.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget)
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2010: -$1,520,777,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: -$1,037,828,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: -$726,973,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: -$886,269,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: -$1,002,970,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: -$1,041,557,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: -$1,148,403,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: -$1,200,887,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: -$1,277,469,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: -$1,447,234,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
levels of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2010: $13,623,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $14,753,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $15,719,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $16,798,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $18,048,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $19,341,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $20,726,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $22,167,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $23,082,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $24,774,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2010: $9,168,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $10,087,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $10,787,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $11,569,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $12,524,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $13,504,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $14,589,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $15,730,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $16,342,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $17,746,000,000.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2010 through 2019 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $484,913,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $556,901,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $490,864,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $519,644,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $496,611,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $498,978,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $502,421,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $501,462,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $510,730,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $506,373,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $521,599,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $515,195,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $534,444,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $530,853,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $547,860,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $539,662,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $561,273,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $548,356,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $575,711,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $566,608,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $114,970,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $73,017,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $111,536,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,422,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $116,170,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $106,351,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $121,624,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $114,275,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $126,909,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $119,649,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $132,829,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $124,896,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $134,429,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $127,666,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $136,053,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $129,803,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $137,702,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $131,638,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $138,386,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $133,313,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $31,139,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,467,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $31,493,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,407,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $33,373,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,465,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $34,419,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,614,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $35,686,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,835,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $37,061,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,852,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $38,516,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,643,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $38,934,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,429,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $39,565,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,063,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $40,210,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,711,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $4,489,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,258,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $34,404,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,806,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $49,427,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,244,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $49,619,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,356,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $49,540,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,827,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $49,454,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,392,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $49,374,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,783,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $49,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,783,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $48,664,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,569,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $48,096,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,432,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $37,267,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,347,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $38,438,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,102,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $39,194,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,969,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $39,288,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,678,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $39,865,000,000.

[[Page 9724]]

(B) Outlays, $39,837,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $40,019,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,848,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $40,790,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,567,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $41,166,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,981,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $42,293,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,925,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $42,960,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,376,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $23,610,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,871,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $23,697,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,534,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $20,494,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,374,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $20,893,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,464,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $21,616,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,603,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $21,016,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,968,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $21,123,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,225,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $21,362,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,412,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $21,967,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,998,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $22,599,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,455,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $311,743,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $335,449,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $25,624,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,544,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $8,132,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,478,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $15,716,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,304,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $9,594,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$3,892,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $10,013,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$5,730,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $9,855,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$5,609,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $14,860,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $15,379,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,512,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $17,999,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,842,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $75,066,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,695,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $75,636,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $96,474,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $98,462,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $107,642,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $119,071,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $125,386,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $120,840,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $134,959,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $123,757,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $139,178,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $126,638,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $141,433,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $141,512,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $150,476,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $156,430,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $164,149,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $171,397,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $179,113,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $21,308,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,876,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $21,232,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,283,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $21,311,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26.559,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $21,202,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,599,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $21,270,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,980,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $16,636,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,935,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $16,971,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,034,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $17,313,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,851,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $17,667,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,433,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $18,021,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,368,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $133,053,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $154,565,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $154,265,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $172,456,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $164,840,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $163,698,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $172,710,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $168,557,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $180,538,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $175,166,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $184,905,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $181,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $191,786,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $187,159,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $197,379,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $192,874,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $202,388,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $198,073,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $207,486,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $203,039,000,000
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $457,065,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $458,262,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $449,195,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $450,767,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $473,453,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $471,828,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $495,022,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $489,506,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $518,905,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $518,537,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $544,357,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $541,826,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $571,489,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $568,888,000,000
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $605,267,000,000
(B) Outlays, $602,522,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $638,240,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $635,420,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $673,957,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $670,849,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $449,168,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $449,663,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $505,060,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $505,182,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $513,741,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $513,808,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $558,013,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $558,459,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $615,870,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $616,140,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $646,347,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $646,087,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $638,661,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $635,342,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $643,767,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $640,482,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $649,064,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $645,615,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $666,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $662,774,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $628,967,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $602,778,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $611,606,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $603,175,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $608,287,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $603,838,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $618,526,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $615,949,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $620,972,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $617,395,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:

[[Page 9725]]

(A) New budget authority, $626,055,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $622,632,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $638,661,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $635,342,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $643,767,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $640,482,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $649,064,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $645,615,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $666,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $662,774,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $20,255,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,378,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $23,380,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,513,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $26,478,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,628,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $29,529,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,679,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $32,728,000,000
(B) Outlays, $32,728,000,000
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $35,875,000,000
(B) Outlays, $35,875,000,000
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $39,021,000,000
(B) Outlays, $39,021,000,000
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $42,449,000,000
(B) Outlays, $42,449,000,000
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $46,094,000,000
(B) Outlays, $46,094,000,000
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $49,994,000,000
(B) Outlays, $49,994,000,000
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $106,043,000,000
(B) Outlays, $105,412,000,000
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $113,588,000,000
(B) Outlays, $113,372,000,000
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $108,754,000,000
(B) Outlays, $108,301,000,000
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $149,292,000,000
(B) Outlays, $148,847,000,000
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $150,628,000,000
(B) Outlays, $150,314,000,000
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $152,378,000,000
(B) Outlays, $152,044,000,000
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $157,714,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $157,603,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $156,141,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $156,129,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $154,286,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $154,255,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $161,337,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $161,244,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $54,299,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,726,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $55,323,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,779,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $55,159,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,804,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $54,979,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,907,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $54,848,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,948,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $55,776,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,684,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $56,730,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,575,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $57,707,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,512,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $60,517,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $60,310,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $62,912,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $62,692,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $23,137,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,695,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $23,371,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,134,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $24,004,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,972,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $24,018,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,721,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $24,685,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,881,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $26,135,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,140,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $26,954,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,963,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $27,826,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,496,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $28,704,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,314,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $29,679,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,112,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $287,050,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $287,050,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $328,247,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $328,247,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $393,807,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $393,807,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $482,392,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $482,392,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $584,552,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $584,552,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $672,195,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $672,195,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $750,106,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $750,106,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $823,704,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $823,704,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $910,458,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $910,458,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $996,787,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $996,787,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $299,989,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,654,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,016,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $109,350,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,367,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $73,953,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,763,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,147,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -$2,040,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,839,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, -$2,074,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,504,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, -$2,108,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,320,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,943,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $241,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,978,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,338,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, -$2,015,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,594,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$68,844,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$68,844,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$72,088,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$72,088,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$75,080,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$75,080,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$78,115,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$78,115,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -$80,151,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$80,151,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, -$82,702,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$82,702,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, -$86,167,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$86,167,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, -$94,794,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$94,794,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, -$99,412,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$99,412,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, -$103,004,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$103,004,000,000.
(21) Overseas Deployments and Other Activities (970):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $130,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $82,814,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $30,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,142,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $30,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,435,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $30,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,949,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $30,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,682,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $30,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,224,000,000.

[[Page 9726]]

Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $30,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,729,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $30,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,729,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $30,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,729,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $300,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,729,000,000.

The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and a Member
opposed each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.
As we face the huge challenges ahead of us, the financial crisis,
wars in two countries, rising unemployment, crumbling infrastructure,
lack of affordable health care, high energy prices and global climate
change, the budget is the legislation that will address all of these
issues at one time. That's why, as co-chair, with Congressman Raul
Grijalva of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, I'm pleased to
present the Fiscal Year 2010 Progressive Caucus Budget Alternative.
In November the American people voted to take the country in a new
direction, and that is exactly what the CPC budget does, not by making
small adjustments, but by fundamentally changing the way our government
allocates its resources. That's why the CPC budget eliminates more than
$60 billion in unneeded spending at the Pentagon, much of which is
spent on weapons designed to fight the former Soviet Union. Our budget
cuts defense spending by a total of $158 billion in Fiscal Year 2010.
The CPC alternative budget saves another $8.7 billion a year by fully
implementing the nearly 800 outstanding GAO recommendations to reduce
waste, fraud and abuse at the DOD.
And finally, we can save another $90 billion by executing a timely
and complete withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.
Our budget restores fairness and balance to the Tax Code by rolling
back the Bush tax breaks for the top 1 percent, closing loopholes for
corporations that would equal $100 billion in savings a year, ensuring
that Wall Street pays its fair share for the burden placed on taxpayers
by the TARP program, and limiting the tax deductibility of excessive
CEO pay.
With these offsets, the CPC budget then sets forth an ambitious
agenda to address the most pressing matters facing America today. We
invest $991 billion in nondefense discretionary spending for fiscal
year 2010, which is $469 billion over the President's budget. This bold
infusion of resources includes $300 billion in stimulus that was left
out of the economic recovery package, and increases spending for
domestic priorities. These investments include: $120 billion a year to
ensure that every American has health care; $90 billion a year to cut
the poverty rate in America by 50 percent; up to $80 billion a year to
rebuild and reinvest in our infrastructure; and an increase of $60
billion for international assistance for nonmilitary foreign assistance
to fight the root causes of terrorism, to support the 21st century
diplomacy.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. And to
meeting basic human needs, universal education and worldwide prevention
of HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria.
Thirty billion dollars a year in our budget is for the President's
budget to fight global warming and promote energy independence.
Over $70 billion a year will fully fund the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act and IDEA, and $45 billion a year to make veterans health
care an entitlement.
Madam Chair, these are the major priorities of the Progressive Caucus
alternative budget, and I urge my colleagues to pay attention to it and
to vote for it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Madam Chair, first I do want to offer my congratulations to the
gentlelady for simply offering the budget. As one who has written
budgets before, on behalf of the Republican Study Committee, it is
hard, difficult, challenging work, but I know the lady is committed to
her set of principles. They are diametrically opposed to mine, but I
respect her body of work and her commitment to her philosophy.
Madam Chairman, as we look at this budget and the other Democrat
alternatives, frankly, they have a whole lot more in common than they
have in their differences. All of these budgets, all of these
Democratic budgets, are simply radical. They are radical departures
from over 200 years of history in America.
Every single one, Madam Chairman, spends too much. They tax too much,
and they borrow too much. We are looking, even prior to the submission
of this progressive budget, much less the Democratic-controlled House
Budget Committee budget, we were looking at drowning in a sea of red
ink. We were looking at entitlement spending simply being out of
control.
And don't take my word for it, Madam Chairman. Let's listen to the
Federal Reserve. ``Without early and meaningful action to address the
rapid growth of entitlements, the U.S. economy could be seriously
weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost.''
Listen to our most recent former Comptroller General Walker of the
General Accountability Office. ``The rising costs of government
entitlements are a fiscal cancer, a fiscal cancer that threatens
catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.''
Now, Madam Chairman, that was all before the submissions of these
budgets. And let's look at the recent history of this Democratic-
controlled Congress. Seven hundred billion dollars of bailout money,
costing every American household $6,034. Now, some Members on the other
side of the aisle claim the taxpayer is going to get his money back. I
hope that proves to be true. As history is my guide, I have some
doubts.
A $1.13 trillion government stimulus plan, not a plan to stimulate
the economy, a plan to stimulate big government, costing every American
household $9,810. Madam Chairman, where are they going to get this
money? People are losing their jobs. Credit is being contracted. And
yet, spending bill after spending bill after spending bill.
Then, Madam Chairman, a $410 billion omnibus spending bill, costing
every American household $3,534. Now, on top of all this, on top of all
this massive spending, we have the single largest budget in American
history being proposed, more spending than this Nation has ever seen.
More spending than this Nation has ever seen, even with respect to the
economy, with the exception of World War II.
These are budgets that are going to impose costs on the average
American family of over $30,000. Again, Madam Chairman, this
progressive budget, along with all the other Democratic budgets, spends
too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much.
Now, Madam Chairman, speaker after speaker has come to the floor to
decry the inherited economic mess. There is an economic mess. But our
President inherited this economic mess from a Democratic-controlled
Congress. When the Republicans were last in control of Congress, the
deficit was $160 billion and falling. And now, just 2 years later, just
2 years later, it was $1.3 trillion, and the President decided to add
on another 500, $600 billion on top of that. We're looking at an
increase in the Federal deficit of tenfold in just 2 years.
And now, Madam Chairman, each one of these Democratic budgets is
proposing more debt, more debt in the next 10 years than has been run
up in the previous 200 years of our Nation's history, going back to the
dawn of the Republic. We have never seen these levels of debt.
Again, Madam Chairman, never in our history have so few voted so fast
to

[[Page 9727]]

indebt so many and do so little good. As history is my guide, no
nation, no nation has ever borrowed or spent its way into prosperity,
no matter how they tried. This is simply radical.
Madam Chairman, who ever thought we would see the day where European
socialists are lecturing the United States of America about fiscal
responsibility. What a topsy-turvy world we live in, Madam Chairman.
Never thought we would have seen the day. But now that spectacle is on
television.
Madam Chairman, who ever thought we would see the day where our
Secretary of State has to go to China and beg them to keep on buying
our debt? Even the Chinese, the Communist Chinese, are now lecturing
the United States of America about its profligate spending.
Madam Chairman, if any of these Democratic budgets are passed, we
will be the first generation in America's history to leave the next
generation with less freedom, less opportunity and a lower standard of
living. It is unavoidable. And that's why this budget is so radical.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I am honored to yield 3 minutes to the
chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, who is the author of this year's reduction of Cold War
weapons in our CPC budget.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I admire the work that's
been done by the leadership of the Progressive Caucus and the staff.
Before getting to that I would like to make two, I think, corrections
to my friend from Texas. First, I know people on that side have a
propensity to see socialists everywhere. But the people who are most
lecturing the American Government are the president of France, Nicolas
Sarkozy, and the chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, two
conservatives. So his invocation of socialists lecturing us is a
further example of the propensity to see socialists where they are not.
In fact, we have not heard that from the British Government, which is
run by the Labor Party. But the Gaullist president of France and the
Christian Democratic chancellor of Germany would object to being called
socialists by my friend from Texas.
Secondly, he says this would be the first administration in history
to hand on to the next generation a lower standard of living. No, it
won't even be, if that happens, the first administration to do it in
this century because the Bush administration has done just that. If you
look at what the standard of living was after this terrible economic
crisis that came under the Bush administration, we've already hit that
goal.
Now, as to spending. A riddle, Madam Chairman. When is government
spending not government spending? And on the other hand, when does
government spending which, according to the conservatives, destroys
jobs, in fact creates jobs? The answer is when it's for weapons.
We have, on the other side, a form of weaponized Keynesianism. When
it comes to spending money to build roads or improve medical
infrastructure or do other things that are enhancing the quality of
life, they tell us that government spending doesn't create a job. But
when we are talking about continuing to produce weapons that have the
admirable purpose of defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War, and
we're still producing the weapons, then somehow we have to keep them
going because of its job creation capacity.
Military spending. George Bush, in his exit interview with the Wall
Street Journal, hardly a harsh critic for him on the editorial page,
said the main reason he had to spend so much was the ramp-up in
military spending. I just disagree with him that it was necessary. The
wholly unnecessary, in fact, damaging Iraq war has cost us hundreds and
hundreds of billions of dollars.
I am amazed that people can lament spending and forget the elephant
in the room. And when the elephant forgets the elephant in the room, I
suppose it's even more surprising, because it is massive military
spending now and for the future that is the problem.
We're worried about entitlements. I am less concerned about a 73-
year-old woman getting a cost of living increase than I am about
building the F-22 when we no longer need it.
And we have missile defense. Now, I don't keep up, since I became
chairman of the committee I've been a little diverted, with the news as
much as I used to. And I haven't reviewed all the fatwas out of that
lunatic regime in Iran. But I do not remember them threatening to
destroy Prague. I do not remember the pronouncement in which Iran said,
you Czechs better watch out; we're going to bomb you.
Despite the absence of any such threat, the budget that my friends on
the other side would like commits us to spending billions of dollars to
defend Prague against Iran. I'd rather protect old people against
poverty.
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I would first yield myself 30 seconds
to say to the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services
Committee, and my friend, that I would certainly concede the point that
he is probably far more familiar with socialists in Europe than I am,
and I concede that point.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HENSARLING. I would be happy to yield to the distinguished
chairman.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, the people I mentioned were Nicolas
Sarkozy, who is the non-socialist, Gaullist president of France and
Angela Merkel, the non-socialist chancellor of Germany.
Mr. HENSARLING. With 30 seconds, I'll reclaim my time.
I would also point out to the distinguished chairman of the Financial
Services Committee Article I, section 9 of our Constitution that puts
the spending power with the Congress, and to remind him that his party
has been in control for the last 2 years.

{time} 1345

With that, Madam Chair, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. INGLIS. Madam Chair, I congratulate the gentleman on his work on
this alternative that we are going to see.
The one before us is the Progressive budget, and it seems to me that
what we have here is a continuation of the problem that we are all
focused on, which is we've overdosed on credit, and there really is a
limit to how much you can spend. This is an unfortunate thing. We wish
that we had no limits, but there are limits. I hope that Progressives
won't stand on the floor and say what I've often heard them say before,
which is, ``The question is not whether we can afford to do this. The
question is whether we can afford not to do this,'' which is, of
course, inherently irresponsible because there are limits. There are
limits on how much money there is available, on how many resources we
can commit to various programs and projects, and we've got to live
within those limits.
There has been a lot of talk about inheriting this financial mess,
and as the gentleman from Texas said a little while ago, it is a mess,
and it is something that this administration is dealing with and that
this majority is dealing with, but it's also something that we've got
to admit has been coming for a long time. This is not, really, a brand
new thing. The housing bubble was new--or the bursting of it was new.
The buildup and the blowing up of that bubble took a while. The
bursting of it is more recent, but the thing has been going on for a
long time under, frankly, Republicans and Democrats. It is the runaway
spending and entitlements that must be constrained. I would submit the
only way to change it is to change the underlying programs and the
incentives and the way that those programs work.
For example, in Medicare, we just have got to find a way to
incentivize the patient to care about how much it costs, and we have
just got to find a way to make prevention part of our health system.
Now, that's something we need to come together on and figure out--
Progressives, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats.
How do you do that? How do you change the underlying incentives in a

[[Page 9728]]

program like Medicare to bring it under control? I would submit that
these sorts of things where you just sort of cap the rate of growth
really don't work because we've seen that, we've done that, and then
we've extended the cap, so that doesn't work.
What's going to have to happen is we have to figure out a way to come
into those programs, those big ones--Medicare, Medicaid, Social
Security--and figure out a way to change the underlying program.
Hopefully, we can do that in a cooperative, collaborative way. There
are ideas on this side of the aisle that will work in health care--that
will work to bring down the cost, the runaway cost of Medicare and
Medicaid. I hope that we can get to that.
Ms. WOOLSEY. I'm honored to yield a minute and a half to the former
cochair of the Progressive Caucus, Barbara Lee from California.
Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, let me just say that I rise today
in strong support of the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget
substitute, and I want to commend Congresswoman Woolsey and Congressman
Grijalva--co-chairs of the CPC--and their staffs for their very hard
and tireless work on this great budget.
Budgets are not only fiscal documents; they are moral documents. They
reflect our Nation's values and priorities. For example, in our budget,
we redeploy all of our troops and contractors out of Iraq, and we cap
the tax deductibility of excessive CEO pay. That totals about $120
billion in our budget. Our budget, however, puts $120 billion a year
into health care for all Americans. Those are our values.
The CPC budget provides critical relief to those who are suffering
during this economic crisis. It revitalizes our economy, and it cuts
poverty in half in 10 years. We eliminate waste, fraud and abuse at the
Pentagon, and we eliminate Cold War era weapons systems to the tune of
about $60 billion a year. Smart security is also a critical component
of this budget, and we must use this in places like Afghanistan where
we know that there is clearly no military solution.
I was concerned about that reality on September 14, 2001 when I voted
against the military authorization to provide a blank check for endless
wars, and I still remain unpersuaded today that sending more troops to
Afghanistan will actually advance our national security interests. We
must be a Nation committed to exercising the tools of smart security
for the 21st century, and this budget puts us on that path.
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining
on each side?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 10 minutes remaining. The
gentlewoman from California has 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. HENSARLING. At this time, Madam Chair, I would like to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the
Democrat budget, and I do so reluctantly. We were hoping that we could
come together on something that takes the country forward.
When you look at how Americans are hurting--and I'm from Michigan,
and nobody knows about hurting economies like we do in Michigan--it's
painful, but the prescription that the Democrats offer is dangerous:
Borrow more money. Spend more money. Tax the very people who are going
to get us out of this recession--the small business people. It's not
that we're taxed too little already, and we have to be taxed more.
I mean this bill says: Listen, you know what? With your electric
bill, Americans, you're not paying enough. We're going to charge you
the largest utility tax increase in the history of the United States
under this cap-and-tax program in the Democrat blueprint. We're going
to borrow more in the next 10 years than for all the wars that we've
ever fought combined. We're going to spend every penny of it.
So what happens if you're building cars or if, actually, you work for
a small business in Lansing, Michigan? You're getting up in the morning
under the Democrat tax bill, and you're going to pay a lot more for
your shower in the morning. You're going to put the laundry in before
you go to work, and you're paying a lot more to do your laundry. Your
kids are doing their homework on the Internet. They're paying more to
do their homework on the Internet. You turn on your coffee maker, and
you're paying more. You get out to the car of which you paid a sales
tax. You pay a tax for your license plate. You pay a tax for your
driver's license. You pay a State gas tax and a Federal gas tax. Guess
what? Your gas bill is going up to drive to work under this plan.
You get to work, and for the privilege of showing up at this small
business, you're going to pay more for taxes for that small business.
The electric bills in that place are going up, in some cases the
estimates are, by 177 percent. You're paying more. You pay a city
income tax, a State income tax, a Federal income tax. You pay your
unemployment tax and your Workers' Comp tax.
You get home, and you're paying a huge property tax. Oh, by the way,
that's going up, too. When you go to call your Congressman to complain,
you pay a special universal tax on your phone. You sit down to have a
beer to relax, and you pay a Federal excise tax on that beer. You pay
more for wine to get it in the country. You pay more for 1 percent
milk.
All of this is at a time when people are hurting. It's the most
regressive tax you can propose. The poorest Americans are already taxed
to death. This is the wrong prescription. It borrows too much; it
spends too much; it taxes too much.
I encourage my friends and colleagues from the other side of the
aisle who talk about priorities to name me the importance of raising
the cost of doing your laundry, of keeping your food cold, of cooking
your food, and of keeping your house either warm or cool to the average
American, and tell me that's a good priority for the future of job
growth and development.
Madam Chair, I would urge the rejection of the Democrat budget, and
would urge putting some common sense back in this equation.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I yield a minute and a half to a
Progressive vice chair, Keith Ellison from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong support of the
Progressive budget, and I want to thank our leadership in the
Progressive Caucus for pulling the budget together. Though I do plan on
supporting the House Democratic budget resolution, I believe that our
Progressive budget differs in two important ways, and that's why I urge
my colleagues to support the Progressive budget.
First, the Progressive alternative fully funds President Obama's
international affairs request--Function 150 account. I believe robust
funding for international affairs, which covers funds to combat HIV,
tuberculosis and malaria as well as funding to help reconstruction in
Afghanistan, is critical to our Nation's public diplomacy.
Our country has a unique opportunity to rebuild alliances across the
globe, and we need to meet our foreign policy challenges in the 21st
century. To accomplish this task, our country and this Congress must
demonstrate a strong commitment to funding international aid.
Second, the Progressive Caucus budget embraces President Obama's
commitment to retire Cold War weapons systems, and the Progressive
budget goes further than the House Democratic budget in cutting defense
spending. The Progressive budget reduces wasteful spending that,
according to the GAO, costs taxpayers $8.7 billion a year. The
Progressive Caucus budget also eliminates unnecessary and obsolete Cold
War weapons systems, saving taxpayers $60 billion a year. I know my
Republican colleagues are in favor of cutting those wasteful programs.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California may
control the time of the gentleman from Texas.
There was no objection.
Mr. HENSARLING. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. At this time, I would like to
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

[[Page 9729]]

Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from California for yielding.
Madam Chair, folks in western North Carolina are hurting. We've seen
the rise in unemployment. We've seen the economic dislocation that this
recession has created. We've seen the impact it has on small towns and
communities, on families that are struggling to make ends meet, and
we've seen the rise in unemployment that generally has occurred. These
are tough economic times, and I think we have to have a responsible
Federal budget to meet these tough economic times.
Families have to tighten their belts during these tough times.
Likewise, I think the Federal Government should do the same. I think
it's wrong to raise taxes in a time of recession. I think it's wrong to
raise taxes on people who are already hurting. That's why I oppose this
budget that's being presented here today.
In fact, it's not simply enough as a public policymaker to reject a
proposal, but you should offer your own, your own ideas on the way to
properly act. Therefore, I am voting for two alternatives that will be
better than the budget offered here today--the Obama-Pelosi budget--
that I'm offering through the Republican Study Committee and through
the Republican Members.
We have a budget that spends far less without raising taxes and that
borrows far less than this current budget. Moreover, I'm supporting a
budget alternative that balances the budget without raising taxes, in
fact, making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, which will help
families and small businesses. After all, we should not be taxing and
spending and borrowing more. We should be cutting, saving and
incentivizing great economic growth, and we should be helping small
businesses expand and maintain even the workers that they currently
have, and we should be helping small families as well.
So I think it's reasonable to support a balanced budget without
raising taxes, and I think it's irresponsible to support a budget that
raises taxes, especially to the magnitude of this liberal budget
offered here on the House floor.
With that, I urge the adoption of the Republican Study Committee
alternative, of the Republican alternative, and urge the rejection of
the Obama-Pelosi budget and especially of this very liberal budget
offered here on the floor today.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, how much time is remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 10\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from California has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I am honored to yield a minute and a half
to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

{time} 1400

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in
permitting me to speak on this.
It was interesting here to watch the exchange on the floor where my
good friend, the Chair of the Financial Services Committee, had to
instruct my friend from Texas--I guess who's left the floor--about who
is a socialist and who isn't.
It's no small point that people on the other side who are offering
their world view don't actually know who our allies are and who runs
two of the top eight economies in the world. It's the same sort of
disregard for facts that has encouraged them to willfully misrepresent
the costs of coming to grips with global warming and carbon pollution.
And in fact, the chair of the Global Climate Committee Program at MIT
had to send a letter to the Republican leader explaining that they are
misleading people by attaching a $3,000 figure, indicating that that is
grossly out of proportion and depends entirely on what would happen
with a much smaller burden.
The point is, under the progressive budget, under the other
Democratic alternatives, these moneys would be returned to people to
reduce their energy costs, create green jobs. There was a time when
conservatives would be worried about cost overruns in the Department of
Defense and wasteful spending on Cold War weapons. That time is not
now.
It's why I support these budgets and urge the rejection of the
Republican alternatives.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Chair, I will reserve at
this time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 2 minutes to the outspoken
Progressive leader, Sheila Jackson-Lee.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairwoman, we come to this floor
with a sobering recognition: $657 billion spent on the war in Iraq.
Certainly we would not take one cent away from our soldiers, their
care, the care of their families. But $657 billion on a war that
generated the kind of controversy and questionable results that the
Iraq war created puts us in the position we're in today.
For at the same time that we were fighting a war, the last
administration saw no reason to ask America to sacrifice. And so it
gave these enormous--that administration gave these enormous tax cuts
that put us in this very difficult position of reaching $1 trillion in
debt.
What we do today with this budget--and I stand here as a vice chair
and one believing in the principles of this administration of helping
America restore itself in energy, health care, education--this budget,
the Progressive Caucus budget, puts more money to extinguish poverty,
it cuts the tax cuts that have been given to the rich, and it invests
those moneys in education, climate control, as well as providing for
our veterans, and, yes, it does something enormously unique: it
provides a pathway for rehabilitation for ex-offenders. It intervenes
with respect to youths who are involved in crime, and it provides the
resources to fully fund what we call the Second Chance bill, allowing
ex-offenders to be rehabilitated to go back to their families and get
their families off of welfare.
Research has shown that targeting funding towards intervention rather
than incarceration is more effective than reducing crime and saves the
taxpayers' money in the long run.
This is a bill for the people of America. I ask my colleagues to
support it and to support the President's budget.
Madam Chair, I would like to rise in support of the budget put
forward today by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. This alternative
budget combats the worsening poverty and Hurricane Katrina redress,
renews federal commitment to fully address the on-going suffering of
the victims of Hurricane Katrina and help cut the poverty rate in
America by 50 percent during the next decade with increased funding for
decent affordable housing, anti-hunger programs, and more quality child
care. This Progressive budget restores the 21st century social contract
and safety net; Economic Stimulus #2 ($300 billion), which provides
more immediate help to overcome the ``Iraq recession'' through
increased federal assistance for unemployment insurance, food stamps,
Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) payments to states, and
housing assistance.
The Congressional Progressive Budget targets waste, fraud, and abuse
in federal government, starting with Pentagon savings and projects
enactment of the Common Sense Budget Act, which would save at least $60
billion/year on largely obsolete Cold War weapons systems plus billions
more in waste, fraud, and abuse in DOD spending identified by the
nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO).
This Progressive budget repeals the Bush tax cuts for the top 1
percent of taxpayers--due to expire in 2010 regardless and beyond--
savings of at least $222 billion and cracks down on corporate welfare
while projecting elimination of various corporate tax loopholes such as
deductibility of advertising for junk mail, imaging purposes, etc. and
special tax breaks for oil and gas industry and other extraction
industries.
This alternative budget shifts some spending and increases other non-
military spending to fight root causes of terrorism--21st century
diplomacy, meeting basic human needs (e.g. HIV/AIDS/TB, universal basic
education for all); Global Warming and Energy Independence, sustained
investments in renewable energy and energy independence, including
needed extension of production and investment tax credits. This budget
includes full funding of authorized levels for green jobs and

[[Page 9730]]

pathways out of poverty grants. In addition, climate policy should
significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a manner which
supports economic security and health of low-income and moderate-income
families and communities of color and education for all--fully fund
Elementary and Secondary Education Act and IDEA prospectively and
improve Teacher Corps and job training. This ``progressive'' budget
includes Medicare for All--affordable, accessible, quality health care
for all Americans, starting with full funding of SCHIP to cover every
child in America.
Included in this budget is Guaranteed Veterans' Health Care--which
ensures whatever federal funding is needed to provide health care
(including mental health) for all America's veterans (including but not
limited to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan military operations;
support for the Middle-Class--increase funding to protect fundamental
worker rights, enforce fair credit and lending practices, and promote
livable wages and safe workplaces; and rebuild America's Communities--
substantially increase funding for Community Development Block Grants,
Social Services Block Grants, and community policing, and authorize
release of funds available through the gas tax to clean-up leaking
underground storage tanks that threaten the drinking water of nearly
half of all Americans. This progressive budget increases funding
supporting the Office of Environmental Justice and environmental
justice programs, including community grants and a review of the EPA
and other agencies' policies to ensure they are protective of minority
and low-income communities. Madam Chair, we need to pass a real budget
for America that's forward thinking and ``progressive'' that will get
us back on the right track.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Chair, I yield myself 1
minute.
Madam Chair, when I listen to some of the debate on the floor, I
wonder what the American people might think. As I reflect on the words
that were just spoken, it sounds like we have a greater imperative to
somehow deal with this notion of climate change than we do with
defending the American people.
The budget that's presented to us by the Congressional Progressive
Caucus cuts defense enormously, and yet we keep hearing that, well, we
don't want to take any money away from the troops, we don't want to
take any money away from the equipment. But we cut defense enormously.
And one has to ask, what is the first obligation of government? It is
to create a modicum of security so the American people can live their
lives in a sense of safety, so they can attempt to be the best that God
gave them the skills to be. That's the first obligation of local
governments, the first obligation of State governments, and I would
hope at some point in time in this debate it would be acknowledged by
the other side that it is the first obligation of the Federal
Government.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 2 minutes to the Progressive
Caucus vice chair, Donna Edwards from Maryland.
Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of
the Progressive Caucus budget alternative. Budgets are about goals,
aspirations, values and vision. This budget sets the right priorities
for the future of this Nation, cutting Cold War weapons systems and
investing in the future, investing in our veterans, investing in their
families and children and in workers and de-investing in the things
that don't work.
Investment number one. The lack of affordable health care is the
number one drain on our economy, and it must be fixed immediately. The
Progressive budget steps up the President's commitment by investing
nearly $120 billion a year to ensure that every American can have
affordable, high-quality health care.
Investment number two. We need a national commitment to accelerate
the development and commercialization of clean, renewable energy
sources to get serious about our dependence on fossil fuels. And any
climate change policy must recognize that we have to protect the most
vulnerable by significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a
manner that supports economic security and the health of low- and
moderate-income families and communities of color.
The Progressive budget spends $30 billion a year for the next decade
to create 3 million clean energy jobs dedicated to increasing our
energy independence and protecting our environment.
This is about the future, and the budget takes unprecedented steps to
eliminate outdated and Cold War weapons systems, repeal the Bush tax
cuts and make much-needed investments in our Nation's infrastructure,
including wastewater and energy-efficient transportation systems.
Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Congressional
budget alternative to build on the President's commitment for a
comprehensive approach to meet our current and future fiscal
priorities.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. At this time, Madam Chair, I
would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. KIRK. Madam Chairman, the United States, according to the Bureau
of Public Debt, has already borrowed $2.07 trillion this year. This is
in borrowings of short-term debt and adding new debts to the accounts
of the United States.
But what is known, and not well in this Congress, is we gave new
authority to the Fed to buy Treasury securities. That means that one
part of the government is already borrowing money from another part of
the government. This new Fed authority has been used very heavily since
the start of the new year. In fact, records from the Bureau of Public
Debt show that the Fed has bought $75 billion of U.S. debt.
But here's the key thing: All of that purchasing power is from newly
printed money. These charts show how the printing presses of the United
States are now running on overtime to fund the current spending of this
Congress, and the budget underlying this proposal that we're talking
about would accelerate that.
You have to worry with the President of the United States at the G-20
summit now, being told by the Chancellor of the German Republic and by
the French President that our borrowing is already too heavy. In fact,
according to CBO scoring for the majority budget, which is the real
debate that we will consider here today, the United States, if it
applied to enter the European Union, would not be allowed because our
borrowing is already too heavy and would violate the Maastricht Treaty.
You've got to worry when the Chinese Government is saying that the
dollar is unsound. And when you see these results of the Fed printing
money and then purchasing U.S. securities, how the debasing of the
dollar threatens the long-term economic future of the United States.
When we see the borrowing rate of the Bureau of the Public Debt, we
see that they are now borrowing at a rate of $159 billion per week.
Look it up on their Web site. And that is just to support the
underlying budget. To accelerate the borrowing requirement of the
United States would be fundamentally unsafe and unsound.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairwoman, I now yield 3 minutes to the chairman
of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers of Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I am happy that my friend on Judiciary,
Dan Lungren, is managing the time on the other side because he will
remember that it was last Thursday that the Republicans held a press
conference and announced their non-budget budget with--but then they
said that it's coming out. And then yesterday the Republican budget
came out, and it had a few numbers in it.
And I am intrigued by, I think it's a general Republican assumption
that with a stimulus plan by the present administration to create jobs,
to give relief to the poor, to give relief to people who are in
distressed markets, we are now saying that the President's budget is
going to--as my friend from Michigan, Mike Rogers, just enunciated on
the floor--that your electric bills will go up and all costs will rise
under the Democratic budget.
Now, clearly both of these can't be the same. There is something
missing here. And what I submit is that we have a progressive budget
that goes beyond the good budget offered by the President. But to be
comparing, as someone--I think it was the gentleman from California was
just talking about--how can you be cutting all of this out of national
defense?

[[Page 9731]]

Well, easy. Wasting money and having fraud is not a way of protecting
the Nation. And the OMB has found billions of dollars of fraud. So
that's what we're taking out of the military budget. That doesn't make
the country weaker. It makes the country stronger.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I can't. And furthermore, we're talking about cutting
out all of these ancient missile systems. I am sure that the gentleman
from California, a veteran legislator in his second career back here,
knows that there are a lot of these exotic missile systems that don't
work any more. You can't use them in the Middle East or in the kind of
warfare that we're fighting when we're fighting against terrorists and
insurgents. And people are just fed up with it.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to
whether or not the other side has more than one speaker on this
subject.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairwoman, we have two speakers including
closing.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I will reserve.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairwoman, I am proud to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the chairman of the Africa and Global Health Subcommittee, Donald Payne
of New Jersey.
Mr. PAYNE. Madam Chair, let me commend the gentlelady from California
for presenting this very important budget. And let me also state, to
the gentleman from California, that it's no question that in our
parameter we provide for providing for the common defense but we also
say that it's a part of our country to promote the general welfare. It
seems that that part tends to be left out in many instances.

{time} 1415

So I rise in strong support of the Progressive Caucus budget. As a
member of the caucus, I am proud of the work we have done to restore
common sense to the Federal budget by addressing our Nation's most
pressing domestic needs.
As I travel around my congressional district in New Jersey, it is
obvious that families are suffering as a result of many of the
decisions of the previous administration, including their determination
to siphon valuable resources away from our communities and direct them
towards the ill-advised invasion and occupation of Iraq.
It is time to rebuild our own Nation by embracing the priorities
embodied in this bill: providing a strong economic stimulus package of
$300 billion that includes an extension of unemployment insurance, as
well as improvements in transportation infrastructure, school
construction, and needed water projects. Our budget pays for these
domestic needs by redeploying U.S. troops out of Iraq and repealing the
Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest among us.
I urge that we support this commonsense Progressive Caucus budget
because it puts America first.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Chair, I yield myself the
balance of our time.
I have never been in a place where a $4.3 trillion budget over the
period that we're talking about, which is what the Republican budget
is, is somehow seen as parsimonious. The other side seems to suggest
that we are not attempting to try and pay for those things for which
there is a reason for the Federal Government to be involved.
Secondly, I would say this. I have been a leader for the last two
Congresses in an effort, on a bipartisan basis, to try and reduce or to
encourage the President to negotiate with Russia to reduce our overall
nuclear weapon arsenal, and the President has indicated this last week
he's going to do that. But I have looked at the figures, and if we
reduced it to the numbers that the President is talking about that
we've urged, it wouldn't even come close to be the cut that you're
talking about on your side.
The suggested cuts in defense spending in this budget, in the
Democratic budget, but in this budget particularly, it doesn't just cut
fat. It cuts muscle. It cuts sinew. It cuts bone. It makes us less able
to defend the American people. And let's just be very, very clear about
that. No one, no respected member of any previous administration in
terms of national defense has suggested that you can support this kind
of a budget presented here.
So let's make it very clear to the American people what we're talking
about here. Are we going to do the fundamental job of preserving
liberty and preserving freedom or are we, in fact, going to cut defense
and, in the process, burden our people with more spending, more
taxation, more borrowing, increasing the size of government, which
ultimately takes freedom away from individual Americans?
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, well, I'd just like to point out that
the other side of the aisle must like the Congressional Progressive
Caucus budget very much because they've spent the entire hour either
promoting their own budget or attacking the President's budget and
letting our budget stand as it is.
I'm proud of the Congressional Progressive budget. We cut defense
spending by $158 billion in fiscal year 2010 alone, and we increase
nondefense discretionary spending to $991 billion, and that's quite an
effort and quite an accomplishment.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 84,
noes 348, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 188]

AYES--84

Abercrombie
Baldwin
Becerra
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Engel
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kucinich
Lee (CA)
Markey (MA)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Serrano
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu

NOES--348

Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Harman
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jenkins

[[Page 9732]]

Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Ortiz
Pascrell
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pierluisi
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Weiner
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--5

Hinojosa
Lewis (GA)
Miller, Gary
Sablan
Westmoreland

{time} 1446

Mr. GRIFFITH, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Messrs. MASSA, KIND, MURPHY
of Connecticut, VAN HOLLEN, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. GORDON of
Tennessee, and Mr. AL GREEN of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. ABERCROMBIE, CLEAVER, and WAXMAN changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
House Report 111-73.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 2 in the nature of a substitute printed in
House Report 111-73 offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2010.

Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2010 is hereby established and that
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009 and for
fiscal years 2011 through 2019 are set forth.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2009 through 2019:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $1,530,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $1,635,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $1,885,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,068,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,186,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,284,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2,406,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,507,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $2,617,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $2,716,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $2,818,000,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: -$3,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: -$31,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: -$203,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: -$292,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: -$329,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: -$350,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: -$370,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: -$390,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: -$412,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: -$435,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: -$461,000,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $3,100,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,468,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,302,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,416,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,501,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,569,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2,650,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,728,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $2,775,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $2,833,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $2,907,000,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $3,041,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,587,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,495,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,536,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,602,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,659,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2,733,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,787,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $2,837,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $2,897,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $2,933,000,000,000.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget)
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $1,511,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $952,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $610,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $468,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $416,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $375,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $327,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $280,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $220,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $181,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $116,000,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
levels of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $9,674,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $11,454,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $12,440,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $13,416,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $14,111,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $14,717,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $15,361,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $15,904,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $16,443,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $16,930,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $16,914,000,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $7,416,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $8,070,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $8,543,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $8,914,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $9,177,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $9,425,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $9,603,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $9,723,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $9,782,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $9,428,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $9,362,000,000,000.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2009 through 2019 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $700,705,000,000.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $692,033,000,000.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $620,110,000,000.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $629,140,000,000.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $639,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $653,830,000,000.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $660,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $665,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:

[[Page 9733]]

(A) New budget authority, $670,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $675,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $688,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.

[[Page 9734]]

Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.

[[Page 9735]]

(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.

[[Page 9736]]

Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $169,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $169,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $162,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $162,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $190,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $190,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $236,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $236,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $293,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $293,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $350,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $350,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $388,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $388,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $412,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $412,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $425,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $425,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $454,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $454,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $470,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $470,000,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $2,560,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,395,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $2,193,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,978,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $2,064,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,877,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $2,153,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,892,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $2,186,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,927,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $2,210,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,954,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $2,278,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,021,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $2,363,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,087,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $2,434,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,166,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $2,503,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,242,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $2,597,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,311,000,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:

[[Page 9737]]

(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(21) Overseas Deployments and Other Activities (970):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 050.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 050.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 050.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 050.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 050.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 050.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 050.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 050.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 050.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 050.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 050.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 050.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 050.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 050.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 050.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 050.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 050.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 050.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 050.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 050.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 050.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 050.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION SUBMISSIONS

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Submissions to Slow the Growth in Mandatory Spending
and to Achieve Deficit Reduction.--(1) Not later than July
13, 2009, the House committees named in paragraph (2) shall
submit their recommendations to the House Committee on the
Budget. After receiving those recommendations, the House
Committee on the Budget shall report to the House a
reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations
without any substantive revision.
(2) Instructions.--
(A) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on
Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $1,370,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2010 and $10,185,000,000 in outlays for the
period of fiscal years 2010 through 2014.
(B) Committee on education and labor.--The House Committee
on Education and Labor shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $1,100,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2010 and $8,300,000,000 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2010 through 2014.
(C) Committee on energy and commerce.--The House Committee
on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $19,990,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2010 and $241,900,000,000 in outlays for the
period of fiscal years 2010 through 2014.
(D) Committee on government reform and oversight.--The
House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to
reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by
$92,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2010 and
$1,710,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2010
through 2014.
(E) Committee on resources.--The House Committee on
Resources shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $250,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2010 and $4,937,000,000 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2010 through 2014.
(F) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on
Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by
$7,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 and $214,800,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2010 through 2014.
(G) Special rule.--The chairman of the Committee on the
Budget may take into account legislation enacted after the
adoption of this resolution that is determined to reduce the
deficit and may make applicable adjustments in reconciliation
instructions, allocations, and budget aggregates and may also
make adjustments in reconciliation instructions to protect
earned benefit programs.
(b) Submission Providing for Changes in Revenue.--The House
Committee on Ways and Means shall report a reconciliation
bill not later than June 8, 2009, that consists of changes in
laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce revenues by
not more than $31,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 and by not
more than $1,205,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2009 through 2014.
(c) Revision of Allocations.--(1) Upon the submission to
the Committee on the Budget of the House of a recommendation
that has complied with its reconciliation instructions solely
by virtue of section 310(b) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the chairman of that committee may file with the
House appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a)
of such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
(2) Upon the submission to the House of a conference report
recommending a reconciliation bill or resolution in which a
committee has complied with its reconciliation instructions
solely by virtue of this section, the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the House may file with the House
appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of
such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
(3) Allocations and aggregates revised pursuant to this
subsection shall be considered to be allocations and
aggregates established by the concurrent resolution on the
budget pursuant to section 301 of such Act.

SEC. 202. SUBMISSION OF REPORTS ON MANDATORY SAVINGS.

In the House, not later than June 15, 2009, all House
committees shall identify savings amounting to one percent of
total mandatory spending under its jurisdiction from
activities that are determined to be wasteful, unnecessary,
or lower-priority. For purposes of this section, the reports
by the reports by each committee shall be inserted in the
Congressional Record by the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget not later than June 15, 2009.

TITLE III--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 301. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--(1) In the House, except as provided in
subsection (b), an advance appropriation may not be reported
in a bill or joint resolution making a general appropriation
or continuing appropriation, and may not be in order as an
amendment thereto.
(2) Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a
Senate amendment that would violate paragraph (1) unless
specific authority to agree to the amendment first is given
by the House by a separate vote with respect thereto.
(b) Exception.--In the House, an advance appropriation may
be provided for fiscal year 2011 and fiscal years 2012 for
programs, projects, activities or accounts identified in the
joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying this
resolution under the heading ``Accounts Identified for
Advance Appropriations'' in an aggregate amount not to exceed
$23,565,000,000 in new budget authority.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance
appropriation'' means any discretionary new budget authority
in a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations
or continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2010 that first
becomes available for any fiscal year after 2010.

SEC. 302. TURN OFF THE GEPHARDT RULE.

Rule XXVII shall not apply with respect to the adoption by
the Congress of a concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2010.

SEC. 303. EMERGENCY SPENDING.

(a) Designations.--
(1) Guidance.--In the House, if a provision of legislation
is designated as an emergency requirement under this section,
the committee report and any statement of managers
accompanying that legislation shall include an explanation of
the manner in which the provision meets the criteria in
paragraph (2). If such legislation is to be considered by the
House without being reported,

[[Page 9738]]

then the committee shall cause the explanation to be
published in the Congressional Record in advance of floor
consideration.
(2) Criteria.--
(A) In general.--Any such provision is an emergency
requirement if the underlying situation poses a threat to
life, property, or national security and is--
(i) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up
over time;
(ii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring
immediate action;
(iii) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen,
unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
(iv) not permanent, temporary in nature.
(B) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an aggregate
level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally
estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.
(b) Enforcement.--It shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives to consider any bill, joint resolution,
amendment or conference report that contains an emergency
designation unless that designation meets the criteria set
out in subsection (a)(2).
(c) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--It shall
not be in order in the House of Representatives to consider a
rule or order that waives the application of subsection (c).
(d) Disposition of Points of Order in the House.--As
disposition of a point of order under subsection (b) or
subsection (c), the Chair shall put the question of
consideration with respect to the proposition that is the
subject of the point of order. A question of consideration
under this section shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the
Member initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an
opponent of the point of order, but shall otherwise be
decided without intervening motion except one that the House
adjourn or that the Committee of the Whole rise, as the case
may be.

SEC. 304. CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES RESULTING
FROM REALISTIC SCORING OF MEASURES AFFECTING
REVENUES.

(a) Whenever the House considers a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion or conference report, including measures
filed in compliance with section 201(b), that propose to
change Federal revenues, the impact of such measure on
Federal revenues shall be calculated by the Joint Committee
on Taxation in a manner that takes into account--
(1) the impact of the proposed revenue changes on--
(A) Gross Domestic Product, including the growth rate for
the Gross Domestic Product;
(B) total domestic employment;
(C) gross private domestic investment;
(D) general price index;
(E) interest rates; and
(F) other economic variables;
(2) the impact on Federal Revenue of the changes in
economic variables analyzed under paragraph (1).
(b) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make
any necessary changes to allocations and aggregates in order
to conform this concurrent resolution with the determinations
made by the Joint Committee on Taxation pursuant to
subsection (a).

SEC. 305. PROHIBITION ON USING REVENUE INCREASES TO COMPLY
WITH BUDGET ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.

(a) For the purpose of enforcing this concurrent resolution
in the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
shall not take into account the provisions of any piece of
legislation which propose to increase revenue or offsetting
collections if the net effect of the bill is to increase the
level of revenue or offsetting collections beyond the level
assumed in this concurrent resolution.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to any provision of a
piece of legislation that proposes a new or increased fee for
the receipt of a defined benefit or service (including
insurance coverage) by the person or entity paying the fee.

SEC. 306. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.

(a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and
aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--
(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.
(b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised
allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in
this resolution.
(c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this
resolution--
(1) the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct
spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and
surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal years shall
be determined on the basis of estimates made by the
appropriate Committee on the Budget; and
(2) such chairman may make any other necessary adjustments
to such levels to carry out this resolution.

SEC. 307. DIRECT SPENDING SAFEGUARD.

(a) It shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives to consider an direct spending legislation
that would increase an on-budget deficit or decrease an on-
budget surplus as provided by subsection (e) for any
applicable time period.
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ``applicable
time period'' means any of the following periods:
(1) The period of the first 5 fiscal years covered by the
most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
(2) The period of the 5 fiscal years following first 5
years covered in the most recently adopted concurrent
resolution on the budget.
(c) For purposes of this section and except as provided in
subsection (d), the term ``direct-spending legislation''
means any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference
report that affects direct spending as that term is defined
by, and interpreted for purposes of, the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(d) For purposes of this section, the term ``direct-
spending legislation'' does not include--
(1) any legislation the title of which is as follows: ``A
bill to preserve Social Security.''; or
(2) any legislation that would cause a net increase in
aggregate direct spending of less than $100,000,000 for any
applicable time period.
(e) If direct spending legislation increases the on-budget
deficit or decreases an on-budget surpluses when taken
individually, it must also increase the on-budget deficit or
decrease the on-budget surplus when taken together with all
direct spending legislation enacted since the beginning of
the calendar year not accounted for in the baseline assumed
for the most recent concurrent resolution on the budget,
except that direct spending effects resulting in net deficit
reduction enacted pursuant to reconciliation instructions
since the beginning of that same calendar year shall not be
available.
(f) This section may be waived by the affirmative vote of
three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(g) For purposes of this section, the levels of budget
authority and outlays for a fiscal year shall be determined
on the basis of estimates made by the Committee on the
Budget.
(h) The Committee on Rules may not report a rule or order
proposing a waiver of subsection (a).

SEC. 308. BUDGET PROTECTION MANDATORY ACCOUNT.

(a)(1) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall
maintain an account to be known as the ``Budget Protection
Mandatory Account''. The Account shall be divided into
entries corresponding to the allocations under section 302(a)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 in the most recently
adopted concurrent resolution on the budget, except that it
shall not include the Committee on Appropriations.
(2) Each entry shall consist only of amounts credited to it
under subsection (b). No entry of a negative amount shall be
made.
(b)(1) Upon the engrossment of a House bill or joint
resolution or a House amendment to a Senate bill or joint
resolution (other than an appropriation bill), the chairman
of the Committee on the Budget shall--
(A) credit the applicable entries of the Budget Protection
Mandatory Account by the amounts specified in paragraph (2);
and
(B) reduce the applicable section 302(a) allocations by the
amount specified in paragraph (2).
(2) Each amount specified in paragraph (1)(A) shall be the
net reduction in mandatory budget authority (either under
current law or proposed by the bill or joint resolution under
consideration) provided by each amendment that was adopted in
the House to the bill or joint resolution.
(c)(1) If an amendment includes a provision described in
paragraph (2), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
shall, upon the engrossment of a House bill or joint
resolution or a House amendment to a Senate bill or joint
resolution, other than an appropriation bill, reduce the
level of total revenues set forth in the applicable
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year or
for the total of that first fiscal year and the ensuing
fiscal years in an amount equal to the net reduction in
mandatory authority (either under current law or proposed by
a bill or joint resolution under consideration) provided by
each amendment adopted by the House to the bill or joint
resolution. Such adjustment shall be in addition to the
adjustments described in subsection (b).
(2)(A) The provision specified in paragraph (1) is as
follows: ``The amount of mandatory budget authority reduced
by this amendment may be used to offset a decrease in
revenues.''
(B) All points of order are waived against an amendment
including the text specified in subparagraph (A) provided the
amendment is otherwise in order.
(d) As used in this rule, the term--
(1) ``appropriation bill'' means any general or special
appropriation bill, and any bill or joint resolution making
supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations
through the end of fiscal year 2008 or any subsequent fiscal
year, as the case may be.
(2) ``mandatory budget authority'' means any entitlement
authority as defined by, and interpreted for purposes of, the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

[[Page 9739]]

(e) During the consideration of any bill or joint
resolution, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall
maintain a running tally, which shall be available to all
Members, of the amendments adopted reflecting increases and
decreases of budget authority in the bill or joint
resolution.

SEC. 309. BUDGET DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNTS.

(a)(1) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall
maintain an account to be known as the ``Budget Protection
Discretionary Account'';. The Account shall be divided into
entries corresponding to the allocation to the Committee on
Appropriations, and the committee's suballocations, under
section 302(a) and 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
(2) Each entry shall consist only of amounts credited to it
under subsection (b). No entry of a negative amount shall be
made.
(b)(1) Upon the engrossment of a House appropriations bill,
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall--
(A) credit the applicable entries of the Budget Protection
Discretionary Account by the amounts specified in paragraph
(2).
(B) reduce the applicable 302(a) and (b) allocations by the
amount specified in paragraph (2).
(2) Each amount specified in subparagraph (A) shall be the
net reduction in discretionary budget authority provided by
each amendment adopted by the House to the bill or joint
resolution.
(c)(1) If an amendment includes a provision described in
paragraph (2), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
shall, upon the engrossment of a House appropriations bill,
reduce the level of total revenues set forth in the
applicable concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal
year or for the total of that first fiscal year and the
ensuing fiscal years in an amount equal to the net reduction
in discretionary budget authority provided by each amendment
that was adopted by the House to the bill or joint
resolution. Such adjustment shall be in addition to the
adjustments described in subsection (b).
(2)(A) The provision specified in paragraph (1) is as
follows: ``The amount of discretionary budget authority
reduced by this amendment may be used to offset a decrease in
revenues.''
(B) All points of order are waived against an amendment
including the text specified in subparagraph (A) provided the
amendment is otherwise in order.
(d) As used in this rule, the term ``appropriation bill''
means any general or special appropriation bill, and any bill
or joint resolution making supplemental, deficiency, or
continuing appropriations through the end of fiscal year 2010
or any subsequent fiscal year, as the case may be.
(e) During the consideration of any bill or joint
resolution, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall
maintain a running tally, which shall be available to all
Members, of the amendments adopted reflecting increases and
decreases of budget authority in the bill or joint
resolution.

SEC. 310. TREATMENT OF RESCISSION BILLS IN THE HOUSE.

(a)(1) By February 1, May 1, July 30, and November 11 of
each session, the majority leader shall introduce a
rescission bill. If such bill is not introduced by that date,
then whenever a rescission bill is introduced during a
session on or after that date, a motion to discharge the
committee from its consideration shall be privileged after
the 10-legislative day period beginning on that date for the
first 5 such bills.
(2) It shall not be in order to offer any amendment to a
rescission bill except an amendment that increases the amount
of budget authority that such bill rescinds.
(b) Whenever a rescission bill passes the House, the
Committee on the Budget shall immediately reduce the
applicable allocations under section 302(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by the total amount of
reductions in budget authority and in outlays resulting from
such rescission bill.
(c)(1) It shall not be in order to consider any rescission
bill, or conference report thereon or amendment thereto,
unless--
(A) in the case of such bill or conference report thereon,
it is made available to Members and the general public on the
Internet for at least 48 hours before its consideration; or
(B)(i) in the case of an amendment to such rescission bill
made in order by a rule, it is made available to Members and
the general public on the Internet within one hour after the
rule is filed; or
(ii) in the case of an amendment under an open rule, it is
made available to Members and the general public on the
Internet immediately after being offered; in a format that is
searchable and sortable.
(2) No amendment to an amendment to a rescission bill shall
be in order unless germane to the amendment to which it is
offered.
(d) As used in this section, the term ``rescission bill''
means a bill or joint resolution which only rescinds, in
whole or in part, budget authority and which includes only
titles corresponding to the most recently enacted
appropriation bills that continue to include unobligated
balances.

TITLE IV--JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON EARMARK REFORM

SEC. 401. JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON EARMARK REFORM.

(a) Establishment and Composition.--There is hereby
established a Joint Select Committee on Earmark Reform. The
joint select committee shall be composed of 16 members as
follows:
(1) 8 Members of the House of Representatives, 4 appointed
from the majority party by the Speaker of the House, and 4
from the minority party to be appointed by the minority
leader; and
(2) 8 Members of the Senate, 4 appointed from the majority
party by the majority leader of the Senate, and 4 from the
minority party to be appointed by the minority leader.
A vacancy in the joint select committee shall not affect the
power of the remaining members to execute the functions of
the joint select committee, and shall be filled in the same
manner as the original selection.
(b) Study and Report.--
(1) Study.--The joint select committee shall make a full
study of the practices of the House, Senate, and Executive
Branch regarding earmarks in authorizing, appropriation, tax,
and tariff measures. As part of the study, the joint select
committee shall consider the efficacy of--
(A) the disclosure requirements of clause 9 of rule XXI and
clause 17 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, House Resolution 491, and rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, and the definitions contained
therein;
(B) requiring full transparency in the process, with
earmarks listed in bills at the outset of the legislative
process and continuing throughout consideration;
(C) requiring that earmarks not be placed in any bill after
initial committee consideration;
(D) requiring that Members be permitted to offer amendments
to remove earmarks at subcommittee, full committee, floor
consideration, and during conference committee meetings;
(E) requiring that bill sponsors and majority and minority
managers certify the validity of earmarks contained in their
bills;
(F) recommending changes to earmark requests made by the
Executive Branch through the annual budget submitted to
Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States
Code;
(G) requiring that House and Senate amendments meet earmark
disclosure requirements, including amendments adopted
pursuant to a special order of business;
(H) establishing new categories for earmarks, including--
(i) projects with National scope;
(ii) military projects; and
(iii) local or provincial projects, including the level of
matching funds required for such project.
(2) Report.--
(A) The joint select committee shall submit to the House
and the Senate a report of its findings and recommendations
not later than 6 months after adoption of this concurrent
resolution.
(B) No recommendation shall be made by the joint select
committee except upon the majority vote of the members from
each House, respectively.
(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution,
any recommendation with respect to the rules and procedures
of one House that only affects matters related solely to that
House may only be made and voted on by members of the joint
select committee from that House and, upon its adoption by a
majority of such members, shall be considered to have been
adopted by the full committee as a recommendation of the
joint select committee.
In conducting the study under paragraph (1), the joint select
committee shall hold not fewer than 5 public hearings.
(c) Resources and Dissolution.--
(1) The joint select committee may utilize the resources of
the House and Senate.
(2) The joint select committee shall cease to exist 30 days
after the submission of the report described in subsection
(a)(2).
(d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``earmark'' shall include congressional earmarks,
congressionally directed spending items, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as those terms are used
in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate. Nothing in this subsection shall confine the study of
the joint select committee or otherwise limit its
recommendations.

SEC. 402. MORATORIUM ON CONSIDERATION OF EARMARKS.

(a) In the House.--It shall not be in order to consider a
bill, joint resolution, or conference report containing a
congressional earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff
benefit (as such terms are used in clause 9 of rule XXI of
the Rules of the House of Representatives) until the filing
of the report required under section 401.
(b) In the Senate.--[To be supplied.]

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and a Member opposed
each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition and ask unanimous
consent

[[Page 9740]]

that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) control the remainder
of my time.
The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
South Carolina?
There was no objection.
The CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the chair of
the Republican Study Committee, our colleague from the State of
Georgia, Congressman Price.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, we all know that we cannot
continue to burn through the future of our kids and grandkids with
oversized Federal spending. Our Republican Study Committee budget takes
a bold but responsible approach to getting our fiscal house in order,
achieving balance by the year 2019. Yes, Madam Chair, achieving
balance, as you see from this chart right here.
Our budget preserves the tax relief adopted earlier in this decade,
it encourages small businesses to create jobs, and it protects families
from any tax increase.
Now, how do we get to balance? Our budget ends, ends the misguided
spending bills and bailouts of recent years. Our budget includes a 1
percent annual reduction to all nondefense discretionary spending.
Defense is fully funded. We simply require each Department to find and
eliminate 1 percent of wasteful spending under their jurisdiction each
year, one penny out of every dollar. Is that too much, Madam Chair?
The key to fiscal sustainability lies in reforming entitlements,
particularly Medicare, and our Republican Study Committee budget says
we must address our entitlement of crisis boldly and today.
Our RSC budget responsibly slows the growth of Medicare to the rate
used during the Contract with America. A successful result was a
balanced budget. Our budget responsibly says that we cannot just kick
this can down the road any further.
In fact, in an op-ed this morning in the Wall Street Journal,
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer writes, ``The single most important thing
we can do to get our budget under control is to deal with the costs of
our entitlement programs. We simply must act in a bipartisan way to
choose and implement such reforms.'' Absolutely, Mr. Leader. But,
unfortunately, their budget and the Democrat's budget ignores a $34
trillion unfunded liability.
Our RSC budget says we will get our entitlements under control, and
we will do it today. We recognize the responsibility we have to come
together in a bipartisan way to find solutions that preserve Medicare
without bankrupting our Nation.
Budgets are priorities, Madam Chair. And the priority of our budget
is a responsible, stable, and commonsense approach to spending that
saves our children's and our grandchildren's future. It is not an easy
task, but governing is about making tough choices, and we need to do it
today.
I urge my colleagues to stand up for taxpayers, to stand up for
market principles, to stand up for the solvency of our Nation and
support this responsible, stable, commonsense budget.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.
Today, you are going to have an opportunity to listen to debate from
our friends on the other side of the aisle on an alternative that seems
too good to be true, and in fact it is, because they are proposing
today a budget alternative that they never imposed when they had
control of all the levers of power: Additional tax cuts that are
outmoded and discredited, and we can't afford; and, most important,
cutting aid to Americans most in need, students, the elderly, the sick,
disabled, assaulting our environment, the elements that are so
important as we are fighting, with our new President, to try and get
the economy back on track and moving forward.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr.
Hodes).
Mr. HODES. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in opposition to the Republican budget because, simply put,
their plan represents more of the same failed policies that caused our
economic collapse. Their plan is designed to move us backwards.
I support our budget because it will move our country forward. Our
plan is honest because it gives the American people a true picture of
what we are facing. It is visionary because it invests in health care,
energy, and education. And, it is fair because it gives middle-class
families real tax relief. It is fiscally responsible because it cuts
the deficit in half by 2013.
Our economic plan provides for the overhaul of our health care
system, because we can't afford half-hearted reform. Our plan invests
in renewable energy to make us energy independent, and creates green
jobs to power America for the 21st century.
Our plan invests in educating our citizens, and building a 21st
century workforce that can beat the global competition. Our plan will
cut the deficit in half by 2013, and provides the largest tax cut for
middle-class Americans in history. It is the economic plan to help
families who have lost their jobs, who are worried about paying their
bills, concerned about how they will afford their children's education
and pay for health insurance. Our economic plan will move our economy
forward for the millions of working families who are struggling in this
economy.
I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican alternative and support
our plan to invest in America's future.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the Chair. Before yielding to our
colleague from Tennessee, I would say this. Our budget grows every
year. It just doesn't grow at a pace that is going to saddle future
generations of Americans with a debt they can't pay back. And that is
why it is a responsible budget.
I yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee, a champion of conservative
principles, Mrs. Blackburn, for 2 minutes.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his
great work on our RSC budget, because it is a responsible approach. It
is good common sense. It is built on stability. And that is what the
American people want to see right now.
I am also so pleased that we continue the tax reductions that were
passed in 2001 and 2003. One of the things we are hearing from so many
of our small business constituents is that they want to be sure that
the death tax does not come back in 2010. Of course, we know the
Democrat budget does that. And it is so interesting; our budget does
something that is important: It leaves money with the taxpayer, leaves
it in their pocket.
And, Madam Chair, I have heard comments from this floor about failed
policies and tax codes being too convoluted. But I will tell you,
leaving money in the taxpayers' pockets is neither a failed tax policy
nor a convoluted tax policy. It is what ought to be done. They have
earned that money. They deserve to keep it.
The fact is that our budget would balance, it would come into balance
without a tax increase. Without pulling more money out of the
taxpayers' pocket, it would come into balance by 2019.
That is something that is important for our children, our
grandchildren, and for future generations, because we know you get
there by making a reduction in discretionary nondefense, nonveteran
spending. That 1 percent across-the-board reduction is legislation I
have offered every year that I have been in Congress, and I am so
pleased it is included in this budget, as it was in 2006 in the Deficit
Reduction Act.
I commend my colleagues for their good work on this. This is a
responsible, stable, commonsense approach to our Nation's fiscal
situation. I encourage an ``aye'' vote for the RSC budget.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen, a member of the Ways and
Means Committee and a distinguished member of our leadership.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague.
This budget is a carbon copy of the failed policies we have seen over
the

[[Page 9741]]

last 8 years. It is a budget that looks in the rearview mirror in the
past; it is not a budget that looks to the future. In fact, this
budget, like the next Republican budget we will see, is going to slam a
brake on the economic recovery plan that this Congress passed and is
now working its way through our economy, through all the communities in
this country.
While that economic recovery plan is putting shovels in the ground
and putting people back to work, this budget puts up a big stop sign
and says, we are not going to provide any funds after the first year.
We are going to take those shovels away. We are going to take those
jobs back.
I think anybody who thinks that the economic recovery plan should be
stopped after only 1 year does not have a clear understanding of the
economic pain that is being experienced throughout this country.
On health care, President Obama has said that we need to reform our
health care system to provide universal coverage, quality care, and
reduced health care costs. This approach takes a meat ax to the
Medicare program, cutting hundreds of billions of dollars in an
automatic way. It doesn't tell us how to do it, it just says you have
got to find a way to do it, cut hundreds of billions of dollars. If you
are going to do that, tell us what your plan is so people know how it
is going to affect them.

{time} 1500

The Republican plan goes back to the same old tax cutting for the
wealthiest Americans, whereas the Democratic plan provides tax cuts of
$1.5 trillion for working Americans, not just the wealthiest. We invest
in clean energy. They, again, give big tax breaks to the oil companies
when we need to be diversifying our sources of energy.
We have seen this plan before. It is the plan that has been given to
us for the last 8 years. This is the Bush administration program all
over again. I think the American people have learned that those
policies that are reflected in this budget helped get us into this fix
that we are in today. Let's not look to the past. Let's move to the
future. Let's adopt the Spratt budget.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Chair, before I yield to my colleague from
Louisiana, I yield myself 30 seconds just to respond briefly.
We do put up a stop sign. We put up a stop sign to debt. Under the
Obama Democratic budget plan, $23 trillion in national debt would be
brought to the citizens of this country. Now think about what it takes
to repay that. You would have to first get to balance, then you would
have to run a $1 trillion surplus for 23 years just to pay that debt
off. So we do put up a stop sign. It is a stop sign to that kind of
debt.
And with that, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Louisiana
(Mr. Scalise).
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for
yielding and especially for his leadership on bringing here to the
floor a vote on a balanced budget. If you look, there is a clear
contrast right now between the budget that President Obama presented
and this budget that we are going to get to vote on.
If you look at the deficits over the last few years, represented by
the blue figures, and in the current budget and the continuation of
these runaway deficit spending budgets over the next few years, many of
my friends on the other side have criticized this spending, these
deficits, right here. Of course, many of them voted for these budgets
that increased these deficits. I didn't vote for any of these budgets.
And I'm tired of the runaway spending. But those same people who
criticized these deficits are voting for this level of spending, these
deficits, $1.9 trillion this year, deficits going out as far as the eye
can see. In fact, if you look at the ultimate result of that runaway
deficit spending, President Obama, in his first 5\1/2\ years, will
double the national debt.
We have got to get control of runaway spending and these out-of-
control debts that we are racking up for our children and grandchildren
to pay off. And if you are wondering what the American people are
telling us, do they want this runaway spending? No. All across the
country, you are having these uprisings, taxpayer tea parties. Citizens
out there are showing up in thousands at a time, two in my district on
April 15, bringing tea bags saying, ``Enough is enough. Stop this
runaway spending.''
We finally have a balanced budget that we will get to vote on. And
for those people, and I know I reach out to my Blue Dog friends on the
other side, anybody who says they are fiscally responsible has to vote
for a balanced budget, because you cannot vote for the President's
budget for this level of runaway spending and call yourself ``fiscally
conservative.'' You just can't do it. Don't go back home and say you're
fiscally conservative and come up here in Washington and spend
trillions of dollars of our children's and grandchildren's money. This
is money we don't have.
We have got to stop this madness. People across the country are
saying just that. Four thousand people are showing up in Cincinnati,
Ohio, or Orlando and saying ``stop.'' We have an alternative. I would
urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to vote for a balanced
budget.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. It is interesting that my friend from Louisiana
didn't vote for those budget deficits in the past because he wasn't in
Congress. But if he had been here and joined with the Republican
majority, he would have voted for them. That is what got us into this
fix.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), a new
Member who wasn't a part of this in the past, but is working on
solutions in the future.
Mr. SCALISE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I'm happy to yield on your time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SCALISE. Then I would ask a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair.
The CHAIR. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. SCALISE. The gentleman from Washington, rather than directing his
question to the Chair, made a comment about me saying I would have
voted for a bill that I would not have voted for. I would just ask the
Chair, isn't it parliamentary procedure to direct questions or comments
about people to the Chair, not to individual Members, especially when
what they are saying is not accurate about that Member?
The CHAIR. All comments must be directed to the Chair.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I will take 15 seconds, if I may, before recognizing
the gentleman from New York.
What I said was the gentleman didn't vote for it because he wasn't
here. But if he was and voted with the majority of Republicans, he
would have been part of that problem.
I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I rise today to express my support for a
budget that will help improve our economy and institute a plan to
reduce the deficit in the long term. My hope is that this House will
pass a budget that provides for a reduction of the deficit of over 50
percent by the year 2013 by cutting ineffective programs and reforming
government contracting and defense purchasing.
In addition, we need a budget that finally addresses health care
reform, which will reduce the single largest portion of our Federal
budget. In addition, critical reforms and investments in energy will
increase our energy independence, which will protect our economy and
improve our national security.
We must not forget how we got here. It was during the prior
administration, the Bush administration, and the Republicans in control
of Congress that squandered a record surplus inherited by this House
through irresponsible spending and tax cuts. Those solutions were more
of the same. But the American people are demanding a new direction, and
this budget must represent the reforms that we need. America spoke
clearly this past November with a resounding voice. They called for
action. They called for a change in the course of the direction of this
country. They called for growing our economy. They called for
addressing the budget deficit. They called for creating jobs.

[[Page 9742]]

This budget that we can vote on, presented by the President, will
allow us to address those four major points. I stand in defense of that
budget and ask that this House approve that given budget that will be
before us later today.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Chair, I would yield 2 minutes to our good
friend from Georgia, Congressman Kingston.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
And I just wanted to remind my friends, because there seems to be a
historical glitch in their brains, but the Democrats took over in
October of 2006. For you guys to keep reaching back and insisting all
of our problems belong to George Bush is ridiculous. Speaker Pelosi was
sworn in in January 2007. Do you have a problem with the spending up
here? Talk to Speaker Pelosi. Your budget spends too much, taxes too
much and borrows too much. Think about the borrowing for a minute.
Here, the RSC budget, which I'm glad to support, moves us towards a
surplus. Instead, you take the Pelosi debt of $11 trillion and you
double it in 5 years and triple it in 10 years. Great work.
On tax relief, the Pelosi Democrats call for a $1.3 trillion tax
increase and one that is going to take away from the working people,
whereas the RSC budget calls for $1.2 trillion in tax relief. And I
know the Democrat Party has moved away from people who have a lot of
achievements. In fact, there seems to be some problem that if you have
achieved something, then you're guilty and we need to tax you more. But
the RSC budget works for tax fairness.
And I think it is important, particularly for small businesses and
corporations. We go out there, and I know we have got our first
European President right now going over there to the EU, but those
folks, those corporations pay 25 percent in taxes. Globally, we have
got to compete against them, where our corporations pay 35 percent in
taxes. We need tax fairness. The RSC budget will create 2 to 3 million
jobs. And that is what this is about.
In terms of reform, the Pelosi Democrats seem to be determined to put
their head in the sand and ignore reforms that are needed for Social
Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Now they have taken away from the
seniors Medicare Advantage. I'm not sure why they think that is pro-
senior. All the seniors I have talked to are very disturbed that the
Democrats would take that away from them. But the reality is what we
want to do is preserve----
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. KINGSTON. What we want to do is preserve the doctor-patient
relationship. It appears that the Pelosi Democrats want to have a
government-hospital relationship. And speaking for me, I don't like
bureaucrats running health care.
There are some tough decisions that are going to be made. I was a
Member of Congress when President Clinton started AmeriCorps. He said
it was going to be a 5-year program. Now we just renewed it at $5
billion. And it is almost two decades later. We need to come together
and make some tough choices.
The Republicans have offered several alternatives. We are ready to
work with you. If you could back off some of your taxing, some of your
spending and some of your borrowing, I think we could come out of here
with a good, pro-job budget that turns the economy around. And I look
forward to working with you on that.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield myself 15 seconds just to point out to my
good friend from Georgia that he confuses the marginal rate with the
rate that corporations actually pay. Thirty-five percent is the
marginal rate. If he looks at how much American corporations actually
pay, because almost nobody pays the marginal rate because of the
loopholes, it is down to about 5 percent. It's the second lowest of the
top 20 economies.
I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from the real State of
Washington, not Oregon, and a member of the Budget Committee, Mr.
Larsen.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Madam Chair, perhaps I can rise today and
try to lower the temperature a little bit as I rise to oppose the
substitute budget before us and express my strong support for the
Budget Committee resolution that is on the floor today a little later.
It is because our budget puts President Obama's plan to invest in our
Nation's priorities into action, our budget is part of a comprehensive
approach to create jobs and to build a foundation for our country's
long-term economic strength. Congress and this administration have
already taken action to save or create 3.5 million jobs, to keep
families in their homes and to stabilize our financial markets. The
economy is clearly job number one for all of us here. President Obama
inherited an economic mess from the last administration, including
record deficits and soaring unemployment. It is going to take some
time, some hard work, some very difficult choices for us to get past
this economic and this fiscal crisis and to move our country in a new
direction.
I hosted some town talks with about 200 of my constituents this past
weekend in Marysville and Lake Stevens. And let me tell you, they are
worried. They are worried about the economy. They are ready for a new
direction. They are looking for answers from this Congress and from the
President. President Obama and Chairman Spratt have proposed a budget
resolution that moves our country in the right direction by investing
in clean energy, in education and affordable health care for families
and businesses. This budget also invests in our Nation's national
security, provides a nearly 4 percent increase in funding for the
Department of Defense to keep our country safe and to support our
military folks and their families. And for the first time, the
President's budget in this resolution includes an honest and
transparent accounting of the cost of sustaining our wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. It creates jobs that target investments. It reforms health
care, energy and education.
The substitute before us today does the opposite, cutting those
investments that we need to strengthen our economy for the long term.
Instead of moving us in a new direction that we need, this substitute
unfortunately relies on the failed approaches of the past.
So I'm urging my colleagues to oppose the substitute and support the
budget resolution that we are going to see later on the floor today.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to
former RSC chair and current conference chair, the gentleman from
Indiana.
Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I commend the gentleman from Ohio for his work on the Republican
Study Committee Budget Alternative, and I especially commend the
chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the gentleman from Georgia,
Tom Price, for his extraordinary and visionary leadership.
The budget brought to the majority today, as has been said again and
again, spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much, and the
American people know it. The Democrat budget will double the national
debt in 5 years. It will triple it in 10. The 2010 spending $3
trillion, 25 percent of gross domestic product, more than $1 trillion
in tax increases on virtually every American, a 2010 deficit of $1
trillion and nearly $1 trillion deficits every year for the next 10
years.
The hard truth is the Democrat majority has brought to this floor the
most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history. And the
American people know we can do better. They are doing better. And every
family farm or small business across this country, around every kitchen
table, Americans are making tough choices. They are sitting down as
families and in enterprises, deciding what they can put off for
tomorrow, what they don't have to spend today, finding ways maybe for a
job in town for a little more income. Everywhere in America, the
American

[[Page 9743]]

people are meeting these challenging economic times with frugality,
with sacrifice, and with courage, everywhere but in Washington, D.C.

{time} 1515

The American people long for men and women in this Congress to show
the same character, to make the same tough choices. And I'm proud to
stand with the Republican Study Committee and this budget alternative
that answers that call.
A balanced budget; under the RSC alternative the budget outlook
improves every single year, and achieves a surplus budget in 2019, $1.2
trillion of tax relief over the next 5 years for virtually every
American, fully funding defense spending, and provides zero growth
baseline for non-defense spending, and repeals the obscene spending
spree of stimulus bills and omnibus bills that has overtaken our
country.
No changes in Social Security, increases in Medicare, and provides
increases equivalent to inflation in Medicaid. And a raft of reforms of
unnecessary spending, ending the earmarking culture on Capitol Hill.
After years of runaway spending, the American people long for courage
and sacrifice on the floor of this Congress. And my Republican
colleagues have brought together an alternative that answers that call.
It's time that we embrace fiscal discipline and reform, lower taxes
and growth. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the
Republican Study Committee budget alternative.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri).
Mr. BOCCIERI. My friends here and colleagues here today, there's a
rap song that goes ``Don't Believe the Hype.''
Let me give you the rap sheet on the hype of the proposal that we're
about to discuss here today. It's about giving to the wealthiest among
us, giving back to the corporate influences that have led us to the job
loss that we have found, to the market principles that have led us to
near and utter collapse of our housing industry, and cuts in vital
programs that invest in our country, our people, and in America.
Now, I know there are some on the other side who believe the
principles of Rush Limbaugh, that they want to see our President fail.
And by asking our President to fail, they are asking America to fail.
And this budget right here that we are talking about, that President
Obama has introduced, invests in our people, invests in our programs,
and invests in our country.
You know, in 2004, our Secretary of Health and Human Services, under
the Bush administration, Tommy Thompson, flew to Iraq to make sure that
every man, woman and child in Iraq had universal health care coverage.
Billions of dollars were spent. Yet, my colleagues on the other side
didn't bat an eye when those proposals were before us; didn't bat an
eye to invest in other countries. But now we have an opportunity to
invest in America. A $1.5 trillion tax cut to middle-class families.
We're going to cut the deficit in half by 2013.
And finally, finally, my colleagues, we're going to have honest
budgeting accounting principles for America and our people.
The question before us today is, will we act or will we stall? Will
we invest, or will we continue to divest in America? Will we believe in
our country, and will we believe in our people? That's what this budget
debate is about. That's what these investments are about, and that's
why it's so important that we reject this notion and embrace our ideas
of success.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona, a friend and colleague, Congressman Flake.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chair, I think we owe our constituents a little honesty here.
We know that we can't grow an economy when we're dragging around debt
that equals about 80 percent of GDP. Yet that's what is contemplated in
the Democrats' budget.
We know that future generations will be taxed far in excess of their
ability to sustain today's level of spending, yet that is what we are
going to impose on future generations.
Now, part of the reason we're in such dire financial straits today is
because we had a real estate bubble that burst. More money was invested
in the real estate sector than the market could ultimately sustain.
But the budget being proposed today funds another bubble in another
sector of the economy, the government sector. Under this budget, more
money is being spent by government than the market can ultimately
sustain. Now, you can call it government spending. You can call it
critical investment. You can call it whatever you want. But it doesn't
change the fact that the market simply can't sustain this level of
spending.
Madam Chair, we can't suspend the laws of economics. We're trying
awful hard here, but we can't. Yet that's what this budget pretends we
can do.
We need to pass a budget that recognizes that our job here is to
allow the private sector to pull us out of this recession. We should
enact a budget that doesn't serve political ends, but rather, imposes a
tax and regulatory environment that allows the private sector to
allocate capital in a way that rewards hard work and ingenuity. That's
what the RSC budget does. It recognizes who will eventually pull us out
of this recession, the private sector, not the government sector.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining
for both sides.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Ohio has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you.
I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. I rise in opposition to the amendment. And I must say to
my friends on the other side of the aisle, I think they've lost the
moral right to lecture us about fiscal responsibility, given their
record over the past 8 years.
I will support the overall budget, although I want to state that I
have a couple of reservations, which I'm assured will be worked out.
The cuts in Function 150 in foreign assistance need to be restored. And
I believe very strongly that the $250,000 threshold that the budget
assumes in terms of taxing people above that, that needs to be raised
because in high-cost-of-living States like mine in New York, it is not
fair to have it at that level. The level needs to be higher.
I like this budget. It talks about the President's vision and
America's vision, not only in terms of fixing our economy, but in terms
of education, health care, and energy. We should support the overall
budget and reject this amendment.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Chair, I would be pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy.
Mr. CASSIDY. Madam Chair, I speak against the Democrats' budget and
for the alternative. Justice John Marshall said that the power to tax
is the power to destroy. Now, that power shouldn't be used unless we
understand the consequences.
This Democrats' budget taxes without regard to consequences. And I
know that because it includes over $30 billion in tax increases on
America's energy economy.
Now, what are these consequences? The energy industry, which employs
about 320,000 people in Louisiana, will not hire new workers and may
have to lay some off. And, because we disincentivized domestic
production, America will buy more foreign oil, as opposed to using our
own oil, which is produced by American workers.
I offered an amendment yesterday to establish a point of order
against tax legislation that would either destroy U.S. energy jobs or
increase our dependence on foreign oil, and I was defeated on a
straight party-line vote.
The only recourse to save these jobs, which are not for CEOs, but are
for people who work on rigs, they're welders, they are pipeline
pipefitters. The only way to save these jobs and defend

[[Page 9744]]

America's energy security is to vote against this Democrats budget.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of this budget. I didn't do it without
some reservation, because I've been spending a lot of time listening to
the needs of this country as it juxtaposes itself in the world, in
Afghanistan and in Iraq, certainly in South America where I served as a
Peace Corps volunteer. And what I think is very dangerous about the
thinking of cutting the foreign aid, the 150 account, is that is all
the humanitarian aid. If the combatant commanders tell us that you
cannot win this war on military terms, that you're going to have to use
civilian power, that's what we call soft power, smart power, then
that's the account that invests in it, the account that invests in
foreign aid and extended IMET programs to bring foreign officers to
train in the United States, to send Peace Corps volunteers around the
world. And I'm a strong supporter of what has been promised to be
working that out. And I think that it's a bold budget for a great new
President of the United States, and I look forward to supporting it.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The
gentleman from Oregon has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Chair, I think we'll reserve.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I will yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I am committed to what the President is
committed to. All of us who believe that there needs to be a new day in
America are committed to a new era of responsibility renewing America's
promise.
And my good friends on the other side of the aisle are in direct
contrast to that because if we pass this budget, the Republican Study
Group, study caucus, we will see a continuation of crumbling bridges,
workers and veterans waiting months or years for benefits, the very
veterans, 167,000 plus, that are returning back from the Iraq war, many
who will be returning back from Afghanistan, the very families that we
see in our community, we will see them missing out on the necessary
resources to provide a new era of responsibility.
One of the important aspects of this legislation, our budget, focuses
on protecting families.
Let me share one vision; protect families' financial health. Our
budget, the President's budget, has a plan that must reduce the growing
premiums and other costs American citizens and businesses pay for
health care. People must be protected from bankruptcy due to
catastrophic illness. We have a placeholder, a place to address the
question of reforming our health care. We have a provision or a concept
to make health care coverage affordable. The plan must reduce high
administrative costs, unnecessary tests and services, waste and other
inefficiencies.
In the President's budget he believes in renewing America. The budget
that we have on the floor now believes in undermining the health care
safety net. It does not have the details that are necessary. It cuts
key services. It certainly doesn't provide a bridge, an ongoing bridge
into the 21st century.
My friends, we need to move forward with the President's vision, and
we need to oppose the RSC budget.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from Ohio for crafting a reasonable
budget that brings us to balance. And I'm proud to stand on the House
Floor today and support the Republican Study Committee alternative
budget, which would bring our Federal budget to balance within the
budget window.
The Obama budget, the Obama-Pelosi budget offered here on this House
floor today, adds massive amounts to our Federal debt and does not come
to balance. Even over 75 years they're running massive deficits that
further add to our national debt and pass those debts on to the next
generation. I think that's irresponsible.
The Republican Study Committee budget, as I said, brings us to
balance. It also funds necessary and important government functions
like veterans' health care. It has no cuts to veterans' health care.
But it also maintains our commitment to seniors and Social Security. It
maintains our commitment to Medicare and Medicaid, but makes those
programs sustainable over the next generation and generations to come
and, at the same time, reduces our deficit and brings us to balance.
This is a strong budget. It funds veterans' health care, as I said,
and it also funds our necessary defense of this great country and
maintains a strong posture internationally as well.
This is a good budget that I'm proud to support. As a Member of
Congress, and as a policy maker, I think it's important that we put
forward realistic ideas. We cannot simply say no to the massive
spending of the Obama-Pelosi budget. But we have to say yes to
something. And this is a budget that we can say yes to because it
brings us to balance. It's good for, not just the current generation,
but puts us on the right footing for economic growth, for small
business growth and for our families as well.
I think it's very important that we support a balanced budget, and
that's why I'm here today to support this budget, and I'm proud to vote
``yes.''

{time} 1530

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I will yield myself the remainder of the
time.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 4\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you.
It is interesting listening to my other friends because, when they
had their hands on the levers of power--of the Presidency and of
Congress--they engineered the massive debt that the President inherited
with a combination of tax cuts for people who needed it the least and
with a rate of spending increase that was greater than Lyndon Johnson's
in the Great Society. Not only was it greater than Bill Clinton's
spending, but it was greater than Lyndon Johnson's in the Great
Society.
Now, all of a sudden, when they're out of power, they're suggesting
that they're going to do something that they never did when they had
control. They're proposing a massive, across-the-board cut of about
$1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Now, this is serious money,
dealing with serious programs that the American people count on, and
they count on them today more than ever before: Pell Grants, food
stamps, nutrition activities, health care for low-income people,
Medicare.
Madam Chair, the range of activities that would be subjected to the
budget knife--again, that they never did when they were in control but
that they propose to do now--would have the impact of scaling down our
growth and our activities, and it would put the burden on those who can
least afford it.
When it comes to taxes, well, they're back to the same old story.
They want to make permanent tax cuts that we found out were not
affordable in the form that they passed them, and worse, they would
increase taxes on about a quarter of the Americans who are lower income
Americans.
Madam Chair, in the Democratic budget, there are no tax increases
this year. We understand that it's not appropriate to raise taxes.
Mr. McHENRY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I will yield on your time.
Mr. McHENRY. Well, I have no more time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I will yield on your time.
Mr. McHENRY. The tax increase yesterday was in place on tobacco,
which the gentleman supported.
The CHAIR. The gentlemen will suspend.
The gentleman from Oregon has the time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. In this budget that we are going to be offering up,
there are no tax increases. The House of Representatives, in its
wisdom, did recently approve a tobacco tax increase that provides
health care for 4 million American children, something that the

[[Page 9745]]

last Congress passed, and there were bipartisan votes who supported
that because that's good for Americans.
What we are seeing in paychecks this month across America is that 95
percent of the people are witnessing the promise of a reduction in
taxes being delivered by President Obama and this Congress. This is for
95 percent of the American people.
I find it interesting the rhetoric about bureaucrats running health
care. In fact, my friend from North Carolina just pointed out that they
protect the bureaucrats running health care for veterans. They protect
the veterans with the program.
Mr. McHENRY. Will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman yield since
he used my name?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I will yield on your time only. I have very few
minutes left.
Mr. McHENRY. You don't control the time. Therefore, you can't yield
it.
The CHAIR. The gentlemen will suspend.
The gentleman from Oregon does control the time in opposition, and
the gentleman from North Carolina has already been told at least once
that he is not going to be yielded to.
Mr. McHENRY. Thank you.
The CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. McHENRY. Thank you.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, health care is one of these critical
areas. There is nothing in the Democratic budget that suggests we're
going to turn over to some shadowy, bureaucratic influence a
bureaucratic mechanism that's going to control Americans' health care.
What President Obama has suggested and what we've been discussing in
our Ways and Means Committee, for instance, is having an opportunity
for more choices for Americans, including some that are subsidized by
the Federal Government to help fill some of these gaps.
It's interesting that, on one hand, they'll talk about something that
isn't true--the shadowy bureaucratic control of health care--while they
kind of conveniently forget that some of the best health care in
America is provided by government, itself, by government bureaucrats,
if you will, in the Veterans Administration. It's a little embarrassing
to watch this schizophrenia that our friends are engaged in.
One of the most insidious portions of both of these budgets is to be
found in taking back the recovery funds that States across America are
counting on for economic recovery. I suggest that's a mistake as well
and another reason to reject the Republican alternative.
The CHAIR. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Before yielding the balance of our time, let me just thank our
chairman of the RSC for his leadership on this particular issue. Also,
our staff did tremendous work in helping us put this budget together
that we think is responsible, stable and represents common sense.
With that, I would yield to our former chairman, the gentleman from
Arizona, Congressman Shadegg.
Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I compliment the
Republican Study Committee budget.
Madam Chair, it has been, indeed, the most conservative and the
lowest spending budget ever presented on this floor, year after year,
for every year that I have been here.
I want to address one of the comments made on the other side. The
other side has said over and over again there isn't a tax increase.
Well, you can use those words carefully, but you have to look at the
reality of the budget.
In point of fact, there is, roughly, $682 billion in government
revenue to be derived from the imposition of a cap-and-trade program.
That revenue has to come from somewhere. It will come from the American
people. Indeed, it probably isn't a tax increase because it will come
from every single American, including those who currently don't pay
taxes. If that's not a burden on this economy at the wrong time, I
don't know what is.
In point of fact, this budget contains the largest deficit, $1.8
trillion in 2009, four times larger than the largest previous record of
$407 billion. It contains the largest deficit as a percentage of the
gross domestic product since World War II, and it will result in the
largest national debt, $12.7 trillion in 2009, greater than the sum of
all debt from 1789 to today.
Our grandparents and parents have been recognized as the greatest
generation. They conquered fascism. They saved freedom. They put
America on a course to prosperity. With this budget, we are progressing
rapidly toward what will be labeled, I fear, the ``reckless
generation.'' We are shirking our responsibility to our children and to
our grandchildren. It will double the national debt in 5 years, and it
will triple it in 10.
Do we want to be remembered as that ``reckless generation''? Every
American balances their budget. We must balance the Nation's budget.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 111,
noes 322, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 189]

AYES--111

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Cantor
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Culberson
Deal (GA)
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Graves
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Inglis
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Latta
Linder
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Olson
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Rehberg
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roskam
Royce
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Wamp
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--322

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boehner
Bono Mack
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gerlach
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)

[[Page 9746]]

Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Putnam
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--4

Hinojosa
Miller, Gary
Sablan
Westmoreland

{time} 1606

Messrs. MARSHALL, CAPUANO, McDERMOTT, RUSH, Ms. FUDGE, Ms. LORETTA
SANCHEZ of California, Messrs. WILSON of Ohio, LEWIS of California,
TIERNEY, GUTIERREZ, Ms. SPEIER, Messrs. McMAHON, MOLLOHAN, and BUYER
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. ALEXANDER, REHBERG, SENSENBRENNER, ADERHOLT, BOOZMAN, and
LATTA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Lee of California

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
House Report 111-73.
Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I rise to offer that amendment.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 3 in the nature of a substitute printed in
House Report 111-73 offered by Ms. Lee of California:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2010.

The Congress determines and declares that the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, including
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through
2014.
TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2010 through 2014:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2010: $1,716,425,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $1,959,232,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,205,599,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,377,029,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,524,106,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be adjusted are as follows:
Fiscal year 2010: $50,439,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: -$129,999,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: -$154,794,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: -$138,308,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: -$109,552,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2010: $2,928,107,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,880,744,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,920,761,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $3,102,569,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $3,292,316,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2010: $3,015,166,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,999,583,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,951,584,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $3,101,616,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $3,268,044,000,000.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget)
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2010: -$1,298,741,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: -$1,040,351,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: -$745,985,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: -$724,587,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: -$743,938,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
levels of the debt subject to limit are as follows:
Fiscal year 2010: $13,185,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $14,304,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $15,226,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $16,105,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $17,033,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2010: $8,730,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $9,638,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $10,294,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $10,876,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $11,510,000,000.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2010 through 2014 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $562,033,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $606,043,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $570,107,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $587,945,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $579,135,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $576,023,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $589,895,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $584,670,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $603,828,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $595,476,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $47,820,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,646,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $50,146,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,806,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $54,242,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,933,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $59,660,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,437,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $64,888,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $59,864,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $31,339,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,568,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $31,593,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,528,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $33,473,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,570,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $34,519,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,715,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $35,786,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,936,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $5,989,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,332,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $5,789,000,000
(B) Outlays, $11,456,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $5,982,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,561,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $6,348,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,333,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $6,477,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,747,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $38,387,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,987,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $39,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,719,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $39,499,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,403,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $39,598,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,052,000,000.

[[Page 9747]]

Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $40,267,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,240,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $23,990,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,177,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $24,816,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,134,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $21,719,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,637,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $22,572,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,145,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $23,257,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,226,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $61,933,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $86,392,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $26,581,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,393,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $9,761,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,929,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $17,447,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,812,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $11,426,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$2,296,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $92,151,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $98,713,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $90,071,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $97,779,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $91,047,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $97,057,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $91,866,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $97,189,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $92,809,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $97,793,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $19,808,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,589,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $21,732,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,002,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $21,811,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,362,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $21,702,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,737,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $21,770,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,300,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $101,689,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $143,798,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $110,858,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $145,767,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $119,121,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $121,593,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $117,931,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $121,001,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $127,788,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $122,938,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $391,911,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $391,549,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $368,910,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $372,589,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $371,852,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $372,204,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $391,719,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $386,781,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $402,451,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $402,273,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $449,653,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $449,784,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $505,171,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $504,962,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $513,824,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $513,591,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $558,235,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $558,381,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $616,315,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $616,150,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $539,169,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $541,952,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $511,575,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $514,689,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $478,289,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $478,908,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $483,636,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $483,126,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $485,646,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $484,026,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $20,255,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,378,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $23,380,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,513,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $26,478,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,628,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $29,529,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,679,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $32,728,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,728,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $108,365,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $107,110,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $113,842,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $113,461,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $109,202,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $108,706,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $114,303,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $113,682,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $116,521,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $115,987,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $55,857,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $53,911,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $54,892,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,654,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $54,238,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,151,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $54,069,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,097,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $54,747,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,593,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $22,304,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,008,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $22,641,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,446,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $23,062,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,108,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $23,075,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,811,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $23,740,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,952,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $283,806,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $283,806,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $322,481,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $322,481,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $386,228,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $386,228,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $468,617,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $468,617,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $557,618,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $557,618,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $10,422,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,423,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $9,052,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,722,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $6,768,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,268,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $5,793,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,466,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $4,115,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,266,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$68,774,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$68,774,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$71,993,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$71,993,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$74,970,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$74,970,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$77,945,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$77,945,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -$79,861,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$79,861,000,000.
(21) Overseas Deployments and Other Activities (970):
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $130,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $92,774,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.

[[Page 9748]]

(B) Outlays, $76,530,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,694,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,830,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,085,000,000.
TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REPORT TO CONGRESS.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) between 2001 and 2007, GAO provided the Department of
Defense with 2864 recommendations, many related to improving
their business practices and, to date, the Department of
Defense has implemented 1389 recommendations and closed 215
recommendations without implementation; and
(2) the GAO estimates that the 1389 implemented
recommendations have yielded the Department of Defense a
savings of $63.7 billion between fiscal years 2001 and 2007.
(b) Assumption; Report.--
(1) Assumption.--This resolution assumes $300,000,000 to be
used by the Department of Defense to implement the remaining
1260 recommendations of the Government Accountability Office.
(2) Report.--The Secretary of Defense should submit a
report to Congress within 90 days that demonstrates how each
such recommendation will be implemented, and, in the case of
any such recommendation that cannot be implemented, a
detailed reason for such inability to implement such
recommendation.

The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and a Member
opposed each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I yield myself as much time as I
may consume.
As chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and along with my
colleague from Virginia, Congressman Scott, I rise to offer the
Congressional Black Caucus substitute budget amendment.
Madam Chair, a budget is more than a fiscal document. It really is a
moral document. It defines who we are as a Nation. It reflects our
priorities and our values. That's why I'm pleased that the
Congressional Black Caucus' budget priorities are a reflection of our
values and the challenges that we face as a Nation. The theme of the
CBC budget is, ``Building Upon the President's Blueprint for Success.''
President Obama's budget is a welcome shift in priorities away from
the failed policies of the previous administration. By investing in
education, health care, clean energy, transportation, and our veterans,
the CBC budget, Mr. Spratt's budget, the Democratic budget, the
President's budget, are all excellent blueprints to continue with our
economic recovery and to return to fiscal responsibility.
However, the CBC budget actually builds upon these investments by
immediately repealing the 2001 and 2003 Bush-era tax cuts that benefit
the wealthiest Americans and shifts those savings towards education,
health care, job training, international trade, justice,
transportation, and veterans.
The CBC budget assumes that funding for the ballistic missile defense
system will be reduced and reallocated within the national defense
function to increase funding for vital health care research programs
and care for our wounded warriors.
In addition, reallocated funding should also be set aside to allow
the Defense Department to finish implementing the remaining Government
Accountability Office's recommendations to address waste, fraud, and
abuse within the Defense Department. Our CBC budget targets waste,
fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government, starting with, of course,
savings at the Pentagon.
Critical reviews by the GAO have already saved $89 billion--that's
just since 2001--in waste, fraud, and abuse, often simply by improving
the Pentagon's business and accounting systems.
The CBC budget would fully fund the continued work of implementing
all of GAO's recommendations and squeeze these savings from the
Department of Defense without sacrificing any of our military strength
or readiness.
GAO released the report that my language in the Democratic fiscal
year 2009 budget required. The GAO has issued 637 reports to the
Defense Department between 2001 and 2007 that included 2,700 specific
recommendations for the Department of Defense to save our taxpayers
dollars. We have successfully implemented 1,600 of those, saving over
$89 billion, which over the next 7 fiscal years is going to be about
$12.7 billion.
So the Congressional Black Caucus supports our President as he works
to clean up this mess that was left to him. This budget, though,
reflects our historical reputation, our historical work for the last 40
years, and really does reflect the CBC's role as the conscience of the
Congress. This budget builds upon our moral imperative to really ensure
the American dream for all.
Now, Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) be able to control the remainder of the time.
The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Congressional Black Caucus
substitute. The Congressional Black Caucus believes that the historic
investments outlined in the President's budget and the Democratic
budget are excellent blueprints to continue our road towards economic
recovery and return to fiscal responsibility.
The base bill and the CBC alternative adopt the economic theories
which were the basis for the 1993 budget which eliminated the deficit
and produced surpluses sufficient to pay off the national debt held by
the public by last year when we had the surpluses. It produced record
jobs and more than tripled the Dow Jones Industrial Average. And we
reject the economic theory that eliminated the surpluses, replaced them
with record deficits, produced the worst job performance since the
Great Depression, and the Dow lower after 8 years than it started.
The CBC is fully behind the committee budget, as far as it goes.
However, the CBC budget builds upon that budget.
First, the CBC budget immediately repeals the remaining Bush tax cuts
that primarily affect that portion of the family's income that exceeds
$250,000, rather than waiting for these tax cuts to expire at the end
of 2010, as the committee budget does. Over the last 8 years, these tax
cuts have cost the Federal Government trillions of dollars, while the
promised benefits of trickle-down economics never materialized.
The CBC budget also immediately eliminates the phase out and repeal
of what are called PEP and Pease, which deal with itemized deductions
and personal exemptions.

{time} 1615

These important tax provisions were part of the Omnibus
Reconciliation Act of 1990, which was signed into law by the first
President Bush.
Together, repealing these provisions of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax
cuts will have virtually no effect on taxpayers with family incomes
under $250,000, and will yield an estimated $42.2 billion in additional
revenue in fiscal year 2010 alone.
In addition, the CBC budget also creates a Bush debt tax, which adds
approximately one-half of 1 percent surtax on that portion of a
family's income that exceeds $1 million. The CBC proposes to use the
proceeds of this surtax exclusively for deficit reduction. Over a 10-
year period, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this surtax will
raise about $63 billion.
The CBC budget uses the additional revenue to increase our
investments in our priorities for a more prosperous future for every
American. Above the committee bill, the CBC budget provides an
additional $18 billion for health care; $17 billion for education, job
training, and social services; $8 billion for transportation and
infrastructure; an additional $5.5 billion for administration of
justice; $5 billion for international affairs; $4.7 billion for income
security; and the CBC is particularly proud to add $4.5 billion for
veterans' benefits and services--more than enough to fund each of our
VA hospitals by more than $20 billion a year.
The CBC pays for all of these increases and still produces a 5-year

[[Page 9749]]

budget deficit that is $67 billion lower than the base bill and saves
the American people $7 billion in interest on the national debt.
The Congressional Black Caucus wants to reject the reckless budgets
over the last 8 years and return to the fiscal responsibility of the
1990s, while creating jobs and addressing our national priorities.
I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I'd like to yield myself 1 minute.
First and foremost, I want to thank the CBC for putting together a
budget. It's a difficult task. We know how much work it takes. So we
thank them for their efforts. I want to thank them for proposing a
substitute budget that really highlights the dramatic differences
between the two sides--the priority differences.
If you loved the tax increases and the spending binge and the soaring
deficits and the unprecedented debt that the underlying budget brings
you, you will fall in love with this budget as well. This is the
Democratic budget on steroids--even more spending, even more tax
increases, and even more deficits.
As economic conditions continue to deteriorate for 2009, this budget
immediately increases taxes for small businesses and for individuals
that are set to expire in 2011.
Just like the Democrat's budget, this substitute increases taxes by
$1.5 trillion, with a T--make sure we don't get confused here--over the
next 10 years. Just like the Democrat's budget, this substitute budget
increases spending by $18.3 trillion, with a T, over just the next 5
years. And just like the Democrat's budget, this substitution also
increases the national debt to $17 trillion by 2014. Again,
unprecedented levels of spending of taxes.
I urge a defeat of this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlelady from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. First of all, I want to thank the President for his
commitment to transforming our health care system so that everyone has
access to quality health care--and demonstrating that commitment in
this budget.
I then would like to thank Chairwoman Barbara Lee and Congressman
Bobby Scott for adding to and filling out that outline to even better
meet the needs of our communities and all Americans, while remaining
fiscally responsible.
In health care, with the additional $18 billion the CBC budget
includes, we are able to fund a robust Ryan White that ends ADAP
waiting lists; increases funding to the hard-hit South; brings services
to incarcerated and ex-offender populations; and increases funding for
the Minority AIDS Initiative.
An estimated in excess of 83,000 African Americans die from
preventable causes every year. Our budget will raise the National
Center for Minority and Health Disparity Research to an institute and
increase its funding.
Lastly, our budget sets aside funding for the Health Equity and
Accountability Act, which expands needed data collection, provides
quality services for individuals with limited English proficiency;
expands health programs to build a diverse workforce that is needed
today; provides targeted and comprehensive services for diseases
causing the disparities; elevates and expands the Indian Health
Service; supports facilities and institutions in underserved
communities and responds to the call for community-driven programs that
address the health and social determinants that fuel the disparities
through the creation of Health Empowerment Zones.
I urge our colleagues to pass this budget, to vote ``aye'' on a
budget which ups the investment in all Americans and reduces the
deficit.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I now yield 2 minutes to a member
of the Budget Committee, the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chairman, today, in America, there is a set of
parents that are sitting at the table with their teenage son. Their
teenage son does not have a job, but he's provided an allowance by his
parents.
They're sitting at the table because, unbeknownst to the parents
until today, he has taken out four credit cards and run them up to the
maximum. So the discussion with the teenage son is, What are we going
to do about this?
The teenage sons says, I will find a summer job mowing lawns. And
they say, Well, what are you going to do in the fall? It's going to
take you longer than that to pay back your credit cards. Let's worry
about that when the fall comes.
In order to avoid a big scene, the parents say, Okay, we'll worry
about it when the fall comes. Now give us your credit cards so we can
tear them up and stop this bleeding.
The son, of course says, You can't have my credit cards. I've become
used to this lifestyle. I'm going to keep my credit cards and run them
up some more.
As we know, that teenage son is the Democrat budget and the parents
are the American taxpayers.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Payne).
Mr. PAYNE. Let me commend the Congressional Black Caucus and its
chair, Congresswoman Lee, and to our leader on the Budget Committee for
many, many years, Representative Bobby Scott from Virginia, for
presenting this very sound budget.
As we know, we are supposedly a country that not only promotes the
general welfare, as it does to provide for the common defense but, in
many instances, we find that promoting the general welfare is lost. The
Congressional Black Caucus budget takes care of that.
But, in the meantime, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee
and the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health,
I have been deeply disturbed by the damage done over the past 8 years
to the reputation and the standing of the United States of America
around the globe.
By replacing diplomacy with the use of force and military threats in
the Middle East and other regions and dismissing our longtime allies,
France and Germany, as ``Old Europe,'' the previous administration
alienated those who had looked to the United States for moral
leadership.
Under the Obama administration and the Democrat Congress, we now have
the opportunity to move in a more constructive and positive direction
by investing in overseas development and restoring diplomacy to our
international relations efforts.
In crafting the international affairs portion of the Congressional
Black Caucus budget, we have allocated increased funding to assist
other nations in lifting themselves out of poverty, a critical part of
the plan to restore America's reputation and prestige around the world.
We were pleased that in the Budget Committee our chairman's mark
increased funding for international affairs by 11 percent over FY 2009
levels. The CBC budget provides for an additional $2.5 billion on top
of that, which puts funding for international affairs closer to the
President's request.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. PAYNE. The President's request puts us closer to there. The
additional allocation would go toward increased funding for the global
fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria; USAID programs; Iraq
humanitarian assistance; migration and refugee assistance; peacekeeping
efforts in Darfur; education, health care, and cultural exchange
programs; child survival and health programs; and development
assistance.
Vote for the CBC budget and let's restore America's promise and
America's greatness in the eyes of the world.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I'd like to yield myself 30
seconds.

[[Page 9750]]

I just want to mention that the relationship the gentleman mentioned
with Germany and France--how ironic that those two countries are now
lecturing the United States because the United States is spending too
much. I never thought I'd live to see that happen.
With that, Madam Chairwoman, if I may, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. This is really about the future of our country. For those
of us that have worried about the trends in spending and we've watched,
of course with alarm--from George Washington to George Bush--we have
watched what Thomas Jefferson warned us about. This proclivity in
politics to spend now and leave this burden on the next generation has
advanced and advanced.
But all of that debt together is not as great as the debt we're
undertaking in the next 10 years. We are going to see that debt level
double in the next 5\1/2\ years because of the massive increase in
government spending that we are embarking on. Over the next 10 years
we're going to see it triple.
I want you to think for a minute about what this means to your
children. The Congressional Budget Office is nonpartisan. The
Congressional Budget Office tells us that the tax rates for lower-
income Americans, when we finally get around to recognizing that we
can't borrow more, will have to go up drastically; will have to go up,
in their estimation, to 26 percent. For middle income, it will go from
25 to 66 percent. Think what that's going to mean for small businesses.
No. The time to get a handle on this is now. The time to bring this
back into check, because the Congressional Budget Office--even the
Director of the President's Budget Office has come out recently and
said Oh, these numbers are not sustainable. No, they're not.
And it's here in the House where spending bills originate that we're
going to have to reverse this course, because if we do not, how are we
going to maintain the ability to continue to go out with these
Treasuries and borrow as much as we've borrowed several times again
from the Europeans and from the Chinese?
Yes, the governments in Europe are lecturing us. All over the world
people are lecturing us. At the G20 they're saying: How can you go
forward with these massive spending increases? It is not sustainable.
And they're right. They're absolutely right.
I oppose this budget because this unchecked spending will result in
borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from China and the Middle
East and other nations that own our growing debt.
I think we all know as individuals that money doesn't grow on trees.
But it is the American taxpayer who will eventually end up paying for
all this spending. At a time when many taxpayers are hurting--they
can't afford their mortgages right now, they are losing money in their
pensions, they're worried about losing their jobs--it is wrong at this
time to make the argument that we're going to seize this opportunity to
expand all of these government agencies and programs.
When Americans are tightening their belts, shouldn't the government
be at least trying to balance its books?
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to a member of
the Budget Committee, the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. Madam
Chair, I rise in favor of the Congressional Black Caucus alternative
budget. The CBC budget builds on the essential investments made by the
President and the Democratic resolution. Both of these budgets
represent the same important priorities--investing in education, health
care, energy independence, and veterans.

{time} 1630

In order to build on these investments, the CBC budget unashamedly
immediately repeals the 2001 and 2003 trickle-down, ownership society,
on-your-own tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest Americans, and puts
those savings towards strategic investments in ordinary Americans.
In times of recession, the most fortunate must do more to contribute
to the common good and to reduce the raging deficit.
The CBC budget supports increased funding for international affairs,
which pays for critical life-saving foreign assistance such as HIV/
AIDS, TB, malaria, and child survival. Indeed, as Secretary Clinton has
said, hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos are our greatest enemies
abroad.
The CBC budget increases funding for veterans' benefits,
weatherization assistance, energy efficiency, renewable energy
programs, and invests in clean energy technology. The CBC budget
increases funding for education which will go towards key programs like
title I, Head Start, TRIO, GEAR UP, STEM programs, and early education
programs. It is important that we give our young people an opportunity
to succeed, and the CBC budget does this.
Last night on the floor, I emphasized that the spread of inequality
is astounding, which means more people are forced to take minimum wage
jobs, more people receiving government assistance, and even more people
falling into poverty. Just this week, over 600,000 people filed for
unemployment compensation, and the CBC budget does not ignore this.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. The WIC program and Low-Income Energy
Assistance Program all recognize this.
I just want to end, Madam Chair, with a quote from Plato.
``The form of law which I propose would be as follows: In a state
which is desirous of being saved from the greatest of all plagues, not
faction, but rather distraction, there should exist among the citizens
neither extreme poverty nor, again, excessive wealth, for both are
productive of great evil. Now the legislator should determine what is
to be the limit of poverty or of wealth.''
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Chair, I now at this time
recognize for 3 minutes a gentleman who comes with years of leadership
experience in the California legislature, the gentleman from California
(Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chair, I feel a moment of rare bipartisan agreement coming on.
I noticed several of my friends on the left said that our problems are
rooted in the fiscal mismanagement of the Bush administration. The
gentleman from Virginia had a very good chart entitled Record
Deterioration of the Budget Under Republican Administration.
I agree. There is no denying it, George W. Bush increased spending
twice as fast as his predecessor Bill Clinton did. He turned a budget
surplus into a chronic deficit. You are absolutely right.
So if we all agree that Bush spent too much and borrowed too much,
then why in the world would we want to pursue the same folly on an even
grander scale? Why would we take that Bush administration's
unsustainable rate of spending growth and send it even higher? Why
would we want to take that budget deficit, which is indefensible, and
triple it?
If budgets that spend too much and borrow too much on the road to
economic prosperity work, then why aren't we already enjoying a period
of unprecedented economic expansion? The fact is, these policies don't
work. And it doesn't matter whether the President is a Democrat or a
Republican. They don't work, because government cannot inject a single
dollar into the economy that it has not first taken out of that same
economy. Those policies don't work for the same reason that you can't
spend yourself rich or borrow your way out of debt or tax your way to
prosperity.
If you want to know where these policies lead, just look to my home
State of California. I have watched three governors, Republican and
Democrat, do exactly what my friends on the left assure us is the road
to prosperity. They increased spending at unsustainable rates, they ran
up unprecedented debts, and they imposed

[[Page 9751]]

crushing new taxes. And the result is that today California has been
transformed from the Nation's Golden State to a state of collapse.
A record level of government spending has not produced prosperity; it
has produced one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.
Interest costs driven by years of borrowing are now eating into its
budget. Its tax burden is producing a population exodus unknown since
the days of the Dust Bowl. In fact, the State has spent so much that it
has just imposed the biggest tax increase by any State in American
history. California has borrowed so much that it is now in very real
danger of defaulting on its obligations before the end of the summer.
And, I am concerned that the President and many Democrats in Congress
are making exactly the same mistake that the Bush administration made
and that three California governors made, only on a much greater scale.
Madam Chair, I would suggest that, at a moment like this, perhaps it
is time that we recognize the first law of holes: When you are in one,
stop digging.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlelady from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of the Congressional Black Caucus budget alternative, and I
thank the able leadership of Chairwoman Lee and Mr. Scott for providing
us an alternative budget that builds on the framework set forth by
President Obama, while increasing investments in areas we in the CBC
deem most critical for some of our most vulnerable communities and
setting a framework for the future.
Budgets are about priorities, and what has happened over this last
decade has been a reframing and reshifting of the priorities, and it is
time to get those straight and that is exactly what this budget does:
Provides investments of $18 billion for health care reform, because
the lack of health care is the single largest obstacle to a future of
economic prosperity and health for all Americans. This budget provides
an additional $17 billion to improve our education system, including
important funding for Job Corps centers across this country to train
our young people for jobs for the future. An additional $8 billion
would be added to transportation and infrastructure, because we must
increase mass transit capabilities and update our crumbling water and
sewer infrastructure nationwide.
And we have to invest in green jobs, which this budget does, for a
21st century global economy. And we make these real commitments for our
veterans and military families; and we don't do it by accident; we do
it by repealing the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 immediately. This
would result in an estimated $42.2 billion in additional revenue for
fiscal 2010 alone. That's what this budget proposes.
Madam Chair, we have to remember that it was the failed policies of
the previous administration that left President Obama and the American
people with the largest deficit in history.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield an additional 15 seconds.
Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. And an economy in the worst recession in 70
years.
I urge my colleagues to vote in strong support of the Congressional
Black Caucus budget alternative as an important step on the road to
economic recovery and prosperity for all for the future.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 4\1/4\ minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Florida has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to now recognize the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) for 3 minutes.
Mr. AKIN. Madam Chair, there have been people that are saying that
America as a nation is going down the path of socialism. We are
becoming a socialized nation. But, you know, that isn't really quite
fair. Not like the socialized nations of Europe anyway. Because,
according to the standards of the European Union, they would not accept
America with the budget that is being proposed here this very day.
Now, the spending that we are looking at is unprecedented. We have
heard about the Bush administration spending money. They spent too
much. We have acknowledged that. But let me tell you, what we have seen
here in just 3 months makes the Bush administration look like mere
pikers.
The Wall Street bailout, we did half of that this year, $350 billion.
Then we added to that this economic stimulus, or as I would prefer to
call it, porkulus, $787 billion. Let's understand what this number ``a
billion'' means.
You have heard that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were really
expensive. Day after day we have been told, hey, this war in Iraq is
just draining money out of America. Yet, add up every day of that war,
add it to the war in Afghanistan, and that number is smaller than what
the House approved for this stimulus bill in the first 5 weeks that
Congress has been in session. And then you have got the omnibus,
another 400-some.
So what happens with this level of unprecedented spending? Well, the
theory is supposed to be that if you spend enough money, it will make
the economy better.
Now, I don't know very many American families who would buy something
as silly as that. If you are in trouble financially, do you go and buy
a brand-new car and spend money like mad? No. You hunker down a little
bit and you try to be careful what you are spending. And yet somehow
there is this theory that if we spend money, it is going to make
everything okay.
They tried that in the days of FDR. The Secretary of Treasury, after
8 years of trying that foolishness, came before this Congress in 1939
with the quote, ``We have tried spending. The unemployment is as bad as
when we started.'' And it didn't work. It didn't work for Japan, and it
won't work for us if we keep down the spending.
Look at the comparison. We have heard about Bush spending. This is
his average annual deficit, $300 billion. This is proposed by the
President. The budget we are looking at here is even more, twice as
much. If you take a look at the highest deficit, this was Bush in 2008
with the Democrats in Congress, $459 billion, and yet we are looking at
$1.2 trillion. Our new President makes President Bush look like a
piker.
Now, did you ever go to first grade and they said, what is it that
doesn't fit in in this picture? Take a look at the deficits that have
been run or the actual surpluses of all of these different years. And
here we go along. These are the Bush years. And guess what line doesn't
fit? I mean, we are talking about absolutely radical levels of
spending, and here on the floor right now is being proposed even more
than that.
Then we hear that the Democrats are saying, oh, this is really good
because, look, we are going to take this great big spike and we are
going to spend it at half the rate. It is like somebody has been
smoking funny cigarettes around here.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I do believe that it matters
whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican. I do believe it
matters whether we give huge tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent of
the population or whether we rescind them.
I want to commend Representatives Lee, Scott, and Moore for their
strong leadership on the development of this budget, and I rise in
strong support of it. Especially do I want to commend them for looking
after the criminal justice needs that exist in our country, and putting
in resources for programs to assist those who are in need of help, in
need of reentry, in need of trying to get their lives back together so
that they, too, can share in the American dream.
So this budget is about the future development of America, and I
support it strongly and urge its adoption.

[[Page 9752]]

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Chair, I now yield 2 minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Nebraska (Mr.
Fortenberry).
Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Florida for the time.
Madam Chair, the American people deserve order in the fiscal house of
government. America deserves a responsible, fair, creative, and smart
Federal Government that protects our most vulnerable, strengthens
opportunity, and protects our country. Our constituents deserve for us
to say together ``yes'' to fiscal stability, ``yes'' to a balanced
budget, ``yes'' to small business and entrepreneurs, and ``yes'' to
creating opportunities to help families get ahead in life. But they
also need us to say ``no,'' no to the concept that there is free money,
free money for the government to give, to spend, and to bail out with.
The only thing free here is that the government is acting free from
restraint and free from responsibility.
Let's put today's debate into context. Six months ago, Congress
passed a bailout for Wall Street, forcing America to buy bad corporate
assets. Weeks ago, an omnibus holdover budget bill increased spending
by 10 percent. Then a stimulus bill added another $800 billion. Not to
mention that between the Federal Reserve, the Department of the
Treasury, and the FDIC there is another $10 trillion of taxpayer
dollars on the line right now. Now, today another budget adds another
layer of spending.
It is a dizzying array of interventions that is reshaping the nature
of the relationship between this government and our people. The result:
Massive Federal debt, $2 trillion this year alone, larger than the
entire Federal budget was before the year 2000.

{time} 1645

This debt is a tax passed on to our children, or it is a sale of the
Nation's assets overseas. We owe China $1 trillion. Or potentially it
creates inflationary pressures. That is a particularly regressive form
of taxation for the poorest and most vulnerable among us.
Madam Chair, we all know what we must do. And we know it will be
hard. There is no denying that. We must prioritize. We must choose. We
must be creative. We must be like a family that has to tighten its belt
and steady itself during a rough period, but also look forward toward a
more excellent way.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. May I inquire from the Chair how
much time remains on both sides?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Virginia has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to
yield myself 1 minute.
Again, I just want to emphasize that we keep hearing criticism of the
previous administration for spending too much. And yet this bill makes
that spending look like child's play. It makes that debt look like
child's play. It makes that deficit look like child's play. And so you
cannot on one side, like this bill does, criticize a previous
administration for spending too much, for putting us in too much debt,
and then do much more of the same, much more to an unprecedented level
like this country has never seen, never seen such large tax increases,
never seen such large debt, has never seen such large deficits as this
bill would put on the American people. Again, facts are stubborn
things.
With that, I reserve.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Let me acknowledge the leadership
of our CBC chair, Barbara Lee, and Congressman Scott and Congresswoman
Moore for spending the time to develop this alternative budget. And
this is not because we don't support the President's budget. This is
because we wanted to see some progressive and visionary funding that is
motivated by principle and compassion. We are not socialists. We do
not, however, want to forget that we do have poor and vulnerable people
that do not have homes, that do not have health care and do not have
enough food.
We are here not because we know we are going to win this vote. We are
here because we feel the responsibility to put it before the people.
There are a lot of people in this country with problems, and we as a
Congressional Black Caucus do not intend to allow it to be forgotten.
We are not talking about African Americans. We are talking about all of
the poor, the children and the homeless families. They need attention.
And we must not forget it. And we must not remain in denial.
Madam Chair, I want to thank Chairwoman Barbara Lee, the
Congressional Black Caucus and my colleague, Congressman Scott from
Virginia, for their leadership and unwavering support for the
development of this alternative budget.
The CBC alternative budget is filled with progressive and visionary
funding that is motivated by principle and compassion. It is a budget
that voices the concerns and needs of the poor, the children, and the
elderly.
I support and agree with President Obama's Budget. I also support CBC
budget to increase American priorities such as our transportation
system. The CBC budget would add an additional 8 billion dollars to
support our transportation needs.
The CBC alternative budget understands that our Nation's
transportation system is the backbone of our economy and our way of
life, neither of which we can afford to shortchange.
Our Nation's future depends more and more on the quality of our
innovative ideas. The fruits of these investments meet vital national
needs and improve the quality of life for all Americans.
Like the President's budget, CBC alternative budget also provides
funding for programs and services crucial to the American people,
rather than continuing to provide tax breaks for the wealthy.
As lawmakers, we do have the responsibility to ensure that all
Americans, including minorities, are able to move ahead to achieve the
American Dream. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness meant all
people.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to
now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
When you look at the Democrats' budget, the numbers are just
staggering. 2010 spending, $3 trillion, 25 percent of gross domestic
product, $1.2 trillion tax increase over 10 years, $1 trillion spending
increase over 5 years, nondefense discretionary spending increases 12
percent, the national debt increases $5.1 trillion, doubling over 5
years. The 2010 deficit will be $1.2 trillion.
How can you look at these numbers and conclude anything other than we
simply can't sustain this level of debt? We can't grow an economy when
we are dragging this level of debt. It simply defies the laws of
economics. We can't do that.
Now some in defense of the Democratic budget will say, ``we inherited
this fiscal mess that we are in.'' I will stipulate to that. We didn't
do a very good job when we were in the majority controlling spending.
But you don't put your foot on the accelerator when you are headed
toward a fiscal cliff. And that is what this budget does. It simply
gets us there a lot faster. And we simply can't do that.
Madam Chair, I would urge us to reject the overall budget, adopt
something that we can actually afford and sustain and that will get us
growing economically again.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
Mr. FATTAH. To my great friend from Arizona, sometimes if you're
turning in front of an 18-wheeler, you should hit the accelerator and
get out the way. The important point here is that no matter what the
cost of education, ignorance costs our country more. What we have is,
some who stand in opposition today, they know the cost of everything,
but the value of seemingly nothing. It is critically important. And
that is why the conscience of the CBC members dictates that this
alternative be brought to the floor, that we point a direction, not
just complain and recite the problems, but that we offer up real
solutions, and that we are required to, as Members of

[[Page 9753]]

this body, not just go along to get along.
As a major supporter of President Obama's budget and program, I think
he is moving our country in the right direction. But it is important
for us to show that even more can be done and should be done. And I
believe as we go forward, it will be done. We will work together.
Republicans have forfeited their right to lead based on the situation
they brought this country to. We are prepared to lead. Others need to
step aside.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I reserve at this time, Madam
Chairwoman.
The CHAIR. The gentleman has 4 minutes remaining. He is reserving his
time. The gentleman from Virginia has 1\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I would inquire to the gentleman from Florida
if he has additional speakers?
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Chairwoman, we might have one
but maybe not. We are definitely getting to the bottom here, the bottom
of the list I should say.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I will yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from
California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I wanted to get to the floor to congratulate
Congressman Bobby Scott for the hard work that he has done to bring the
CBC's budget before this Congress and all of those who worked with him.
I would like to thank my colleagues of the CBC, and especially our
chairwoman, Barbara Lee, for continuing the tradition of having an
alternative budget. It is so important because each year we show the
world what is possible, what can be done, how we can invest in human
potential. This budget does just that. What I really like about this
budget is it truly is building upon the President's blueprint for
success. This budget, in investing in human potential, invests $18
billion more on health care, $17 billion more on education, job
training and social services, $8 billion more on transportation and
infrastructure. And I am sure you have heard some of these numbers as
CBC members have come before you today to support this budget. I won't
go any further except to say that this a good budget. Please support
it.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to
yield myself 2 minutes.
Madam Chairwoman, one of the things that we need to be aware of is
that when we keep hearing about more spending, more spending, more
spending, more spending, more spending, all that spending is being paid
for how? Well, it is very simple, by either huge tax increases, and
that is why this budget has the largest tax increases in the history of
this country, tax increases that we have never seen before, and
unprecedented levels of debt, of borrowing.
What does that mean, government borrowing? Let me tell you what that
means, Madam Chairwoman. It is basically like identity theft. The
Federal Government is now in the process, if this were to become law,
of taking, of stealing our children's and our grandchildren's credit
cards and running them up at unprecedented levels. And yes, those
credit cards are going to have to be paid back with interest. And that
is what we are about to do at unprecedented levels. So when we keep
hearing about all these great things that government is going to be
doing, just remember, it is on the credit card of our children and our
grandchildren.
This is a country that always, always by tradition worked hard to
make sure that future generations were better off. We are about to
embark on a road that this country has never been on before, leaving
our children and our grandchildren with the largest debt, the largest
debt that anybody has ever seen, has ever left for future generations.
That is totally unacceptable.
I reserve.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I'm prepared to close. Does the
gentleman want to proceed?
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Chairwoman, we thought we had
another person. He is not here. I believe we get to close, is that
correct?
The CHAIR. Yes. The gentleman from Florida has the right to close.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 15 seconds.
Mr. SCOTT. Madam Chair, before I start, I would like to yield for a
unanimous consent request to the gentlelady from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Seventeen billion dollars in education and
social services. I rise in support of the CBC budget for America.
Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the Congressional Black
Caucus (CBC) Budget Substitute for the Fiscal Year Budget for 2010,
introduced by my distinguished colleague from California,
Representative Barbara Lee and my colleague from Virginia,
Representative Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott.
While I support the Budget as put forth by our majority on the Budget
Committee, the CBC budget augments the President's budget and the
Democratic budget by providing for modest spending increases above the
Democratic Budget on important programs.
The President's budget is astonishing as he inherited one of the
worst economic situations in recent history. The former administration,
after being the first administration since the Civil War to have a
surplus turned over to it, the former President left President Obama
with the largest deficit in history and an economy that is in the worst
recession in seventy (70) years. The CBC Budget will help turn our
economy around and return the economy to fiscal responsibility.
I, along with other members of the CBC, support our President as he
works to clean up the mess that was left to him. Nevertheless, the CBC
has submitted its budget proposal which I also support.
The CBC budget fully funds No Child Left behind (NCLB), the State
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and it provides additional
funding for the fight against global AIDS, Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG) and higher education among other items.
The CBC pays for these increases by immediately repealing the Bush-
era tax cuts for those earning over $200,000 for single filers and
$250,000 for joint filers. The CBC budget also eliminates the phase-out
and repeal of PEP and Pease. These important tax provisions were apart
of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990 and signed into law by the
first President Bush and ensure that the wealthiest Americans are
paying their fair share in taxes. Repealing these provisions of the
2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts will yield an estimated $42.2 billion in
additional revenue for Fiscal Year 2010.
Importantly, the CBC Budget creates the Bush Debt Tax, which adds a
modest 0.565% surtax on adjustable gross income exceeding $500,000 for
individuals and $1 million for joint filers. The CBC budget will use
this surtax for deficit reduction. Over a ten year period, the Joint
Committee on Taxation estimates this surtax will raise about $63
million. The CBC budget takes these savings and applies them towards
increased investments in important functions that will help Americans
become more prosperous.
The CBC Budget provides an additional $18 million for healthcare; $17
billion for education, job training, and social services, $8 billion
for Transportation and Infrastructure; $5.5 billion for the
administration of justice and approximately the same for international
affairs; $5 billion for income security and veterans benefits, and $3
billion for community and regional development and homeland security.
The CBC Budget pays for all these increases and still produces a
five-year budget deficit that is $67 billion lower than the Democratic
Budget and saves America $7 billion on the National Debt.

advancing the priorities of the american people

We must not only be economically healthy, but assist in balancing it
with the health, education, and security of our citizens. The CBC
budget will advance the priorities of the American people by:
Covering all eligible children with health insurance through funding
SCHIP, more than the Democratic budget to help one of our most
vulnerable populations--children;
Ensuring No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has increased funding for Head
Start programs, IDEA, college access programs, college loan programs
and job training;
Honoring our veterans by increasing funding for health care, benefits
and educational opportunities;
Making more local communities with support through increases to
Community Development Block Grants, nutrition programs and housing
programs; and
Contributing to the global community by investing in child survival
and health, international family planning and the global effort to
fight AIDS.

[[Page 9754]]

health initiatives

The CBC budget under the Health Function 550 included a program that
I continually push for increased funding, and that is the Juvenile
Diabetes Research Foundation. Hope for juvenile diabetes cure lies in
research. Real progress is being made, thanks largely to government
funding of the Special Diabetes Program.
The health and health care spending in the CBC budget alternative is
the fiscally, socially and morally appropriate and responsible response
and it will improve the health, well being and life opportunities of
all Americans.
The CBC budget like the President's budget, strengthens our nation's
overwhelmed and under-resourced health care system, champions the
critically important health care needs of health care seekers, and
fills the gaps in health care access and quality that detrimentally
affect our nation's health care providers and the overall health care
system.
The CBC budget alternative strengthens and expands the State
Children's Health Insurance Program to ensure that the majority of the
nation's 9 million uninsured children have access to health care. This
is of particular relevance to the CBC because a disproportionate number
of the 9 million uninsured children today are African American or
Hispanic. Without reliable access to quality health care, children are
in poorer health, are less productive in school and in their
communities, and are less likely to fulfill their life's potential.

strengthens medicare

The CBC budget alternative strengthens Medicare--a critically
important program that ensures that our nations' senior citizens, as
well as those living with disabilities, have access to the health care
services and treatments they need to live longer, healthier and fuller
lives.
The CBC budget alternative also:
Saves Title VII (health professions training) programs, which are
integral to strengthening and expanding tomorrow's health care
workforce;
Funds the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program in a manner that allows it to
expand ADAP, the efforts of National Minority AIDS Education Training
Centers, and the other important services and treatments offered to our
most vulnerable with HIV infection;
Funds the Minority AIDS Initiative in a manner that will build the
needed capacity in racial and ethnic minority communities throughout
the nation to respond and address HIV/AIDS;

It is our children that will bring forth a thriving future. We need
to invest in tomorrow by investing in them today. This starts with
their physical well-being. Children, who cannot see the doctor when
they are sick, research programs that are not adequately funded to find
a cure for diseases such as diabetes, hurt our future generations, and
not help lay a foundation for a bright future.

education and african americans in texas

A quality education continues to be the best pathway to social and
economic mobility in this country. As a Member and Senior Whip of the
Congressional Black Caucus, I have consistently advocated for the
maintenance of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This
budget provides greater funding to our nation's schools and colleges
than even our Democratic budget supplies.
For African Americans health and education concerns spill beyond
budgetary issues into the criminal justice consequences. In Texas, over
87,000 African-Americans are incarcerated compared to approximately
48,000 African-Americans attending college or university.
The disparity between the percentages of our youth in prison versus
the number of young people in college, particularly in the African-
American community, is disturbing to say the least. Higher education
continues to be one of the main pathways to social and economic
mobility, particularly in the African-American and Hispanic
communities.

port of houston and security measures

Last week, I had the pleasure of meeting with the Port Authority of
Houston. They were here to discuss their security measures but also
their need for continued federal dollars. The Bush Administration
claims they want to secure our nation but cuts funding in areas that
are important to our local security such as the ports in Houston,
Texas. The CBC seeks to cure that shortfall.

administration of justice

Under the proposed CBC budget, there is emphasis on the
administration of justice and the protection of all Americans. The CBC
budget funds programs that are important to our communities. The CBC
budget funds the Justice Assistance Grant Program, Juvenile Justice
Programs, the Byrne Weed and Seed Program, Office of Violence Against
Women, COPS and JAG programs. All of these programs help keep American
communities safe and provide for greater law enforcement at the
federal, state, and local enforcement levels. The CBC budget reinvests
in DOJ Prisoner Reentry Program. In addition, the CBC budget invests in
our children by requiring funding for Boys and Girls clubs. This
investment in our communities and in our children helps keep our youths
safe and out of the prison system.

general sciences, space and technology

The CBC budget proposes to invest heavily in our nation's development
in science, space, and technology. The CBC budget also invests in the
NSF--Education and Research Programs, with a special emphasis on
Minority Post Doctorates. The CBC budget not only invests in
minorities, it also invests in women by providing for Graduate Research
Fellowships for Women in Engineering and Computer Science.

energy

The CBC budget addresses the environment, energy, and natural
resources. These programs are of particular interest to the people of
Texas and I think it is necessary for America to remain a vital, energy
efficient country.

education, training, employment, and social services

The proposed CBC budget puts greater emphasis on education, training,
employment, and social services. These are critical to the needs of
Americans and minority populations in general.
The CBC budget provides funding for the No Child Left Behind Act.
Included in that Act is funding for Title I, Safe and Drug Free
Schools, 21st Century Learning Centers, and Teacher Quality Programs.
We must continue to invest in our children because they represent the
future of America.
The CBC budget also recognizes that there must be investment in Head
Start, mentoring, and drop out prevention. The proposed CBC budget
provides money to vocational programs and increases the funding of
HBCUs. The CBC budget provides for funding in investment in Minority
Science and Engineering Improvement. The CBC budget invests in adult
employment and training activities.

conclusion

This important piece of legislation gives us a budget that is
balanced fiscally and morally. It does not sacrifice the great many
programs and services that this nation needs to correct eight years or
more of decay.
Defense of our nation is important, however, we must not support only
one portion of the budget to the detriment of everything else. The CBC
budget makes tough choices that result in a fiscally and morally
responsible budget that will fund essential programs and services vital
to our communities and the American people as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Congressional Black
Caucus Budget Substitute for FY2010.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Madam Chair, the Congressional Black Caucus budget is based on the
budget of 1990-1993 that worked. It rejects the budget of 2001 that
didn't. It saves money and invests in our priorities. It is a good
budget. The base budget is good, but the CBC budget is better.
Madam Chair, I ask that we adopt the CBC budget, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Chairwoman, I want to thank
the gentleman from Virginia for his hard work. I want to just throw
some facts out there. This budget spends too much, it taxes too much
and it borrows way too much.
The debt held by the public under this budget will double in 5\1/2\
years--double in 5\1/2\ years. It triples in a little over 10 years.
The kind of red ink that this budget proposes for our children and our
grandchildren is more under this presidency than under the presidencies
between George Washington and George W. Bush combined.
Again, it increases taxes on all the American people. On January 1,
2011, the income tax rates go up. That is a tax increase. On January 1,
2011, as Mr. Ryan said, the capital gains rates go up. And as he
repeated, that is also a tax increase. On January 1, 2011, the
dividends tax rate goes up. That is a huge tax increase. On January 1,
2010, the AMT will go up to 26 million Americans who are now not paying
it. This imposes a national energy tax, a new tax, a tax increase when
you turn on the lights, when you pump your gas, if you use gas to cook,
if you use it for industry, on all energy consumption in

[[Page 9755]]

this country. That is what we are facing. This puts our country on the
road to insolvency.
So I commend the gentleman from Virginia and his colleagues for
putting together this amendment. But this is not where this country
needs to go. Let's not forget who pays the bills, our children and our
grandchildren. Let's not do this to them. Let's leave them a brighter
future, a stronger America.
For those reasons, because this does not do that, because this
burdens them like never before, I respectfully request a ``no'' vote on
this amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, as we all know, the recession we are facing
today is the most severe since the Great Depression. It is evident that
the Bush Administration's economic policies have failed us. With a new
President, we now have the ability to begin to repair our economy and
get our country back on track.
Madam Chair, we must significantly cut our bloated defense spending.
I agree with my friend and fellow chair, Representative Barney Frank,
that we should reduce defense spending by at least 25 percent. The CPC
budget does this by withdrawing our troops from the senseless war in
Iraq, saving American tax payers $105 billion in 2010, and by ending
the procurement of antiquated Cold War weapons systems that no longer
further our common national defense. These actions will save another
$60 billion, yes $60 billion dollars, per year. This budget will also
address the root causes of terrorism by enacting and fully funding the
SMART Security Platform for the 21st Century. This is a more effective,
targeted, and nuanced national security strategy that will focus more
of our resources on the critical issues that affect our national
security: nonproliferation, conflict prevention, international
diplomacy, and multilateralism.
Furthermore, the CPC budget will offer serious reform that will bring
back America's tradition of progressive taxation. First, it eliminates
the Bush tax cuts for those in the top 1 percent, increasing government
revenues by $84 billion. Moreover, the bill will force banks, who
helped create this financial disaster, to self finance their received
bail outs by implanting a one quarter of 1 percent tax on all stock and
futures trading. Lastly, it will end outrageous overseas corporate tax
havens in the Caribbean, Switzerland, and all elsewhere--bringing $100
billion in taxes back to the American treasury.
With these extra $300 billion government revenues the CPC budget will
help hard working Americans through these tough economic times.
Specifically, the budget alternative adds funding for job training,
puts Americans to work with robust transportation funding, extends
COBRA health benefits, and provides extra food stamps for the poor,
women, and infants.
In these dire times, the Progressive Caucus budget will help us
realign our fiscal policy with our values as a nation. As we cut
useless defense spending and misdirected tax cuts for the wealthy,
while providing aid to the middle and working classes, we will make an
important statement: America honors work and those who play by the
rules; we appreciate the success of the wealthy, but we expect them to
reciprocate when it comes to promoting the common good. America will
strengthen its national security by working with our allies around the
world and by showing compassion to our brothers and sisters who lack
our economic blessings. Finally, and most importantly, America is a
flexible country that can and will change with the times, make smart
investments, and lead the world in a new economic direction. I
encourage my colleagues to support the Progressive Caucus' alternative
budget so that we may move forward as a nation that honors work,
justice, and peace.
Madam Chair, now more then ever Americans are seeking government to
help them during these uncertain times. For too long, Members on the
other side advocated for no government intervention, citing the mantra
of extreme free market capitalism. Now we are seeing the devastating
consequences. The Congressional Black Caucus budget is one way to
confront our pressing issues and move America forward.
Today's legislation addresses minority health needs. It calls for
significant increases in funding for the Minority AIDS Initiative, Ryan
White CARE Act, and CDC Prevention activities for HIV, STD, TB and
Viral Hepatitis. Furthermore, the CBC budget calls for a $200 million
increase in funding for the National Center on Minority Health and
Health Disparities at NIH. These programs will promote better public
health services to the many who depend on these programs.
Madam Chair, in the richest country in the world, access to housing
is a human right. After many years of underfunding of the nation's
affordable housing programs, the CBC fully funds Section 8 public
housing to 100% of need. Furthermore, the bill calls for $360 million
increase to housing for people living with HIV/AIDS (HOPWA). Lastly,
the CBC urges an increase in funding for the Neighborhood Stabilization
Program, which allows states, localities, and nonprofits to buy up and
rehabilitate abandoned and foreclosed properties.
As Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I whole heartily
support The CBC efforts to reduce juvenile crime and efforts to
rehabilitate ex-offenders. Today's legislation would fully fund the
Second Chance Act, an important bill that gives assistance ex-offenders
during their reclamation to society and may ultimately reduce crime.
Furthermore, the CBC budget will increase funding for the Justice
Assistance Program, the Juvenile Justice Program, Civil Rights
Enforcement, the COPS Program, the Byrne Justice Grant Program, and
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance.
During these tough economic times, we need expanded and improved
access to high quality education. The CBC budget supports the
President' to expand the Pell Grant program to hardworking students. It
is a national shame that the Bush administration woefully underfunded
the No Child Left Behind Act and the today's legislation calls for
substantial increase in funding level. Furthermore, CBC budget calls on
Congress to fully fund Head Start, TRIO (including Upward Bound), GEAR
UP, Youth Build, and vocational education programs.
I could go on about the features of this legislation but clearly it
puts Americans first. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield back the remaining part of
my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 113,
noes 318, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 190]

AYES--113

Abercrombie
Andrews
Baldwin
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Engel
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy
Kilpatrick (MI)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lynch
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Rangel
Richardson
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu

NOES--318

Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)

[[Page 9756]]

Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeGette
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Ortiz
Pascrell
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pierluisi
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Davis (AL)

NOT VOTING--5

Buyer
Hinojosa
Miller, Gary
Sablan
Westmoreland

{time} 1724

Messrs. BACA, CALVERT, HALL of Texas, FRANKS of Arizona, and HERGER
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. ROTHMAN of New Jersey and HINCHEY changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
House Report 111-73.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 in the nature of a substitute printed in
House Report 111-73 offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2010.

(a) Declaration.--The Congress declares that the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010 is hereby
established and that this resolution sets forth the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, fiscal
years 2011 through 2019, and fiscal years 2020 through 2082.
(b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.

TITLE I-- RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Subtitle A--Recommended Levels and Amounts for Each of Fiscal Years
2009 Through 2019

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Functional categories.

Subtitle B--Recommended Levels and Amounts for Each of Fiscal Years
2020 Through 2082

Sec. 111. Major categories.
Sec. 112. Social Security spending levels.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.

TITLE III--CONGRESSIONAL POLICY STATEMENTS

Sec. 301. Policy statement on Medicare.
Sec. 302. Policy statement on Medicaid.
Sec. 303. Policy statement on affordable and accessible health care.
Sec. 304. Policy statement on Social Security.
Sec. 305. Policy statement on energy.
Sec. 306. Policy statement on taxes.

TITLE IV--SHORT-TERM BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Restrictions on advance appropriations.
Sec. 402. Roll Call Vote Required on Increasing the Debt Limit.
Sec. 403. Budget compliance statements.
Sec. 404. Cost estimates for conference reports and unreported
measures.
Sec. 405. Roll call votes for new spending.
Sec. 406. Adjustments to reflect changes in concepts and definitions.
Sec. 407. Social Security off-budget compliance statement.
Sec. 408. Applications and effects of changes in allocations and
aggregates.
Sec. 409. Emergency spending and contingency operations.

TITLE V--LONG-TERM BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 501. Spending and revenue increase controls.
Sec. 502. Prevent increases in the long-term unfunded liability of the
Federal Government.
Sec. 503. Estimates of the Committee on the Budget of the House of
Representatives.
Sec. 504. Projections.

TITLE VI--EARMARK REFORM

Sec. 601. Moratorium on consideration of earmarks.
Sec. 602. Joint select committee on earmark reform.

TITLE VII--PAY-AS-YOU-GO ENFORCEMENT FOR MANDATORY SPENDING

Sec. 701. Pay-as-you-go for mandatory spending legislation.

TITLE VIII--DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS

Sec. 801. Discretionary spending limits.

TITLE I-- RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Subtitle A--Recommended Levels and Amounts for Each of Fiscal Years
2009 Through 2019

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2009 through 2019:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement this
resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $1,497,570,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $1,618,785,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $1,865,734,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,083,686,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,126,661,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,238,870,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2,361,363,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,462,383,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $2,572,003,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $2,671,254,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $2,773,775,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: -$35,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: -$47,201,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: -$222,897,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: -$276,706,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: -$388,676,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: -$394,788,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: -$414,589,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: -$434,647,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: -$456,982,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: -$479,553,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: -$505,259,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $3,653,504,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,691,668,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,601,381,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,626,004,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,767,920,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,928,726,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $3,047,662,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $3,191,583,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $3,288,776,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,402,832,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,471,097,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:

[[Page 9757]]

Fiscal year 2009: $3,355,330,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,727,108,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,684,319,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,653,894,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,778,937,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,924,914,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $3,037,015,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $3,184,193,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $3,278,461,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,388,274,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,487,199,000,000.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget)
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $1,857,760,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $1,108,323,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $818,585,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $570,208,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $652,276,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $686,043,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $675,652,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $721,810,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $706,457,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $717,020,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $713,424,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
levels of debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $12,051,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $13,206,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $13,198,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $14,660,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $15,470,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $16,353,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $17,242,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $18,177,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $19,115,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $19,718,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $20,683,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $7,763,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $8,571,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $9,252,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $9,728,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $10,240,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $10,831,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $11,405,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $12,039,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $12,677,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $12,978,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $13,655,000,000,000.

SEC. 102. FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2009 through 2019 are as follows:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $693,557,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $671,725,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $696,703,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $696,128,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $619,767,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $663,705,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $628,785,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $643,223,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $639,535,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $642,425,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $653,458,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $647,334,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $668,321,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $659,306,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $683,448,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $677,586,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $699,003,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $688,336,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $715,041,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $699,584,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $731,508,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $720,053,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $40,885,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,797,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $35,588,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,430,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $35,381,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,612,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $35,967,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,879,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $37,207,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,229,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $38,414,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,610,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $39,983,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,678,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $40,758,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,809,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $41,561,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,295,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $42,332,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,860,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $43,179,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,496,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $35,389,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,973,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $29,905,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,845,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $30,132,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,288,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $30,356,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,346,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $30,557,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,443,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $30,883,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,709,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $30,828,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,542,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $31,873,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,484,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $32,444,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,019,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $32,997,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,571,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $33,609,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,153,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $43,919,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,952,000,000.
(A) Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $4,534,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,144,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $4,579,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,004,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $4,765,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,932,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $5,126,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,514,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $5,246,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,746,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $5,314,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,264,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $5,404,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,420,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $5,506,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,263,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $5,040,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,736,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $4,662,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,781,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $56,009,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,834,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $35,185,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,367,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $35,428,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,695,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $36,118,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,709,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $36,225,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,525,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $36,806,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,063,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $37,078,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,614,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $38,111,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,252,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $38,996,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,042,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $40,420,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,309,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $41,293,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,027,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $24,974,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,070,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $23,747,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,994,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $24,784,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,076,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $21,698,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,598,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $22,508,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,087,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $23,176,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,153,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:

[[Page 9758]]

(A) New budget authority, $22,574,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,518,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $22,694,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,792,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $22,959,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,007,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $23,586,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,616,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $24,247,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,099,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $694,439,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $665,437,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $53,919,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $81,268,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $25,853,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,561,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $10,548,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,926,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $18,989,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,848,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $13,166,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$770,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $13,482,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$2,355,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $13,394,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$2,063,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $18,333,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,571,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $18,313,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,686,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $18,526,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,377,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $122,457,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $87,784,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $73,942,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,080,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $74,428,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,330,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $74,959,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $94,496,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $75,482,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $94,646,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $76,250,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $94,986,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $77,055,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $94,657,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $77,947,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,628,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $78,847,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,754,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $79,758,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,243,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $80,761,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $96,852,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $23,811,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,983,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $15,337,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,736,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $15,243,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,640,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $15,372,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,255,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $15,292,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,425,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $15,450,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,388,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $15,679,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,052,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $15,949,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,373,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $16,230,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,537,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $16,502,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,798,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $16,807,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,050,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $164,276,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $73,219,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $94,430,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $140,624,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $100,425,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $138,168,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $104,574,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $109,894,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $99,607,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $105,778,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $106,379,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $104,136,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $107,578,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $109,050,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $110,808,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $111,157,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $113,222,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $113,434,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $114,972,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $115,574,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $116,738,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $117,370,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $380,158,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $354,397,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $382,701,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $388,322,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $362,157,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $366,125,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $366,206,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $365,877,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $384,837,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $380,587,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $393,583,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $394,963,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $416,232,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $414,586,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $440,850,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $438,783,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $472,198,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $469,835,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $502,675,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $500,219,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $535,998,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $533,214,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $427,076,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $426,736,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $442,815,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $442,947,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $487,442,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $487,269,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $491,952,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $491,715,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $540,003,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $540,125,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $593,406,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $593,211,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $618,202,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $617,949,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $674,176,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $674,288,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $698,771,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $698,566,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $724,830,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $724,560,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $804,287,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $804,379,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $520,123,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $503,020,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $531,436,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $536,129,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $502,767,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $506,623,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $444,772,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $445,920,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $448,294,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $448,504,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $448,678,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $447,863,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $451,192,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $450,486,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $461,271,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $460,636,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $464,233,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $463,622,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $467,351,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $466,592,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:

[[Page 9759]]

(A) New budget authority, $481,975,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $480,964,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $31,820,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,264,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $20,255,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,378,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $23,380,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,513,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $26,478,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,628,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $29,529,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,679,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $32,728,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,728,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $35,875,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,875,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $39,021,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,021,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $42,449,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,449,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $46,094,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,094,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $49,994,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,994,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $97,705,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $94,831,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $106,358,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $105,017,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $112,806,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $111,832,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $108,643,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $107,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $113,722,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $112,512,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $115,929,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $114,819,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $118,184,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $117,546,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $124,798,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $124,320,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $124,546,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $124,059,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $124,034,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $123,478,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $132,515,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $131,887,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $55,783,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,853,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $54,159,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,611,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $52,227,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,395,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $52,785,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,581,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $53,363,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,157,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $54,247,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,058,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $55,345,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,083,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $56,664,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,349,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $58,019,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,658,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $61,193,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $60,826,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $64,023,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $63,627,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $30,405,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,629,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $21,590,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,457,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $21,869,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,744,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $22,218,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,311,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $21,988,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $22,481,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,760,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $23,050,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $23,673,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,780,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $24,344,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,099,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $25,069,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,743,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $25,833,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,350,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $289,044,000,000.
(B) $289,044,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $282,801,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $282,801,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $317,087,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $317,087,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $373,346,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $373,346,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $447,727,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $447,727,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $530,456,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $530,456,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $595,684,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $595,684,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $649,165,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $648,965,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $695,308,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $695,308,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $757,439,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $759,439,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $813,257,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $813,257,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$120,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$12,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$145,294,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$240,726,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$152,721,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$238,695,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$128,918,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$178,622,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$154,485,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$189,489,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -$182,519,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$187,808,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, -$201,917,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$201,643,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, -$232,899,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$225,865,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, -$264,079,000,000.
(A) Outlays, -$253,329,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(B) New budget authority, -$296,107,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$283,946,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, -$445,841,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$409,457,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$78,206,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$78,206,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$68,444,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$68,444,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$71,653,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$71,653,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$74,620,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$74,620,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$77,585,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$77,585,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -$79,491,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$79,491,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, -$82,077,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$82,077,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, -$85,522,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$85,522,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $94,114,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $94,114,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $98,707,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $98,707,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $102,274,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $102,274,000,000.

[[Page 9760]]

Subtitle B--Recommended Levels and Amounts for Each of Fiscal Years
2020 Through 2082

SEC. 111. MAJOR CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of outlays and revenues for the Federal Government for
calendar years 2020 through 2082 are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health and Other
Calendar Year Debt Retirement Noninterest Total Revenues Deficits
Security Spending Spending
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020.............................. 33% 10.3% 8.1% 19.8% 18.0% -1.5%
2021.............................. 33% 10.6% 8.0% 20.1% 18.2% -1.8%
2022.............................. 34% 10.8% 8.0% 20.4% 18.2% -2.1%
2023.............................. 35% 11.2% 8.0% 20.8% 18.3% -2.5%
2024.............................. 37% 11.4% 7.9% 21.0% 18.3% -2.7%
2025.............................. 39% 11.6% 7.9% 21.3% 18.3% -3.0%
2026.............................. 40% 11.7% 7.9% 21.4% 18.3% -3.1%
2027.............................. 43% 11.9% 7.9% 21.7% 18.3% -3.4%
2028.............................. 44% 12.1% 7.9% 22.0% 18.3% -3.7%
2029.............................. 47% 12.0% 7.8% 22.1% 18.3% -3.8%
2030.............................. 49% 12.2% 7.8% 22.3% 18.3% -4.0%
2031.............................. 51% 12.2% 7.7% 22.3% 18.3% -4.0%
2032.............................. 53% 12.3% 7.7% 22.3% 18.3% -4.0%
2033.............................. 55% 12.2% 7.6% 22.3% 18.3% -4.0%
2034.............................. 57% 12.2% 7.6% 22.2% 18.3% -3.9%
2035.............................. 58% 12.3% 7.5% 22.4% 18.3% -4.1%
2036.............................. 60% 12.2% 7.5% 22.4% 18.3% -4.1%
2037.............................. 62% 12.2% 7.4% 22.5% 18.3% -4.2%
2038.............................. 64% 12.1% 7.4% 22.5% 18.3% -4.2%
2039.............................. 66% 12.0% 7.4% 22.4% 18.3% -4.1%
2040.............................. 67% 11.8% 7.3% 22.3% 18.3% -4.0%
2041.............................. 69% 11.7% 7.3% 22.2% 18.3% -3.9%
2042.............................. 70% 11.5% 7.3% 21.9% 18.3% -3.6%
2043.............................. 71% 11.4% 7.2% 21.9% 18.3% -3.6%
2044.............................. 72% 11.3% 7.2% 21.8% 18.3% -3.5%
2045.............................. 72% 11.2% 7.1% 21.6% 18.3% -3.3%
2046.............................. 73% 11.0% 7.1% 21.5% 18.3% -3.2%
2047.............................. 73% 11.1% 7.1% 21.6% 18.3% -3.3%
2048.............................. 74% 10.8% 7.0% 21.3% 18.3% -3.0%
2049.............................. 74% 10.7% 7.0% 21.2% 18.3% -2.9%
2050.............................. 74% 10.7% 7.0% 21.3% 18.3% -3.0%
2051.............................. 74% 10.6% 6.9% 21.1% 18.3% -2.8%
2052.............................. 73% 10.5% 6.9% 20.9% 18.3% -2.6%
2053.............................. 73% 10.5% 6.9% 20.8% 18.3% -2.5%
2054.............................. 73% 10.4% 6.8% 20.7% 18.3% -2.4%
2055.............................. 72% 10.4% 6.8% 20.7% 18.3% -2.4%
2056.............................. 72% 10.3% 6.8% 20.5% 18.3% -2.2%
2057.............................. 71% 10.3% 6.7% 20.5% 18.3% -2.2%
2058.............................. 71% 10.3% 6.7% 20.5% 18.3% -2.2%
2059.............................. 71% 10.4% 6.7% 20.7% 18.3% -2.4%
2060.............................. 71% 10.4% 6.6% 20.5% 18.3% -2.2%
2061.............................. 70% 10.3% 6.6% 20.4% 18.3% -2.1%
2062.............................. 70% 10.3% 6.6% 20.3% 18.3% -2.0%
2063.............................. 69% 10.3% 6.5% 20.2% 18.3% -1.9%
2064.............................. 68% 10.3% 6.5% 20.3% 18.3% -2.0%
2065.............................. 67% 10.3% 6.4% 20.4% 18.3% -2.1%
2066.............................. 67% 10.2% 6.4% 20.2% 18.3% -1.9%
2067.............................. 66% 10.2% 6.4% 20.0% 18.3% -1.7%
2068.............................. 65% 10.3% 6.3% 19.8% 18.3% -1.5%
2069.............................. 64% 10.3% 6.3% 19.7% 18.3% -1.4%
2070.............................. 63% 10.3% 6.3% 19.7% 18.3% -1.4%
2071.............................. 62% 10.3% 6.2% 19.7% 18.3% -1.4%
2072.............................. 61% 10.3% 6.2% 19.8% 18.3% -1.5%
2073.............................. 61% 10.3% 6.2% 19.9% 18.3% -1.6%
2074.............................. 59% 10.4% 6.1% 19.9% 18.3% -1.6%
2075.............................. 59% 10.2% 6.1% 19.6% 18.3% -1.3%
2076.............................. 57% 10.2% 6.1% 19.5% 18.3% -1.2%
2077.............................. 56% 10.2% 6.0% 19.4% 18.3% -1.1%
2078.............................. 54% 10.2% 6.0% 19.0% 18.3% -0.7%
2079.............................. 52% 10.2% 6.0% 18.9% 18.3% -0.6%
2080.............................. 50% 10.2% 5.9% 18.6% 18.3% -0.3%
2081.............................. 48% 10.2% 5.9% 18.3% 18.3% 0.0%
2082.............................. 47% 10.1% 5.9% 18.2% 18.3% 0.1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 112. SOCIAL SECURITY SPENDING LEVELS.

The concurrent resolution assumes the following levels of
Social Security spending as a percentage of gross domestic
product from calendar years 2020 through 2082:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Calendar Year GDP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020...................................................... 5.1%
2021...................................................... 5.2%
2022...................................................... 5.3%
2023...................................................... 5.5%
2024...................................................... 5.6%
2025...................................................... 5.7%
2026...................................................... 5.8%
2027...................................................... 5.9%
2028...................................................... 6.0%
2029...................................................... 6.0%

[[Page 9761]]

2030...................................................... 6.1%
2031...................................................... 6.1%
2032...................................................... 6.2%
2033...................................................... 6.2%
2034...................................................... 6.2%
2035...................................................... 6.3%
2036...................................................... 6.3%
2037...................................................... 6.3%
2038...................................................... 6.3%
2039...................................................... 6.3%
2040...................................................... 6.3%
2041...................................................... 6.3%
2042...................................................... 6.2%
2043...................................................... 6.2%
2044...................................................... 6.2%
2045...................................................... 6.2%
2046...................................................... 6.1%
2047...................................................... 6.2%
2048...................................................... 6.1%
2049...................................................... 6.1%
2050...................................................... 6.1%
2051...................................................... 6.1%
2052...................................................... 6.1%
2053...................................................... 6.1%
2054...................................................... 6.1%
2055...................................................... 6.1%
2056...................................................... 6.1%
2057...................................................... 6.1%
2058...................................................... 6.1%
2059...................................................... 6.2%
2060...................................................... 6.2%
2061...................................................... 6.2%
2062...................................................... 6.2%
2063...................................................... 6.2%
2064...................................................... 6.2%
2065...................................................... 6.2%
2066...................................................... 6.2%
2067...................................................... 6.2%
2068...................................................... 6.3%
2069...................................................... 6.3%
2070...................................................... 6.3%
2071...................................................... 6.3%
2072...................................................... 6.3%
2073...................................................... 6.3%
2074...................................................... 6.4%
2075...................................................... 6.3%
2076...................................................... 6.3%
2077...................................................... 6.3%
2078...................................................... 6.4%
2079...................................................... 6.4%
2080...................................................... 6.4%
2081...................................................... 6.4%
2082...................................................... 6.4%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Submissions to Provide for the Reform of Mandatory
Spending.--(1) Not later than July 29, 2009, the House
committees named in paragraph (2) shall submit their
recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the House
of Representatives. After receiving those recommendations
from the applicable committees of the House, the Committee on
the Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill
carrying out all such recommendations without substantive
revision.
(2) Instructions.--
(A) Committee on agriculture.--The Committee on Agriculture
shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
sufficient to reduce direct spending outlays by
$38,481,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2010 through
2019.
(B) Committee on education and labor.--The Committee on
Education and Labor shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending outlays by
$22,708,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2010 through
2019.
(C) Committee on energy and commerce.--The Committee on
Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending outlays by
$666,135,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2010 through
2019.
(D) Committee on financial services.--The Committee on
Financial Services shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending outlays by
$28,400,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2010 through
2019.
(E) Committee on foreign affairs.--The Committee on Foreign
Affairs shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
sufficient to reduce direct spending outlays by
$1,839,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2010 through
2019.
(F) Committee on the judiciary.--The Committee on the
Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending outlays by
$4,320,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2010 through
2019.
(G) Committee on natural resources.--The Committee on
Natural Resources shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending outlays by
$1,984,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2010 through
2019.
(H) Committee on oversight and government reform.--The
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shall report
changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce
direct spending outlays by $10,263,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2010 through 2019.
(I) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall report
changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce
direct spending outlays by $1,665,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2010 through 2019.
(J) Committee on ways and means.--The Committee on Ways and
Means shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
sufficient to reduce direct spending outlays by
$605,049,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2010 through
2019.
(b) Submission of Revised Allocations.--(1) Upon the
submission to the Committee on the Budget of the House of a
recommendation that has complied with its reconciliation
instructions solely by virtue of section 310(c) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the chairman of that
committee may file with the House appropriately revised
allocations under section 302(a) of such Act and revised
functional levels and aggregates.
(2) Upon the submission to the House of a conference report
recommending a reconciliation bill or resolution in which a
committee has complied with its reconciliation instructions
solely by virtue of this section, the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the House may file with the House
appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of
such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
TITLE III--CONGRESSIONAL POLICY STATEMENTS

SEC. 301. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICARE.

(a) Medicare Policy.--It is the policy of this concurrent
resolution that Congress will enact legislation to ensure the
Medicare benefit continues to provide health care coverage
for seniors by establishing a new methodology to make the
program solvent and fiscally sustainable. Legislation shall
be enacted that:
(1) Expands protections for seniors against catastrophic
medical costs, simplifies beneficiary contributions, updates
Medicare payments, increases flexibility for hospitals
serving unusually high numbers of low-income patients, and
reduces the prescription drug benefit subsidy for high-income
seniors (household incomes over $170,000). To ensure that the
cost of frivolous litigation is not passed on to
beneficiaries, the medical malpractice system is reformed.
(2) Preserves the current Medicare program for individuals
55 and older. For those under 55, the resolution gradually
converts the current Medicare program into one in which
Medicare beneficiaries receive a premium support payment--
equivalent to 100 percent of the cost of the Medicare
benefit--to purchase health coverage from a menu of Medicare-
approved plans, similar to options available to Members of
Congress. The premium support payment is risk-adjusted to
increase with age and health status, and income-related so
low-income seniors receive extra support. Premiums continue
to be based on an all-beneficiary average, so the phasing of
the younger population into the new program will not increase
premiums for the population continuing in the existing
program.
(b) Force and Effect of the Medicare Trigger.--The Medicare
trigger as set forth in section 803 of the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003
shall apply during the 111th Congress.

SEC. 302. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICAID.

It is the policy of this concurrent resolution that
Medicaid--
(1) is outdated and fiscally unsustainable;
(2) has a payment error rate of at least 10 percent (as
reported by GAO in January 2009);
(3) without major reform, its recipients' access to health
care is in jeopardy;
(4) must be reformed to make the health care safety net
stronger and more reliable for the neediest populations;
(5) must be modernized by enhancing State flexibility and
their sensitivity to spending growth, while allowing States
to offer their Medicaid populations more options; and
(6) recipients, like all other Americans, deserve to make
their own health care decisions instead of government
bureaucrats dictating them.

SEC. 303. POLICY STATEMENT ON AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE
HEALTH CARE.

It is the policy assumption of this concurrent resolution
that legislation should be enacted that reforms the health
care marketplace by ensuring universal access to health
coverage for every American regardless of pre-existing health
conditions. It allows individuals who like their health
coverage to keep what they have, and offers those without
coverage access health care options similar to what Members
of Congress have. The resolution prevents the expansion of
entitlements, the creation of government-controlled health
plans, and the imposition of new mandates or taxes on
businesses. Individuals must have the freedom to choose the
health care plan that best meets their needs and freedom from
government bureaucrats making their health care decisions.
Medical professionals must not be prohibited--either through
the use of comparative effectiveness data or otherwise--from
providing and/or prescribing care they believe to be
medically necessary.

SEC. 304. POLICY STATEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY.

(a) Findings.--
(1) More than 30 million Americans depend on Social
Security as a key part of their retirement. Since enactment,
Social Security has served as a vital leg on the ``three-
legged stool'' of retirement security, which today includes
employer provided pensions as well as personal savings.
(2) Every year, the Social Security Trustees report warns
of the dire financial straits that Social Security is in.
Each year without reform, the financial condition of Social
Security becomes more precarious, and the threat to seniors
becomes more pronounced--
(A) in 2041, the Trust Fund will be exhausted, and will be
unable to pay scheduled benefits; and
(B) with the exhaustion of the Trust Fund in 2041, benefits
will be cut 22 percent across

[[Page 9762]]

the board--hurting all those who rely upon Social Security as
a fundamental part of their retirement security; and by 2082,
the cuts required would equal 25 percent.
(3) The current recession is exacerbating the crisis to
Social Security. The most recent March 2009 CBO baseline
finds that the cash surplus in 2010 will only be $3 billion--
down $22 billion from just 3 months ago. Should the recession
continue, we may enter into a cash deficit in 2010--8 years
earlier than expected.
(4) Lower-income Americans rely on Social Security for a
larger proportion of their retirement income. Therefore,
reforms should take into consideration the need to protect
lower-income Americans' retirement security.
(5) Americans deserve to have their elected Representatives
take seriously the issue of Social Security reform. We must
work together--in a bipartisan fashion--in order to solve
this crisis. In this spirit, this resolution puts forth a
reform that was first proposed by the current Director of the
Office of Management and Budget.
(b) Policy on Social Security.--It is the policy of this
resolution that Congress should begin to act on Social
Security. Should the Trustees of the Social Security Trust
Fund determine that the Trust Fund would be unable to pay
scheduled benefits within five years (currently estimated in
2036); reforms such as the following are recommended to be
implemented to mitigate across-the-board cuts in benefit
payments:
(1) Provide for a phase in of low-earner benefit
enhancement. This would protect lower-income Americans
meeting certain requirements by ensuring they receive a
benefit of at least 120 percent of the poverty line.
(2) Reduce the 15-percent Primary Insurance Amount bracket
by 0.25 percentage points per year, from the date at which
SSA finds it cannot meet scheduled benefits within 5 years
(currently 2036). Phase in over 20 years.
(3) The spending, revenue, deficit, and debt levels in this
concurrent resolution assume current law benefits will be
fully paid and do not assume any savings in Social Security.

SEC. 305. POLICY STATEMENT ON ENERGY.

(a) Energy Policy.--It is recognized that:
(1) energy is recognized as a vital component to our
national and economic security.
(2) our dependence on foreign oil, natural gas, and other
sources of energy is a threat to our national and economic
security;
(3) our dependence on foreign oil, natural gas, and other
fuel sources is contributing to a massive transfer of wealth
outside of the United States;
(4) increasing production of domestic energy will reduce
our dependence on foreign oil, natural gas, and other sources
of energy;
(5) high rates of taxes levied upon domestic production of
oil and natural gas energy sources will place domestic
producers at a competitive disadvantage relative to foreign
competitors and will discourage domestic energy production;
(6) a significant amount of oil and natural gas reserves
are believed to be located on Federal lands including the
Outer Continental Shelf, the Gulf of Mexico, the Arctic
National and Wildlife Refuge, the National Petroleum Reserve,
the Intermountain West Region;
(7) domestic energy development on Federal lands should
comply with environmental laws and regulations and should be
conducted in an environmentally responsible manner that
minimizes the disruption to fish, plant, insect, and animal
wildlife;
(8) alternative forms of energy development including
solar, wind, biomass, wave, tidal, hydro, and other forms can
produce pollution-free energy with favorable environmental
benefits, including the reduction of global green house gas
emissions;
(9) increased nuclear energy is an important component to
achieving an energy supply free of green house gas emissions;
(10) lower energy prices will do more to promote economic
growth, raise living standards, increase incomes, and create
jobs than will higher energy prices;
(11) numerous studies on cap and trade conducted by
government agencies, universities, think tanks, and industry
groups agree that cap and trade will raise energy prices for
businesses and consumers; and
(12) revenues, royalties, fees, and taxes raised from
developing energy projects located on Federal lands could
provide billions of dollars to the Treasury which could be
used to fund increased Federal participation and support for
alternative, renewable, and nuclear energy projects without
raising new taxes or increasing energy prices on businesses
and consumers.
(b) Statement on Energy Policy.--It is the policy of this
concurrent resolution that the energy policy of the United
States is to--
(1) support our national and economic security by reducing
our dependence on foreign oil, natural gas, and other sources
of energy;
(2) support the increased development of energy on Federal
lands in an environmentally responsible manner consistent
with existing laws and regulations in a manner that minimizes
the impact on fish, plant, insect, and animal wildlife;
(3) support the development of alternative, renewable, and
nuclear sources of energy that will reduce reliance on
foreign oil and contribute to reduced levels of global green
house gasses;
(4) direct revenues from royalties, bonus bids, fees,
rents, and other taxes levied on new energy projects on
Federal lands to fund increased Federal participation in
research, development, loans, loan guarantees, insurance, tax
credits and subsidies, and other assistance that will
encourage new development of alternative, renewable, and
nuclear sources of energy;
(5) ensure taxes levied on domestic oil and natural gas
produces do not place them at a competitive disadvantage
relative to foreign competitors, lead to job losses, or
encourage a greater dependence on foreign sources of oil,
natural gas, or other energy sources; and
(6) pursue policies that keep energy prices low and
contribute to economic growth and avoid policies that raise
energy prices on American businesses and consumers.

SEC. 306. POLICY STATEMENT ON TAXES.

(a) In General.--The policies of this concurrent resolution
include the following assumptions:
(1) The Federal tax code is needlessly complex and
burdensome, and it tends to discourage economic growth and
United States competitiveness.
(2) The policies included in this resolution are aimed at
addressing these problems.
(b) Taxes on Individuals.--This concurrent resolution would
give individuals a choice in paying their Federal income
taxes. Individuals can choose to pay their Federal taxes
under the existing tax code, with all the familiar deductions
and schedules, or they could move to a highly simplified
income tax system. This simplified tax system broadens the
tax base by cleaning out nearly all the existing tax
deductions and credits, compresses the tax schedule down to
two low rates and retains a generous standard deduction and
exemption level. The tax form for this system could fit on a
postcard. Within ten years of enactment of this legislation,
individuals would choose one of the two tax systems: the
current tax code or the simplified system. Individuals are
allowed one additional changeover between the two tax systems
over the course of their lifetimes. Individuals are also
allowed to change tax systems when a major life event (death,
divorce, or marriage) alters their filing status. In contrast
to the six rates in the current tax code, the simplified tax
has just two rates: 10 percent on adjusted gross income (AGI)
up to $100,000 for joint filers and $50,000 for single
filers; and 25 percent on taxable income above these amounts.
These tax brackets are adjusted by a cost-of-living
adjustment as measured by the consumer price index. The
simplified code eliminates nearly all existing tax
deductions, exclusions, and other special provisions, but it
retains a generous base exemption amount for all taxpayers.
The standard deduction for joint filers is $25,000 for joint
filers and $12,500 for single filers. The personal exemption
amount is $3500. This proposal patches the alternative
minimum tax (AMT) at the 2009 level for the foreseeable
future in order to prevent millions of middle class Americans
from being ensnared by an unfair tax hike. This tax system
also maintains the current lower rates on capital gains and
dividends for all taxpayers.
(c) Taxes on Corporations.--The U.S. corporate income tax
rate is the second highest in the industrialized world. The
tax leads to lowers wages for workers, higher prices for
consumers, and it also discourages foreign investment in the
U.S. This concurrent resolution assumes policies that address
these problems by lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate from
35 percent to 25 percent, pushing it into the more
competitive range among industrialized countries. In
conjunction with this move, the resolution repeals the tax
deduction for U.S. production activities (section 199), as
companies receiving this benefit will now be taxed at the
lower 25-percent rate. It also temporarily suspends the tax
on capital gains for the rest of 2009 and 2010. These
policies are designed to keep overall Federal tax revenues at
approximately 18.3 percent of GDP for the foreseeable future,
roughly equivalent to the long-term historical average.
TITLE IV--SHORT-TERM BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 401. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--(1) In the House, except as provided in
subsection (b), an advance appropriation may not be reported
in a bill or joint resolution making a general appropriation
or continuing appropriation, and may not be in order as an
amendment thereto.
(2) Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a
Senate amendment that would violate paragraph (1) unless
specific authority to agree to the amendment first is given
by the House by a separate vote with respect thereto.
(b) Advance Appropriation.--In the House, an advance
appropriation may be provided for the fiscal years 2011 and
2012 for programs, projects, activities, or accounts
identified in the joint explanatory statement of managers
accompanying this resolution under the heading ``Accounts
Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in an aggregate
amount not to exceed $23,565,000,000 in new budget authority
in each year.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance
appropriation'' means any new

[[Page 9763]]

budget authority provided in a bill or joint resolution
making general appropriations or any new budget authority
provided in a bill or joint resolution making continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2010 that first becomes
available for any fiscal year after 2010.

SEC. 402. ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED ON INCREASING THE DEBT
LIMIT.

With respect to the adoption by the Congress of a
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, the
clerk of the House shall not prepare an engrossment of a
joint resolution increasing or decreasing, as the case may
be, the statutory limit on the public debt.

SEC. 403. BUDGET COMPLIANCE STATEMENTS.

Each report of a committee on a public bill or public joint
resolution shall contain a budget compliance statement
prepared by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, if
timely submitted prior to the filing of the report, which
shall include assessment by such chairman as to whether the
bill or joint resolution complies with the requirements of
sections 302, 303, 306, 311, and 401 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.

SEC. 404. COST ESTIMATES FOR CONFERENCE REPORTS AND
UNREPORTED MEASURES.

It shall not be in order to consider a conference report or
an unreported bill or joint resolution unless an estimate of
costs as described in clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII has been
printed in the Congressional Record at least one day before
its consideration.

SEC. 405. ROLL CALL VOTES FOR NEW SPENDING.

The yeas and nays shall be considered as ordered when the
Speaker puts the question on passage of a bill or joint
resolution, or on adoption of a conference report, for which
the chairman of the Budget Committee has advised the Speaker
that such bill, joint resolution, or conference report
authorizes or provides new budget authority of not less than
$50,000,000. The Speaker may not entertain a unanimous
consent request or motion to suspend this section.

SEC. 406. ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN CONCEPTS AND
DEFINITIONS.

Upon the enactment of a bill or joint resolution providing
for a change in concepts or definitions, the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget shall make adjustments to the levels
and allocations in this resolution in accordance with section
251(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985 (as in effect prior to September 30, 2002).

SEC. 407. SOCIAL SECURITY OFF-BUDGET COMPLIANCE STATEMENT.

As required by section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act
of 1990 and section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, this concurrent resolution on the budget does not
include the outlays and revenue totals of the old-age,
survivors, and disability insurance program established under
title II of the Social Security Act or the related provisions
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in the surplus or
deficit totals.

SEC. 408. APPLICATIONS AND EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.

(a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and
aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--
(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.
(b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised
allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in
this resolution.
(c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this
resolution--
(1) the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct
spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and
surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal years shall
be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee
on the Budget; and
(2) such chairman may make any other necessary adjustments
to such levels to reflect the timing of responses to
reconciliation directives pursuant to section 201 of this
resolution.

SEC. 409. EMERGENCY SPENDING AND CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

(a) Emergency Spending Designation .--In the House, if any
bill or joint resolution is reported, or an amendment is
offered thereto or a conference report is filed thereon, and
such provision is designated as an emergency pursuant to this
section, then the new budget authority, new entitlement
authority, outlays, or receipts resulting therefrom shall not
count for purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(b) Contingency Operations Related to the Global War on
Terrorism and for Unanticipated Defense Needs.-- In the
House, if any bill or joint resolution is reported, or an
amendment is offered thereto or a conference report is filed
thereon, that makes appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related
operations, then the new budget authority, new entitlement
authority, outlays, or receipts resulting therefrom shall not
count for purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
TITLE V--LONG-TERM BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 501. SPENDING AND REVENUE INCREASE CONTROLS.

It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives to
consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report, unless war has been declared or during a
recession, as determined by the House Budget Committee, that
causes aggregate--
(1) Federal spending levels, in any fiscal year to exceed
the percentage of spending relative to the gross domestic
product as set forth in section 510; and
(2) Federal revenue levels, in any fiscal year, to exceed
the percentage of revenue relative to the gross domestic
product as set forth in section 510.

SEC. 502. PREVENT INCREASES IN THE LONG-TERM UNFUNDED
LIABILITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

(a) Long-Term Solvency Point of Order.--It shall not be in
order in the House of Representatives to consider any bill,
joint resolution, amendment thereto, or conference report
thereon, if such measure includes a provision that causes a
net increase in the long-term unfunded liability of the
Federal Government.
(b) Congressional Budget Office Analysis of Proposals.--The
Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall, to the
extent practicable, prepare for each bill and joint
resolution reported from committee (except measures within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations), and
amendments thereto and conference reports thereon, an
estimate of whether the measure causes, relative to current
law--
(1) a net increase in the Medicare Part A Trust Fund's
unfunded liability; and
(2) a net increase in the long-term unfunded liability of
the Federal Government.
(c) Government Accountability Office.--The GAO shall assess
the level of the Federal Government's long-term unfunded
obligations and provide a report to the Committee on the
Budget of the House, and other appropriate committees, as
soon as practicable after the beginning of each session of
Congress.
(d) Department of the Treasury.--The Department of the
Treasury shall assess the level of the Federal Government's
long-term unfunded obligations and provide a report to the
Committee on the Budget of the House, and other appropriate
committees.
(e) House Budget Committee Determination.--The chairman of
the House Budget Committee shall advise the Chair as to the
whether a measure referred to in subsection (a) complies with
this section.

SEC. 503. ESTIMATES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives
shall include in the report referred to section 308(b)(2) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 an estimate of the level
of total spending in outlays and revenue for the period of
fiscal years 2010 through 2082 as a percentage of gross
domestic product for purposes of this section.

SEC. 504. PROJECTIONS.

(a) CBO Long-Term Economic Growth and Budget Projections.--
By February 1 of each calendar year, for each fiscal year
within the long-term period, as set forth in section 512, CBO
shall prepare a report that sets forth the amount of total
spending of the Government in outlays, and the amount of
total spending for the functional categories set forth in
section 112 .
(b) Inclusion in the Final Spending Reduction Report.--Each
report prepared pursuant to subsections [(a) and (b)] shall
be included in the preview spending reduction report and
final spending reduction report, as applicable, set forth in
sections [703 and 704].
TITLE VI--EARMARK REFORM

SEC. 601. MORATORIUM ON CONSIDERATION OF EARMARKS.

(a) In the House.--It shall not be in order to consider a
bill, joint resolution, or conference report containing a
congressional earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff
benefit (as such terms are used in clause 9 of rule XXI of
the Rules of the House of Representatives) until the end of
the first session of the 111th Congress.
(b) In the Senate.--[To be supplied.]

SEC. 602. JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON EARMARK REFORM.

A vacancy in the joint select committee shall not affect the
power of the remaining members to execute the functions of
the joint select committee, and shall be filled in the same
manner as the original selection.
(b) Study and Report.--

[[Page 9764]]

(1) Study.--The joint select committee shall make a full
study of the practices of the House, Senate, and Executive
Branch regarding earmarks in authorizing, appropriation, tax,
and tariff measures. As part of the study, the joint select
committee shall consider the efficacy of--
(A) the disclosure requirements of clause 9 of rule XXI and
clause 17 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate, and the definitions contained therein;
(B) requiring full transparency in the process, with
earmarks listed in bills at the outset of the legislative
process and continuing throughout consideration;
(C) requiring that earmarks not be placed in any bill after
initial committee consideration;
(D) requiring that Members be permitted to offer amendments
to remove earmarks at subcommittee, full committee, floor
consideration, and during conference committee meetings;
(E) requiring that bill sponsors and majority and minority
managers certify the validity of earmarks contained in their
bills;
(F) recommending changes to earmark requests made by the
Executive Branch through the annual budget submitted to
Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States
Code;
(G) requiring that House and Senate amendments meet earmark
disclosure requirements, including amendments adopted
pursuant to a special order of business; and
(H) establishing new categories for earmarks, including--
(i) projects with national scope;
(ii) military projects; and
(iii) local or provincial projects, including the level of
matching funds required for such project.
(2) Report.--
(A) The joint select committee shall submit to the House a
report of its findings and recommendations not later than 6
months after adoption of this concurrent resolution.
(B) No recommendation shall be made by the joint select
committee except upon the majority vote of the members from
each House, respectively.
(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution,
any recommendation with respect to the rules and procedures
of one House that only affects matters related solely to that
House may only be made and voted on by members of the joint
select committee from that House and, upon its adoption by a
majority of such members, shall be considered to have been
adopted by the full committee as a recommendation of the
joint select committee.

In conducting the study under paragraph (1), the joint select
committee shall hold not fewer than 5 public hearings.
(c) Resources and Dissolution.--
(1) the joint select committee may utilize the resources of
the House and Senate.
(2) the joint select committee shall cease to exist 30 days
after the submission of the report described in subsection
(a)(2).
(d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``earmark'' shall include congressional earmarks,
congressionally directed spending items, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as those terms are used
in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate. Nothing in this subsection shall confine the study of
the joint select committee or otherwise limit its
recommendations.
TITLE VII--PAY-AS-YOU-GO ENFORCEMENT FOR MANDATORY SPENDING

SEC. 701. PAY-AS-YOU-GO FOR MANDATORY SPENDING LEGISLATION.

(a) Point of Order.--
(1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House to
consider any direct spending legislation, excluding the
impact of any revenue provisions, that would increase the
budget deficit or cause a budget deficit for any of
applicable time periods as set forth in paragraph (2).
(2) Applicable time period.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``applicable time period'' means--
(A) the current fiscal year;
(B) the budget year;
(C) the period of the 5 fiscal years following the current
fiscal year; and
(D) the period of the 5 fiscal years following the 5 fiscal
years referred to in subparagraph (C).
(3) Direct spending legislation.--For purposes of this
subsection and except as provided in paragraph (4), the term
``direct spending legislation'' means any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that
affects direct spending as that term is defined by, and
interpreted for purposes of, the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(4) Baseline.--Estimates prepared pursuant to this
subsection shall use the most recent baseline estimates
supplied by the Congressional Budget Office consistent with
section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
(b) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this
section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, and
revenues for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis
of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget.
(c) Point of Order Protection in the House.--In the House,
it shall not be in order to consider a rule or order that
waives the application of subsection (a). As disposition of a
point of order under this section, the Chair shall put the
question of consideration with respect to the rule or order
that waives the application of subsection (a). The question
of consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the
Member initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an
opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening
motion except one that the House adjourn.
TITLE VIII--DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS

SEC. 801. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

(a) Discretionary Spending Limits.--As used in this
section, the term ``discretionary spending limits'' mean--
(1) Nondefense discretionary category.--
(A) Fiscal Year 2010:
(i) Budget authority: $479,559,000,000.
(ii) Outlays: $538,888,000,000.
(B) Fiscal Year 2011:
(i) Budget authority: $480,712,000,000.
(ii) Outlays: $552,231,000,000.
(C) Fiscal Year 2012:
(i) Budget authority: $482,150,000,000.
(ii) Outlays: $546,975,000,000.
(D) Fiscal Year 2013:
(i) Budget authority: $483,679,000,000.
(ii) Outlays: $547,914,000,000.
(E) Fiscal Year 2014:
(i) Budget authority: $485,264,000,000.
(ii) Outlays: $547,703,000,000.
(F) Fiscal Year 2015:
(i) Budget authority: $487,437,000,000.
(ii) Outlays: $548,092,000,000.
(G) Fiscal Year 2016:
(i) Budget authority: $488,275,000,000.
(ii) Outlays: $549,089,000,000.
(H) Fiscal Year 2017:
(i) Budget authority: $489,369,000,000.
(ii) Outlays: $551,612,000,000.
(I) Fiscal Year 2018:
(i) Budget authority: $490,787,000,000.
(ii) Outlays: $553,312,000,000.
(J) Fiscal Year 2019:
(i) Budget authority: $491,468,000,000.
(ii) Outlays: $555,520,000,000.
(2) Defense discretionary category.--
(A) Fiscal Year 2010:
(i) Budget authority: $691,128,000,000.
(ii) Outlays: $690,463,000,000.
(B) Fiscal Year 2011:
(i) Budget authority: $614,293,000,000.
(ii) Outlays: $658,207,000,000.
(C) Fiscal Year 2012:
(i) Budget authority: $623,612,000,000.
(ii) Outlays: $638,011,000,000.
(D) Fiscal Year 2013:
(i) Budget authority: $634,421,000,000.
(ii) Outlays: $637,332,000,000.
(E) Fiscal Year 2014:
(i) Budget authority: $648,249,000,000.
(ii) Outlays: $642,132,000,000.
(F) Fiscal Year 2015:
(i) Budget authority: $663,024,000,000.
(ii) Outlays: $653,987,000,000.
(G) Fiscal Year 2016:
(i) Budget authority: $678,064,000,000.
(ii) Outlays: $672,185,000,000.
(H) Fiscal Year 2017:
(i) Budget authority: $693,507,000,000.
(ii) Outlays: $682,823,000,000.
(I) Fiscal Year 2018:
(i) Budget authority: $709,411,000,000.
(ii) Outlays: $693,937,000,000.
(J) Fiscal Year 2019:
(i) Budget authority: $725,737,000,000.
(ii) Outlays: $714,265,000,000.
(b) Adjustment Authority.--If the chairman of the Committee
on the Budget adjusts the allocations set forth pursuant to
section 302(a), or other adjustments as applicable, of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, corresponding adjustments
may be made to the discretionary caps set forth in subsection
(a).
(c) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House,
unless it has been designated pursuant to section 410 of this
resolution, to consider any bill or joint resolution (or
amendment, motion, or conference report on that bill or joint
resolution) that causes the discretionary spending limits in
this section to be exceeded, as determined by estimates
provided by the chairman of the Budget Committee of the
House.
(d) Concurrent Resolution on the Budget.--It shall not be
in order to consider a concurrent resolution on the budget if
such resolution--
(1) does not include discretionary caps for the fiscal
years covered by this resolution with separate defense and
nondefense categories; or
(2) includes discretionary spending levels higher than
those included in this section for the nondefense category
set forth in this section.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and a Member
opposed each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, at this time, I would like to
yield 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague from Wisconsin for yielding.

[[Page 9765]]

Madam Chair and my colleagues, I think all of us know that our
economy is in big trouble. American families are struggling; small
businesses are struggling; unemployment is increasing, and one of the
hallmarks of being an American is that each generation was proud of the
fact that they were leaving for the next generation a better country
with more opportunities, better than what they'd had. A lot of
Americans today don't believe that that will happen.
But we can go back to the greatest generation. The greatest
generation during World War II was called the ``greatest generation''
because those men and women stood up and fought for America and did
what they had to do so that their kids and grandkids could pursue the
American dream. They made the tough choice to get involved, to go to
war, to do what they had to do.
As we look at this budget that we have in front of us, there are no
tough choices. The Democrat plan to increase spending, to increase
taxes and to increase the debt makes no difficult choices. Why?
Because, when you just keep spending money, you don't have to make
decisions. You just keep spending money. The fact is, if you look at
this budget, it spends too much; it taxes too much, and it puts too
much debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids.

{time} 1730

If you look at the chart next to me, you can see this red line, and
this red line indicates the amount of spending that we see in the plan
offered by our Democrat colleagues. The green line, as an example, is
the spending represented in the Republican budget alternative that
does, in fact, spend less.
But it is not just spending. When you look at the taxes in this bill,
it will increase taxes several trillion dollars--that's with a ``T.''
Now, the majority wants to say, Well, no, that's not what the budget
says. That's why I have described their budget as the Bernie Madoff
budget because they tinkered and hid all of the really serious
proposals that they all have in mind to do.
They have talked about their cap-and-trade, their national energy
tax, but you can't see it in here. And so let us just call it what it
is, the Bernie Madoff budget, because if you look at the other
documents, they want to do cap-and-trade, which is a national energy
tax, $1.5 trillion, they want to let all of the tax cuts that were
passed early in this decade, they want to allow them all to expire and
even have other ideas to bring back the death tax, the tax that is on
top of taxes that were paid when you earn the money, capital gain taxes
you paid along the way. And if you saved money and you did the
responsible thing, when you die, we're going to come in and take half
of it. Now, this is un-American.
So you have got too much spending, you've got way too many ideas
about raising taxes. And then we get to the really tough part of this
budget.
We get to the debt. You know, we actually do have to borrow money.
The Chinese have been our biggest loaners here over the last decade.
We've accumulated some $5.8 trillion worth of debt over the last 220
years and 43 Presidents. This budget doubles the debt in 5 years. It
triples the national debt in 10 years. And one only has to look at this
chart--the blue line is the debt that we've accumulated, the red line
being the amount of debt that will be accumulated over the course of
this budget and into the future. The green line represents a Republican
alternative, which I think is a much, much safer bet and, frankly,
reduces the debt that our kids and grandkids are going to have to pay.
So if you look at a budget, it's always called an outline, a roadmap.
Well, I have a description of what this budget is. It's a roadmap to
disaster. As I said earlier this year, we're going to be the party of
better solutions. We clearly are not in agreement with the Democrat
budget. Paul Ryan, or my colleague from Wisconsin, and the members of
the Budget Committee on our side of the aisle have put together a
better solution that has less spending, that has less taxes and much
less debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids.
As I said before, previous generations have made tough decisions,
tough decisions to ensure that your kids and grandkids would have a
brighter future. The budget presented by the majority doesn't make
those tough decisions. There is no question that our budget does
require us to make tough decisions.
We actually deal with the issue of entitlements, which is important
for us to deal with because there is no way to balance the budget and
begin to reduce the debt unless you begin to look at these entitlement
programs where our generations made promises to ourselves that our kids
and grandkids can't afford. We need to do it in a responsible way. We
need to do it in a bipartisan way to preserve these, perhaps to help
those people who depend upon them, but also to make them affordable for
our kids and grandkids who get to pay the bill.
And so we do make tough decisions. And that's the real point of why
the American people send us here. They send us here to make the
decisions on behalf of our country, on behalf of their kids and
grandkids. And we can't just run away from those decisions--which was
represented by the Democrat budget--we have to make them. And when we
don't make those decisions, those tough decisions, it's our kids and
grandkids who are going to pay the price: higher taxes, bigger
government, and most importantly, less opportunities for them.
You know, one thing that has been great about America is that we
allow the American people to keep more of what they earn in our budget,
small businesses to keep more of what they earn. They are the engines
of economic growth. They are the engines of opportunity in America.
Most of you have traveled around the world and you know, there is no
country like ours. None anywhere in the world. Why? Because in America,
you can grow up and be anything you want to be, you can do anything you
want to do.
And the reason for that is we have a system that allows the American
people to keep more of their money, to make decisions for themselves
and their own family. We have opportunities, opportunities you don't
see any place else in the world.
The budget presented by the majority will stamp out those
opportunities because the economic growth that we will have as a result
of this budget will slow dramatically, and when you slow economic
growth, you slow job creation in America and you slow down the
opportunities available to our kids and grandkids to grow up and be
anything that they want to be.
I would suggest to my colleagues it's time to say ``no'' to the
irresponsible spending plan, taxing plan, and borrowing plan presented
by the majority and to support the Republican alternative, which
requires us to make the tough decisions that the American people sent
us here to make.
Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 20
minutes.
Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York, the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means
Committee, Mr. Rangel.
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Chairman, our minority leader said that it's time
for us to say ``no.'' Well, that's all they've been saying since we've
been involved in this crisis and every issue that we brought to the
floor, saying ``no.''
Our great Nation is involved in a fiscal sickness that's equivalent
to being in intensive care, and anyone who knows serious illness knows
that is not the time to negotiate with your doctors or the hospitals as
to how you've got to pay the bill. The essential thing is that we
regain our health and come out of this as America always has, as a
stronger, more competitive country.
Our President is going abroad trying to get the rest of the world to
get some type of fiscal order. But we aren't down here to have
Republican budgets and Democrat budgets and to take shots at each
other, because our constituents that are losing their jobs, losing
their health care, that are out there suffering as a result of this
crisis, they are

[[Page 9766]]

not Republicans or Democrats. They are Americans.
No. I don't think it's time to say ``no.'' I think it's time to say,
how can we work together to restore the health of this great Nation?
How can we educate the Nation? Give it health care, help to clean the
atmosphere, move forward as the world leaders that God blessed us to
have the resources.
It's time to stop the fighting and come together and support our
President, our economy and our country.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, this has been a long day, a long
couple of days. We're talking about the fiscal future of America.
Here is the budget we propose. There is something that's important,
that's worth saying. Obviously we don't like the majority's budget, the
President's budget, and I believe it's incumbent upon us to offer an
alternative. So that's what we're doing here today.
I want to walk you through our alternative.
A couple of things off the bat.
It has lower deficits, lower spending, lower taxes, lower debt, and a
lot more jobs. Specifically on spending, our budget spends $4.8
trillion less than the majority's budget.
Deficits. Our budget has lower deficits than the Obama-Spratt budget
throughout the entire period, and half of it at the end of the period.
Jobs. We asked some economists to take a look at, well, which
approach creates the most jobs, and they told us just in the fifth year
alone you'd have more than two million more jobs under the Republican
alternative than you would under the Democratic proposal, the Obama
proposal. Why? Because they raise taxes on small businesses. They raise
taxes on pensions, on the assets that make up our savings. They raise
taxes on energy. They raise debt borrowing, which will lead to higher
interest rates.
But let me tell you something else. This is a long-run chart. My
friends on the other side have sort of ridiculed bringing these long-
run charts to the floor.
Let me read from a document published by the Brookings Institution
and the Heritage Foundation. Signed by experts, economists, from the
Concord Coalition, the Brookings Institution, the Heritage Foundation,
the New America Foundation, the Progressive Policy Institute and the
Urban Institutes. Not exactly your bastion of right-wing think tanks.
They say on page 6, among their top recommendations, ``Congress and
the President should enact explicit long-term budgets for Social
Security, Medicare and Medicaid that are sustainable, that set limits
on automatic spending growth that require review every 5 years.'' More
importantly, they say the long-run cost of these programs should be
visible in the budget at all times and considered when decisions are
made.
What are they saying? Let's think about the future when we're voting
on these budgets. Let's think about what we're doing to the next
generation.
The President himself said this is the most transformative budget
we've seen in a generation. We haven't seen the kinds of change that
this budget proposes, the likes of which we haven't seen since the New
Deal.
So let's consider the ramifications of that. Let's think about what
we're doing and the fiscal consequences of it.
And so here's what the picture tells you.
Spending. This budget puts us on a path of ever-higher spending to
the point where my three children, who are 4, 5 and 7 years old, will
see a government that is double the size of the one we have today,
double the size of one we've ever had in this country.
The Republican budget gets us back on track to keep the size of our
government where it has always been so we can maximize freedom.
What about debt?
This is the tidal wave of red ink that all of the experts are telling
us about. The General Accountability Office, the Congressional Budget
Office, left and right economists from all around. The point is we
shouldn't be looking down the road 5 years, 10 years.
You know what? I have a mom. She is 75 years old. I have got my kids.
I just told you how old they were. I'm in the X generation. What we do
here affects all of those people. And so when we pass these bills, they
have consequences for everybody in America. And when you see that this
budget--which, by the way, is being generous to the Obama-Spratt mark--
this budget underestimates the fiscal damage their budget will do. It
is an island of red ink. It is a future of a banana republic of
borrowing. And we say let's not do that.
And you know what? If you start now, these reforms are compassionate.
The reforms we're seeing over the next 10 years are, instead of growing
mandatory spending at 5.3 percent, let's grow it at 3.9 percent. It's
more than double the rate of inflation right now. We're saying for
discretionary spending we gave all of these government agencies giant
increases in just the last couple of years. They are fat. Let's put
them on a diet for a little while. Let's freeze spending, prioritize
spending and then have modest increases after that so we can save our
country, save our fiscal future.
That's what we're saying. Let's not get in this vicious spiral, as
the Obama budget does, of chasing ever-higher spending with ever-higher
taxes that never quite catch that spending and gives us ever-higher
debt.
It's wrong. It's unconscionable. It's going to hurt our economy. It's
going to bankrupt our country. It's going to give our children a lower
standard of living.
At the end of the day, it comes down to this. I asked the
Congressional Budget Office, well, what about the standard of living of
future Americans? What will the standard of living look like on the
current pathway we are on in America? Not the Obama budget but just the
current pathway before you would pass this big government budget. And
they said this: Inferior standards of living. That's the red line.
We are basically consigning the next generation quantifiably,
irrefutably to a lower standard of living. That severs the tie between
our generations. That breaks the bond in this country, the legacy, that
says each generation takes on its responsibilities, fixes its problems
so that the next generation is better off.
You know, my dad told me a number of things when I was a young guy,
and he passed away when I was a kid. But I remember a couple of things
he always told me. Number one, don't just be part of the problem, be
part of the solution. So we're offering a solution. Number two, the
great thing about this country is each generation makes it better off
for the next, and you better do that when you're my age.
Our budget, according to the Congressional Budget Office, says that
the standard of living of Americans in the future currently and
consistently goes upwards. We are putting, in this budget, people on
the path for prosperity so that we can leave the next generation better
off.

{time} 1745

And we are offering an economic plan for right now to get jobs back
in this economy. We're offering an economic plan that shows we're going
to create more jobs.
The answers all don't flow out of Washington. The answers come from
individual Americans. That's the power of this country. That's the idea
of this country. The nucleus of our country, of our society, of our
economy, the genius of it are the American people themselves, not
Washington bureaucrats, not the idea that we have to take more money
and more power away from the people and spend it on their behalf and
exercise it on their behalf.
Unfortunately, that is the arrogant, paternalistic notion that is
being brought to the floor here by the budget that the American people
are being asked to swallow. I think it's wrong. I think it's dead
wrong, and we're following the advice of all the fiscal experts from
the left and from the right who are saying think about the
consequences, think about the future, think about what your actions are
doing.
That's what we are doing, and that is why I argue for our budget, a
sensible

[[Page 9767]]

budget, a commonsense budget, a budget that says to senior citizens, we
can protect your benefits right now if we act to save them for the
future. Here's the problem. These programs themselves grow themselves
right into extinction. If we don't reform these programs, we can't
protect those who are in and near retirement from those cuts. If you
act now, we can protect people who are in and near retirement. If we
don't act now, we can't.
That's what's wrong about the politics of demagoguery of taking on
these challenges, and that is why we need to be grownups and adults and
tackle these fiscal challenges before they tackle us.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. This substitute budget is a shortsighted attempt to
short-circuit essential investments in our economic recovery and long-
term growth. It takes back resources for long overdue investments in
education and health care and in energy.
A $29 billion cut to income security programs over 10 years, $25
billion of which comes from critical nutrition program increases. The
kind of investments that conservative economists tell us have the most
powerful stimulative impact, $1.73 in economic growth created for every
dollar spent, if only it were allowed to reach families in need.
But it does not end there. This Republican substitute budget creates
even more dramatic reductions in nutrition programs by requiring the
Agriculture Committee to cut $38 billion over 10 years. This is cutting
food programs for hungry kids. We know what the devastating effects of
unemployment, the cutoff of benefits for health care, that people today
are going to food pantries who never thought in their lives they would
have to do that.
A gentleman who says I have to take care of my kids, I never thought
I would go to a food pantry, I was humiliated, and I felt like a
lowlife, but my kids need to eat. That's what this budget would cut,
nutrition programs.
To be sure, the committee could reach a target here by reducing farm
price supports, but the gentleman from Wisconsin has said that he will
not open the farm bill. That means that the nutrition programs are the
only place to do their cutting, leaving millions of families, seniors,
women, and children to pay the price.
Our opponents have just trotted out the failed programs of the past,
and they are dealing with $3.3 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield the gentlelady 30 additional seconds.
Ms. DeLAURO. They simply ignore urgent challenges that we face as a
Nation. They pour $3.3 trillion into tax cuts over 10 years, most of it
going to the wealthiest Americans.
This budget is the last thing our economy needs now or down the road:
the kind of drastic cuts to essential services that will raise costs,
which will destroy our ability to compete and to grow. It's a relic of
8 long years of a failed economic policy of the Bush administration.
The American public rejected it. I urge my colleagues to think
realistically about our national challenge and to oppose this
substitute budget.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, if you ever wonder what a third Bush
term would look like, this is it. This is a budget plan that maintains
the tax breaks for the wealthiest people in America, pays for it by
giving people 55 and under a voucher to go fend for themselves in the
insurance market instead of Medicare, which I think would pay maybe 80
percent of what it costs.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Would the gentleman care to yield on that
point?
Mr. ANDREWS. I only have 1 minute. If you give me some of your time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Would you yield for a correction?
Mr. ANDREWS. Well, I tell you what, when you get your time, I'll
answer your question.
It would privatize Social Security. It would squeeze money out of the
Social Security system.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. There's no privatization of Social Security in
this bill. Can you show me where that is in this bill, please?
The CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. ANDREWS. May I continue?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has the time.
Mr. ANDREWS. It continues the enormously successful policy of
deregulation that has brought us to the brink of financial disaster. It
doesn't work. It doesn't work. For every one job this approach has
created, our approach has created 108.
We shouldn't go back to a sequel for a movie that was so bad to begin
with.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 10 seconds to say, show me
where Social Security is privatized. Show me where there is
deregulation. There's not even the word ``deregulation'' in this bill,
and all we're saying on Medicare for younger people, so we can save the
program, why don't we let them have a program like the one we have in
Congress. We have a good health care program. I think it's worthy of
theirs.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence), the chairman of the House Republican Conference.
Mr. PENCE. The budget brought by the majority to the floor today
spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much, and the American
people know it.
The Democrat budget will double the national debt in 5 years, triple
it in 10. 2010 spending: $3 trillion. More than $1 trillion in tax
increases in a recession, and deficits of nearly $1 trillion a year for
the next 10 years.
Truth is the Democrat majority has brought to this floor the most
fiscally irresponsible budget in American history.
While every American family and every small business is answering
these challenging times of sacrifice and frugality, the majority in
this Congress continues to believe that we can borrow and spend and
bail our way back to a growing economy. But not Republicans.
Thanks to the bold and innovative leadership of the ranking member of
the Budget Committee, Congressman Paul Ryan, Republicans have a better
solution. In stark contrast to the Democratic budget, the Republican
budget alternative puts America on a path to prosperity, spends nearly
$5 trillion less than the Democrats' budget over 10 years, brings debt
under control, borrowing nearly $4 trillion less than the Democrat
budget over 10, and it does not raise taxes.
Creating 2.1 million more jobs than the Democrat budget, this
Republican alternative puts its faith in individuals and businesses and
private sector. Suspending capital gains taxes, reforming the tax code,
reducing the corporate tax rate so we can keep American jobs here.
And even while we do so, we fund our national priorities, increasing
defense, increasing veterans, providing for healthy retirement
security, and touching not one cent of the Social Security program and
trust fund.
I urge my Democrats to do the unexpected, as Daniel Webster says on
the wall just before us, Let us do something in this generation. Let us
perform something worthy to be remembered.
Embrace bipartisanship today. Embrace fiscal discipline, tax relief,
and reform. I say to my Democratic colleagues with the deepest respect,
say ``yes'' to the American people. Vote ``yes'' on the Republican
budget alternative.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield myself 3 minutes.
The gentleman from Wisconsin and I are good friends. We work together
collegially and cordially, and I don't lightly disagree with him, but I
have to take profound exception here, because the budget he proposes
before us would lay out draconian cuts in spending, $2.4 trillion.
We're talking about real money over 10 years. These are made in the
name of deficit reduction, and they cover the spectrum.
Eleven committees are reconciled with instructions to make enormous

[[Page 9768]]

spending reduction: Energy and Commerce, $666 billion; Ways and Means,
$695 billion; Financial Services, that's housing, $28 billion. All
together $1.380 trillion in spending cuts is reconciled to 11
committees, and on top of that, it appears that Medicaid and CHIP would
be block granted.
This is serious stuff. And I've only begun, because this just applies
to mandatory spending. More is in store when you go to discretionary
spending. There's $1 trillion of cost reductions there, achieved by
imposing a freeze for five straight years on all discretionary programs
except defense and veterans. That's education, that's infrastructure,
that's science, NIH, NSF, public health, food safety. The list goes on,
frozen for five straight years.
For all the havoc and hurt that's wreaked by this draconian plan,
what do we gain? Very little on the bottom line. That's because the
$2.4 trillion in spending cuts is more than offset by $3.6 trillion in
tax cuts.
Under the guise of deficit reduction, more tax cuts are provided for
the upper brackets. According to the Citizens for Tax Justice, 25
percent of all Americans would face a tax increase under this budget
proposal. The wealthiest 1 percent would get $100,000 or more. Those
are not my numbers but theirs.
This is not the way to go. This is not the way to go to a deficit
reduction plan. This is not the way to go if we have any respect for
the values that are embodied in this budget. This is something we
should all vote down.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, may I inquire about the time.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 8 minutes remaining. The
gentleman from South Carolina has 13 minutes remaining.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I will wait to let them get caught up.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Miller).
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, Mr. Ryan said earlier
that this vote is ``all about freedom,'' and I agree.
Almost 70 years ago, President Franklin Roosevelt stood in this
chamber to report on the State of the Union. He called for a world
founded on four essential freedoms: freedom of expression; freedom of
religion; freedom of fear; and freedom from want. He explained that
freedom from want means securing a healthy, peacetime life for all of
our people.
In that same address, President Roosevelt called for ending the
special privileges for the few, a wider and constantly rising standard
of living, and widening the opportunities for adequate medical care.
By those measures, tens of millions of Americans are less free now
than their parents were, and they worry that their children will be
less free still.
This Republican budget drastically reduces, even more than they have
been reduced in recent years, the taxes on the richest Americans,
including those whose heedless greed created the economic crisis that
we now face. That, our colleagues in the minority proclaim, is what
freedom means.
Their budget again cheats education, health care, energy. The
majority budget invests in education, health care, in energy,
investments that are long overdue. The majority budget creates
opportunities and provides a liberating hope for middle-class families
that they can climb out of desperate debt and enjoy a widening
prosperity.
Vote for freedom from want. Vote for the majority budget. Vote
against this Republican budget.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I thank very much the gentleman from South
Carolina.
Let me just be very, very brief. I want to take a moment to point out
the fallacies in the Republicans' plan.
First of all, the Republicans' plan is based on the weakest effort to
try to deal with an economy that is receding. It is of little value to
base your plan on tax cuts at a time when the economy is in recession,
at a time when the economy is, in many cases, in a depression.

{time} 1800

We are losing, on average, 620,000 jobs every month, Madam Chair.
That's 21,000 every day. How in the world are we going to make an
economic policy based upon tax cuts, which are based upon income, when
the income levels of our country is going down?
There's a reason why this country supports what the Democrats are
doing under this Democrat President by over 60 percent. And that is
because we understand what this economy needs now is growth--and the
best way to get this economy to grow is to invest in the American
people. And when you invest in the American people, the best way to do
that is in education--to get our people educated and strong, to be able
to get them retrained to get the kind of jobs that we will need in a
new, restructured economy.
In terms of health care--not only to provide it in terms of lowering
the cost, but to create jobs in the health care area. Nowhere is that
need any greater in terms of jobs than in energy dependence.
That's why the American people are supporting the Democratic
initiatives on this, and I urge a positive vote for this budget
resolution.
Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chair, how much time remains on this side?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina has 10 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield myself 4 minutes.
As we near the end of this long debate, I want to speak to those who
are still weighing their vote and to any who are still wavering. To
them--in fact, everybody--let me say that with respect to our
resolution, if you want to vote for bold initiatives, like health care
for the millions who don't have insurance, our resolution lays out the
framework for helping that to happen, and for funding it so that the
net cost is not added to the deficit.
If you want to say to the next child you meet in a classroom, ``You
can go to college. Yes, you can go to college. Yes, you can. You can go
because Pell Grants will help pay the way if you do your studies and
work hard.'' If you want to look that child in the eye and say just
that, our resolution is the resolution you should vote for.
If you want to vote for tax reduction, this resolution supports $1.7
trillion in net tax reduction over 10 years, including all the middle-
income tax cuts that we passed in 2001 and 2003. And that's not my
contention; that's CBO's conclusion after reviewing this budget.
If you want to vote for deficit reduction, our resolution reduces
this year's deficit of $1.8 trillion--an unwelcome inheritance from the
last administration--our resolution reduces that deficit by two-thirds,
down to $586 billion by the year 2013, when it would be 3.5 percent of
GDP--roughly the growth rate that year.
If you want to be sure in voting for the deficit reduction that the
deficit will actually be reduced, our party is the party that balanced
this budget in 1998; our party is the party that paid off $400 billion
in Treasury debt; and our party is the party that left President Bush a
surplus of $236 billion the year before he came--$5.6 trillion over the
next 10 years of his administration.
We wiped out the deficit. They wiped out the surplus. Not only did
they wipe out the surplus, they ran up more than $5 trillion in debt
and left us a tab of $1.752 trillion in deficit, which we're struggling
with right now in the well of this House, and will be for years to
come. So when it comes to deficit reduction, we rest our case on the
record.
If you want to show where cost savings have been achieved because of
the budget you vote for, this resolution saves significant sums by
converting guaranteed student loans to direct DOE loans; we save
billions more by funding agencies like the IRS, HHS, Labor, and SSA, to
wipe out waste, fraud, and abuse; and we save $176 billion over 10
years by competing Medicare Advantage plans. If you want reasons why
you should vote, we've got them.
Finally, if you're still swayed by the other side's rhetoric, let me
offer in

[[Page 9769]]

evidence exhibit A on this poster right beside me. This chart is a
simple side-by-side that shows what Democrats accomplished in the 1980s
compared to what Republicans have accomplished since 2001.
Average monthly job growth. This is really dramatic. The Clinton
administration, Democrats in the 1990s, 217,000 jobs every month in job
creation. Republicans, 2,000, as opposed to 271,000. This is a matter
of record.
Net job creation, 22.7 million jobs. That's the net accomplishment of
the Clinton administration. The Bush administration's net
accomplishment, 1.9 million. Percentage of Americans living in poverty
during the Clinton administration, 3.8 percent reduction. During the
Bush administration, eight-tenths of a percentage point increase.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield myself 30 additional seconds.
Americans without health care or health coverage dropped from 15.3
percent to 13.7 percent in the Clinton years, then went back up to 15.3
in the Bush years.
These facts speak louder than anything I can say. The difference
between us is profound. If you want to know whom you can believe,
trust, and put your faith in with respect to economic planning, just
remember what we did in the 1990s, and what we can do in the period we
have now with the President we have and the program we're trying to
devise.
Vote for the base resolution--the House Democratic resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, at this time I'd like to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
Mr. SHADEGG. What we just heard was something rather amazing--it is
that you can get something for nothing. But as Americans know, that
simply isn't true. Indeed, what you get for spending is debt or higher
taxes. And there are some facts in this debate.
We spent a lot of time discussing today whether or not the cap-and-
trade program is a tax. The majority side said, ``Oh, no, no, it's not
a tax.'' But in the Obama budget it produces $647 billion for the
government. That's an additional weight on every single American--not
just taxpayers--but every single American. That's higher energy costs,
that's higher costs for everything we buy.
Now let's talk about some of the facts.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHADEGG. I will yield like you yielded earlier.
The largest tax increase in our history--$1.4 trillion over 10 years.
It contains the largest deficit--$1.8 trillion in 2009. Four times
larger than the previous record of $407 billion, the largest deficit as
a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product since World War II, and the
largest national debt.
I would suggest to you there are facts in this debate. Those facts
include that the Republican budget which was put together by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) spends $4.8 trillion less than the
Democrat budget, and it borrows $3.6 trillion less than the Obama
budget.
So what does that mean? What it means is that if we pass the Democrat
budget, we are rapidly going on the path of becoming--not the greatest
generation, which is what our parents and grandparents created, and
gave us the defeat of fascism, the advancement of freedom, and putting
America on a course to a level of prosperity we have never before seen.
What we are going to give our children, what we are going to give our
grandchildren, is the most reckless generation--a generation that is
driving itself deeper and deeper and deeper into debt.
It stuns me that the other side was so concerned when my Republican
colleagues were overspending, but not concerned today. Well, this
budget that the Democrats have proposed will double the national debt
in 5 years, triple it in 10. The facts are there.
We cannot do this to the greatest generation or to the next
generation. Let's not become the reckless generation.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of our
Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the
Republican substitute, and thank the gentleman for yielding.
Among its many shortcomings, this proposal slashes funding for the
international affairs budget 20 percent below the President's request,
and 10 percent below this year's spending level. This may be a
politically appealing thing to do, but it is as shortsighted and
irresponsible and harmful as any other aspect of this proposal--harmful
to our national security, harmful to our national interests.
For far too long we have failed to invest adequate resources in our
civilian foreign affairs agencies. The State Department has been so
starved for funds that a full 11 percent of its overseas diplomatic
posts remain unfilled. The U.S. Agency for International Development
now relies on only five engineers to oversee hundreds of infrastructure
projects around the world.
This glaring void in our civilian capacity is increasingly being
filled by the military. Our brave men and women in uniform follow
orders and do the best they can, but they are trained to be
warfighters, not development and reconstruction professionals.
That's why Defense Secretary Gates called, according to the
newspapers, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Conrad last week to plead
for more money--not for the Pentagon, but for the international affairs
budget.
The draconian cuts proposed in this substitute could have a direct
impact on the success of our efforts to stabilize Afghanistan.
President Obama has correctly recognized that the fight against al
Qaeda and the Taliban cannot be won by military means alone.
In addition to 21,000 additional troops, he's proposed sending
hundreds of agriculture and development specialists to help that war-
torn country get back on its feet. This budget would make that possible
because there's no way they could absorb the additional cuts and still
do that mission.
I would suggest that the President's number, and not the Republican
proposal and not the Ryan substitute, is the fiscally conservative
position in this debate.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this substitute.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, the gentleman is correct. We
don't have the President's request to increase the State Department's
budget by 51 percent. We are guilty as charged.
With that I would like to yield 2 minutes to the minority whip, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. First of all, Madam
Chair, the American people are looking at us today to see if there is
actually going to be a real connection between what this place is about
and what people are going through every single day in the communities
across this country.
Job number one for us is to get the economy back on track. And the
way we do that is to promote job creation. There is, without a doubt,
an attack on the job creators on the part of the budget being brought
forward by the majority.
How in the world do we expect small businesses to create jobs if
we're taxing small businesses? In fact, 50 percent of those individuals
who receive a tax hike on the majority's budget are small businesses.
And if you've got more employees, you've got higher taxes. That doesn't
make sense.
Some of the other accusations are, How do you think you can bring the
economy back by lowering taxes? Well, you know, how are we going to
bring the economy back by just cranking up government spending? At
best, what we do in government spending is redistribute wealth.
We need to get back to creating wealth, creating prosperity.
Madam Chair, there are two divergent views in this House today, there
is no question about it. One, the majority's budget is about preserving
the

[[Page 9770]]

status quo, it is about investing in Washington. The other, in Mr.
Ryan's budget, our alternative, is about promoting opportunity. It is
about promoting what is best for small businesses and working families
in this country.
America has always been more about opportunity. Yes, we want to
promote security--financial security. But the way we do that is to
promote opportunity.
I hear so many of the old, tired scare tactics coming from the
majority: The Republicans--all they will do is ruin Social Security.
We have provisions in our document which say we hold Social Security
harmless. The seniors are protected.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

{time} 1815

Mr. CANTOR. I hear from the other side that somehow we are cutting
real money out of the budget. Well, you are darn right we are cutting
real money out of the budget. What do you think the working families of
this country are having to do every single day? They are having to
tighten their belts. They are having to see about how they are actually
going to make it through the month and pay the mortgage and pay the
bills.
So, yes, our budget alternative reduces the borrowing that goes on,
that borrows the money that we don't have. It reduces it by 21 percent.
It lessens the spending by almost $5 trillion.
Ladies and gentlemen of the House, it is high time that we become
responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. As the gentleman from
Wisconsin said, we owe it to the people that we represent. We owe it to
the working families, to the small business people, to the single
working moms out there who are worried about their jobs and the fact
that investors are on the sidelines. We owe it to them to try and
reinstill the confidence. We have got to set the example. The way we
set the example is to be responsible. We have got to lay a path for the
future and show that we are good fiscal stewards of the taxpayer
dollars.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
My friends on the other side of the aisle--and I attempted to claim
the attention of my friend from Arizona when not once but twice today
he talked about somehow a $600 billion tax on the American people. I
was trying to get his attention to refer to the reserve funds on page
53 for him to look at to find where that number is. Where is that
number in the budget proposal before us?
Mr. SHADEGG. On page 30. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. The reserve fund has no number. It is on page 53.
Mr. SHADEGG. First of all----
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I only have a few seconds.
Mr. SHADEGG. If the gentleman will yield.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. The point is, the people ought to look at the budget,
at the reserve fund.
Mr. SHADEGG. If the gentleman will yield.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. And find that it is deficit-neutral, and that the
opportunity is here for us to address the climate change. I strongly
urge that people refer to it.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. We have no more speakers. So if the chairman
would finish his round of speakers, then that would be great with us. I
understand the gentleman reserves the right to close, and I would just
like to know when his last speaker is up.
Mr. SPRATT. We have the right to close, I believe. We have one more
speaker, and we will close with that speaker.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The next speaker was quoted a couple years ago
as saying about our Republican budget when we had a deficit of $248
billion, ``This constitutes nothing less than fiscal child abuse,
because they will morally force our children and grandchildren to pay
our bills.''
I couldn't have said it better myself, Madam Chair. That is exactly
what is happening. But the budget deficit is not $248 billion, it is
$1.8 trillion. We don't even get close to $248 billion under these
budgets.
Yes, we have a tough fiscal situation. We have inherited it. I guess
you could say so. The question is, what are we doing about it? Are we
make it better, or are we making it worse?
The President's budget, which is here on the floor, makes it so much
worse. It doubles the debt in 5\1/2\ years and triples it in 10.
Massive tax increases in the middle of a recession, on everyone, and
chases ever-higher spending with ever-higher taxes forever.
We have different ideas. We have differences. Nowhere else is it more
clear about the differences between our two parties than it is today.
The gentleman has spent the last 20 minutes criticizing us for
cutting spending. Guilty as charged. Yes, we need to cut spending. Wow.
I said it. Holy cow. In Washington. A novel idea.
You know what? We spend too much money in this government. We have
got to prioritize spending.
The American people, guess what, this is their money. We don't just
make it up. Well, actually, they are printing a lot of it down at the
Federal Reserve now, more than they should. This comes from the
American people. It is their money. If you keep taking it away from
them, do you know what happens at the end of the day, Madam Chair? They
don't have as much freedom. They don't have the ability to put
groceries on the table. They don't have the ability to pay their
mortgage, which might be underwater.
The engine of the economy of this country is not its government, it
is its people, and we believe that we need to get serious about our
fiscal situation. Don't raise taxes in a recession. Don't borrow and
spend your way to prosperity. It never worked in any other country. Why
would it work here?
Let's get our fiscal house in order. Let's get our deficit down.
Let's get our borrowing down. Let's get our taxes down. Let's get more
jobs and more freedom in this economy. That is exactly what our budget
does. It is responsible, it is serious, and it gives me the ability to
go home on the airplane tomorrow and look my three kids in the eyes
when I hug them and kiss them and tell them, ``I just made right by you
because I just went to work to make your future better.'' I am going to
go home with a clear conscience. I hope you can say the same.
Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of our time to our
distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 2\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the Chair, and I thank the chairman for yielding,
and I rise with great respect for the quality of character and the
quality of intellect that he brings to his job, one of the most
important jobs we have in this Congress.
I also rise with great respect for the ranking member, Mr. Ryan. I
like Mr. Ryan. I think Mr. Ryan is a very bright, able, conscientious,
honest Representative.
By the way, as an aside I will tell the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Shadegg) who called our attention to page 30, page 30 is a blank page.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. He was talking about the text of the
resolution.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Ryan gave my quote. I believed that then and I believe
it now. I believe we've pursued for too long policies of fiscal
irresponsibility, a concept that we need not pay for what we bought. I
believe it was called supply side economics, which to me meant that if
you do less, you get more. Nothing I have done in my life instructs me
that if I do less, I get more.
But because the gentleman used a quote of mine, I thought it might be
nice to use a quote of his. May 4, 2003, the Journal Sentinel:
``Is the deficit a concern?'' This is a quote. ``Absolutely. But
Congress should not constrain economic growth and keep people out of
work to pay down the deficit. Coping with the deficit requires getting
the economy

[[Page 9771]]

growing at a more robust rate and getting people back to work. More
people with jobs means more tax revenue being generated. This will help
us pay down the deficit more quickly and address the financial
challenges facing Social Security and Medicare as the baby boom
generation retires.'' My, my, my.
Mr. Ryan, you don't seem to feel that way now. The fact of the matter
is the Obama administration handed us an inheritance.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will my friend yield for a moment on that?
Mr. HOYER. Certainly.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The deficit went down after that comment, down
to $162 billion, which was the last year when we had control. $162
billion. So it actually went down because jobs went up.
Mr. HOYER. You mean the deficit was lower.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. No. The deficit was higher in 2003 and it went
down in 2006 to $162 billion because of higher economic growth. And
that is what we were trying to advocate for, getting the deficit down,
keeping taxes low, getting people into work.
And you know what--we should have done a better job on spending, and
on that you are right.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I am glad the gentleman went there.
The gentleman knows that under President Clinton we had a $5.6
trillion surplus projected. Not by Clinton, but by George Bush. When he
took office in March of 2001, he said, ``I have inherited a $5.6
trillion surplus.'' And, indeed, in the year before the Bush
administration came to office, I tell my friend from Wisconsin, we
created in that last year 1.9 million new jobs.
Mr. Spratt spoke of the average 217,000 jobs per month. You need
about 100,000 new jobs per month to stay even. Two hundred thirty
thousand jobs per month were created, on average. Some months were a
lot higher.
Two million new jobs in the last year of the Clinton administration.
And what happened in the last year of the Bush administration? After 8
years of the economic policies that you pursued and for 6 years had
total hegemony, total control, what happened? You heard the figures of
unemployment, but you doubled the deficit from $5 trillion to $10
trillion--the debt, not the deficit. That was the result of your
economic policy.
I heard the former chairman of the RSC--I was constrained to come to
the floor, but my staff tied me down--who said, ladies and gentlemen,
that we have been in office for 50 days and look what has happened to
the country. Nobody in America thought that was a credible statement.
Nobody.
The policies of the last 8 years have led to the worst economy that
we have seen in this country in over a half a century. Some of us stood
on this floor and said that is what would happen. We did it because we
were fiscally irresponsible and because we were regulatorily negligent.
We took the referees off the field. We pretended that the private
sector would referee itself, that they would manage risk responsibly.
They did not.
And the gentleman from Texas to whom I am referring said we didn't
care about his children. That is not right. If he loses his job, we
provided as our first bill that his children will have the availability
of health care. But we want to provide his children, my children, my
grandchildren, and, yes, my great granddaughter, with a fiscally sound
Nation. It is not there now, and it will not be next year, and it won't
be the year after, because the hole we have dug is so extraordinarily
deep that it will take years and years of discipline to get us back to
where we were on January 19, 2001. I think everybody in this House
wants to do that, but we have different views of how you do that.
I have served in this House, as the gentleman has heard me say
before, now 29 years. Eight of those years have been under a Democratic
President, Bill Clinton; 20 of those years under Republicans. Every
single year of a Republican Presidency since 1981 has run deep
deficits, every one, without failure.
Now what is the significance of that, you might say? It is that a
President alone can stop spending. The only one that can stop spending.
I can vote against spending, my friend Mr. Ryan can vote against
spending, but we need 217 other people to do the same. Only the
President of the United States by vetoing spending can say ``no.''
President Bush signed bills and presided over an economy that resulted
in the doubling of the national debt.
And so, my friends, we come to a responsible budget, but not the
budget any of us would like. Why? Because, as they lament on the
Republican side of the aisle, the deficits are too high. They are
right. I agree with that. I don't like these deficits. I prefer to vote
for balanced budgets. I voted for a balanced budget amendment. And,
very frankly, had we had a balanced budget amendment, we would be in
much better shape today, because you couldn't have enacted your tax
cuts because you would have had to have paid for them.

{time} 1830

Because you would have had to pay for them, and while you were very
prepared to give the wealthiest in America big tax cuts, you were not
prepared to pay for them, perhaps because of the logic that you
expressed in that article of 2003.
My friends, we have an important decision to make. That decision is
whether or not our investments in the future will continue by the
adoption of this budget. We adopted, under the Bush administration, the
Troubled Assets Relief Program. There was disagreement on that, not
between Mr. Ryan and myself. We believed that was necessary. We didn't
like it, too much money, too much debt and too much borrowing. But we
thought it essential to bring this economy back and to stabilize it and
to try to keep jobs. It hasn't yet succeeded. And we have lost far too
many jobs. Too much pain in America, too many people without a job, too
many families who aren't sure where their next meal is coming from or
how they are going to pay their mortgage payment or how they are going
to send their kids to school. There are too many Americans in pain.
Now we can, in my view, deeply cut those items which are there to
help people in pain and trouble, as I believe your budget does. Or we
can do what Mr. Spratt has recommended, bring the deficit down, not to
where we would like it, but bring it down substantially, about 3.5
percent of the gross domestic product by 2015 as opposed to 10.5 now.
Is that too high? It is. Would I like it lower? I would.
But I tell my friends that this is a responsible budget, not just for
today but for the long term, because although we had a Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, that was to staunch the decline, the fiscal crisis
and the economic crisis and the job crisis and the health care crisis
that we inherited from the Bush administration.
That is why I'm going to vote for this budget. That is why I urge
each and every one of my colleagues to vote for this budget, because it
invests in the health care of our people. It invests in the energy
independence, and therefore the national security of our people. And
yes, it provides for the national security. There are two wars that are
going on. This budget provides that we will respond to them and keep
our people safe. But it also responds to the need to keep people safe
right here at home. That is why I will vote for this budget. That is
why I urge each and every one of you to support this budget, not
because it does what we would like it to do, as so many of my
Republican colleagues have urged us, but those same colleagues
indicated to me that their budgets would balance the budget and would
cut spending.
Because there has been so much talk of spending on your side of the
aisle, Mr. Ryan, I remind you that under the Clinton administration,
discretionary spending rose at a rate of 3.5 percent. However, with you
totally in control, it rose 7 percent. You doubled spending. So it
rings hollow to say that it is spending we ought to cut. You cut taxes,
and you increased spending.
This is a tough budget. It is tougher than a lot of people would
like. It is tougher than Mr. Berman would like.

[[Page 9772]]

Because he knows there are children all over this world that we are
helping stay healthy, kept alive by feeding. And allies kept on our
side when we confront terrorists. This is a tough budget. The Budget
Committee made tough decisions, but they were right decisions, right
for our country and right for our people.
Support the Spratt budget. Make America better.
Madam Chair, today, with the passage of this budget resolution, the
House has the opportunity to set America's priorities for years to come
and build a sustainable, widely shared recovery.
Along with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, this budget is
a key part of our return to prosperity; it provides the long-term
investments that will make prosperity last.
Today we have a chance to begin bringing down the cost of healthcare;
breaking our addiction to foreign oil; creating the best-prepared
workforce in the world; and returning America to fiscal health.
On healthcare, it is clear that rising costs are straining American
families and crippling American businesses.
Family premiums have more than doubled since 2000, and over the past
five years, our total healthcare spending has increased at more than
twice the rate of inflation, consuming more of our economy and our
budget each year.
This budget is the start of efforts to reverse that disastrous trend.
It makes a significant down-payment on reform, taking steps to lower
healthcare costs, improve quality, and expand access.
Healthcare reform is also key to entitlement reform, because we will
never be able to control the growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending
as long as healthcare costs continue to increase at more than twice the
rate of inflation.
On energy, this budget increases support for energy independence
programs by 18 percent. That includes incentives for the development of
new technology and clean energy jobs; support for cutting-edge
research; funding to start on an energy-efficient, money-saving
national smart grid; and programs to help Government from the Federal
to the local level save energy and money.
On education, this budget builds upon the investments made in
President Obama's recovery plan with additional support for early
childhood education, elementary and secondary school students, and
efforts to help more Americans obtain a college degree.
It expands access to early childhood programs, makes college more
affordable with increased Pell grants, and promotes job-training and
significant education reform.
A lasting recovery isn't simply about ending the turmoil in our
financial markets--it's about having workers who are prepared to
compete in the 21st-century economy with anyone in the world.
Finally, this budget reverses the irresponsible Republican policies
that turned record surpluses into record deficits and puts us back on a
fiscally sustainable path.
That begins with an honest accounting of where we are--an assessment
that takes into account the cost of two wars.
From that honest foundation, the budget cuts the deficit from 10.5
percent of GDP in 2009 to 3.5 percent of GDP in 2013. In other words,
we cut the deficit by nearly two-thirds.
We do so by restraining spending, investing in oversight that saves
taxpayer money, and, most importantly, reinstating the pay-as-you-go
rule in law and requiring that new initiatives be paid for.
Our Government must pay for what it buys.
Republicans, by contrast, would abandon that discipline in favor of a
$3.6 trillion tax cut, which the non-partisan tax policy center calls
``by far, the largest tax cut in history''--one that goes almost
exclusively to the richest Americans.
Paying for tax breaks like those, as Mr. Ryan proposes to do, would
require deep cuts to vital services. So taking the massive tax breaks
to their logical conclusion, Republicans support cutting Medicare,
Medicaid, and a host of other essential programs that are critical to
our economic recovery.
As the Washington Post notes today, the Ryan substitute would
``freeze most Government spending for five years, halt spending
approved in the economic stimulus package, and slash federal health
programs for the poor and elderly.''
When Republicans claim their budget will create jobs, they
conveniently ignore the impact that the deep spending cuts in their
plan would have on jobs.
Virtually all economists, including conservatives such as Milton
Friedman, agree that Government spending during a recession creates
jobs.
In fact, when we use the model of the conservative Heritage
Foundation and take into account both tax cuts and spending cuts, we
find that the Republican plan destroys jobs.
Of course, Republicans have another option to finance their tax
breaks--increasing our deficit and piling up our debt even higher. That
would be in keeping with the fiscal ideology that has dominated among
Republicans as long as I have served in this House, the dogma summed up
by Vice President Cheney: ``Reagan proved deficits don't matter.''
Our country has come to see the foolishness of that belief--and I
think it has also come to see that only one party has a track record of
responsibly reducing deficits. Chairman Spratt put it well:
``Republicans turn surpluses into deficits. Democrats turn deficits
into surpluses.''
The Republican case on substance is truly weak--and their argument on
process is weaker.
Republicans have repeatedly decried this budget's use of the
reconciliation process to provide for a majority, up-or-down vote on
health care and education if Congress has not reached agreement on
these issues so critical to our economic recovery.
But the truth is that both parties have used reconciliation to
implement the policies assumed in budget resolutions.
Under President Bush, it was the Republican option of first resort to
pass irresponsible tax cuts; under this budget, it is simply a fallback
if partisanship blocks progress.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this budget--one of the most
important votes they will take in this Congress.
This is our chance to build the foundation for recovery and plan
wisely for the long term. We cannot miss it.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, may I just ask unanimous consent
for the purpose of thanking some staff?
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Wisconsin and the
gentleman from South Carolina each will control 1 additional minute.
There was no objection.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, we, on both sides of the aisle,
have very hardworking budget staffers. And I just wanted to take a
moment to thank them for all of their late nights and all of their hard
work, starting with Austin Smythe staff director, Chauncey Goss, Tim
Flynn, John Gray, Jim Herz, Matt Hoffmann, Charlotte Ivancic, Patrick
L. Knudsen, Angela Kuck, Ted McCann, Stephen McMillin, Courtney
Reinhard, Paul Restuccia, Jonathon Romito, Stephen Sepp, Conor Sweeney,
Sarah Ulrich and Dana Wade; as well as our interns, who gave us the
greatest free labor we ever get around here. And I want them to know
that they should double whatever we are paying them. Jacquie Adams,
Krysta Carlson, Michael Koutnik, Nicole Marquart, David Rabe, Kyle
Roskam and Abigail Weinshel. Thank you, staff, for your hard work.
Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chair, this has been a compressed period for
producing a budget. An enormous amount of work has gone into the effort
that is manifest on the floor here for the last couple of days. It
never would have come to this fruition without their superior
assistance. I want to recognize Tom Kahn, our staff director, my
longstanding legislative aid and staff director, Sarah Abernathy, Ellen
Balis, Arthur Burris, Linda Bywaters, Adam Carasso, Marsha Douglas,
Stephen Elmore, Chuck Fant, Jason Freihage, Christen Green, Jose
Guillen, Jennifer Hanson-Kilbride, Sheila McDowell, Dick Magee, Diana
Meredith, Gail Millar, Morna Miller, Kimberly Overbeek, Scott Russell,
Marcus Stephens, Naomi Stern, Lisa Venus, Greg Waring and Andrea
Weathers; as well as Adam Brunelle and Andrew Fieldhouse.
I also want to recognize the indispensable work done for both of us
by Bob Weinhagen of the Office of Legislative Counsel and the staff of
the Congressional Budget Office.
This is a testament to what staff means to us and the kind of work
they pull together in a short period of time. They make us look good.
We couldn't do without them. They deserve our praises.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, this week the Majority Party, through this
budget, has declared that they stand for bigger government, more taxes,
and higher debt.
How does the Democratic budget spend on such high levels over the
next ten years? Two

[[Page 9773]]

words: tax increases. The budget includes a complicated cap-and-trade
energy tax that will cost the average American household up to $3,128
annually, a new tax on charitable giving that will cost American
charities as much as $16 billion per year, increased taxes on
businesses and families that make over $250,000 per year, and the
resurrection of the death tax which will punish family-owned businesses
and farms.
The theme seems to be that the government knows best and the people
should fall in line.
Fortunately, there are some of us on Capitol Hill who will not fall
in line. Republicans have offered an alternative that reflects common-
sense economics: when in debt, stop spending.
The Republican alternative places a priority on national defense and
veterans' health and temporarily freezes other discretionary spending
for five years. It would halve the President's deficit projection for
2019.
It would make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, cap the capital
gains and dividends tax at 15 percent and give families and individuals
options for a simplified tax code. To foster entrepreneurship and small
businesses, it would cut the corporate tax rate--the second highest in
the world--from 35 percent to 25 percent.
Unlike my friends on the other side of the aisle, I do not think the
way forward is through increased government interference, funded by our
wallets and our children's piggybanks. I urge members to reject the
proposed Democrat budget and vote for the Ryan Budget.
Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chair, it seems that every day brings news of
another large government program, intervention, mandate, or tax.
Sometimes the expansion is subtle. Sometimes it's more direct.
Just months into this Congress, this Majority has pushed an
additional $350 billion in TARP funds out the door without additional
oversight, passed a $410 billion spending bill full of wasteful pet
projects, and handed our children and grandchildren the tab for the
largest single spending bill our nation has ever seen in the form of a
$1.2 trillion so-called stimulus bill.
Today, their budget calls for taxpayers to commit another $3.6
trillion more of their hard-earned money without transparency or
adequate oversight. This budget spends too much, taxes too much, and
borrows too much. It expands government control on a scale that we have
never seen before, not even during the New Deal.
If you had told me a month ago that Congress wanted to increase the
tax burden on charitable contributions, I would have said it's an April
Fool's joke. But the fact is that if donations to charities go down,
the government will say it has to step in. But there will be a big
difference. It will be the government choosing what it wants to support
and how. It can support groups like ACORN instead of my local church or
local charity. Instead of allowing people to support their own causes
and make their own choices about their charitable contributions, the
government will expand into what will obviously and clearly be a
restriction on private charities as their funds are restricted.
Unfortunately, it wasn't an April Fool's Day joke and that is what is
being proposed this very week, restricting private contributions.
The higher taxes on energy will cost the average American household
more than $3000. As a heavy user of coal, Alabama will be especially
hard hit by the cap and trade tax. Electricity costs per capita in
Alabama could go up by more than $1500, among the highest in any state.
Our families and manufacturers can't afford that, especially in this
economy.
But I wanted to know what my constituents thought about this budget
and in just a few' days I received more than 600 responses. Here are
quotes from their letters.
From Barbara in Clanton: ``As a small business, we cannot afford to
pay any more taxes right now. I don't think our employees can cope with
higher fuel prices. I am very concerned about the exploding federal
budget deficit.''
From Danielle in Pelham: ``My goal is to become a small business
owner and I'm concerned that any higher taxes on small business will
squash my chances of making this goal a reality.''
From Randy in Pell City: ``I don't want any more energy increases.
Our electric, propane, and gas bills have gone up far more than my
husband's wages.''
We are witnessing a relentless expansion of the federal government,
and I, for one, am worried. So are the American people. That's why
Republicans offered solutions in our budget aimed at creating jobs and
economic growth, not more government and not more unaffordable debt.
The American people understand that this generational theft must end.
The Republican budget reflects their priorities, and moves the country
in the right direction towards economic recovery.
Mr. FORBES. Madam Chair, today I will vote in favor of the Ryan
amendment to H. Con. Res 85. I support this amendment because it
recognizes the importance of maintaining a strong national defense and
taking care of our veterans. I do not support everything in this budget
alternative. However, given the choice between this amendment, which
provides more robust funding for our Nation's defense, or the budget
priorities of the underlying legislation, I will vote for the Ryan
amendment so that the House will have the opportunity for an extended
and vigorous debate on the importance of defense spending in our
national priorities. At the same time, I have strong reservations about
the proposals to reform Medicare as described in the Ryan amendment.
Before embarking on any change to Medicare to ensure that this program
exists for my children's generation and my grandchildren's generation,
I expect the House to engage in a thorough, earnest debate that we have
not yet had.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 137,
noes 293, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 191]

AYES--137

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Ehlers
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Wamp
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Young (AK)

NOES--293

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Butterfield
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
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
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gerlach
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.

[[Page 9774]]

Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
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
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--7

Costa
Franks (AZ)
Hinojosa
Miller, Gary
Norton
Sablan
Westmoreland

{time} 1859

Ms. McCOLLUM, Messrs. DELAHUNT, HOLT, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of
California, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. CARDOZA and Mr.
RUSH changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. HOEKSTRA, FORBES and BACHUS changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. NORTON. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 191, had I been present,
I would have voted ``no.''
The CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Weiner) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Tauscher, Chair of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent resolution (H.
Con. Res. 85) setting forth the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2010 and including the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2009 and 2011 through 2014, pursuant
to House Resolution 316, she reported the concurrent resolution back to
the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the concurrent resolution.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233,
nays 196, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 192]

YEAS--233

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
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
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
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
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)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (MA)
Massa
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
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
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--196

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
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.
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
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)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Perriello
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
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--3

Hinojosa
Miller, Gary
Westmoreland
The SPEAKER (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1916

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

[[Page 9775]]

____________________

HONORING ROBERT FAY ROCKWELL, JR.

(Mr. MASSA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MASSA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Robert
Fay Rockwell, Jr., a close friend of myself and of our community in New
York.
Bob Rockwell was born on November 8 of 1911 in Bradford,
Pennsylvania. He attended Whittier College in a far-off land in
California where he became friends with a fellow student, Richard
Nixon. He moved to Corning, New York, in 1933, to run the local
department store, the Rockwell Company, owned by his grandfather.
Soon after, he, like so many of the Greatest Generation, departed to
serve overseas in World War II and joined the 70th Construction
Battalion of the great Seabees in World War II. He was stationed in
North Africa and later in California.
Upon his return to Corning, he became close friends with Frederick
Carder, founder of the world famous Steuben Glass Works. He amassed the
world's largest collection of Frederick Carder's Steuben glass,
priceless in its volume.
His liking of aesthetics in art was not limited to only glass. Bob
became the largest collector of Western art, including Remingtons and
Russells, and in the early 1960s, opened a display of that collection
in his department store. He later donated most of these collections to
what was then called--and now is world famous--the Rockwell Museum.
This museum got its first home in 1976 in an old hotel in downtown
Corning.
During that time, he became president of both Corning Chamber of
Commerce and Corning Rotary Club and forever left his mark on both
organizations. In 1983, the Rockwell Museum of Western Art opened in
Corning's refurbished old City Hall building. It's become a popular
local and national icon.
The multimillion dollar value of Bob's donated art and glass is a
testament to his generosity, but is only one of such testaments. His
legacy is further enhanced by his compassion and help to his fellow
man.
And let me close by saying, from the heart to Bob and to his family
and from all of us in Corning, New York, and in western New York State,
Bob, we are always in your debt for your tremendous contributions to
our community.

____________________

IMAGINE IF A REPUBLICAN WERE PRESIDENT

(Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, in a recent Investors Business
Daily op-ed, radio host Larry Elder wondered how the media's reporting
would be different if a Republican were President.
Of a potential Republican President, Elder wrote, ``Imagine if his
Secretary of Treasury had not paid taxes, he granted two dozen waivers
to his no-lobbyists-in-government rule and he had promised
bipartisanship but only got three across-the-aisle votes for his
'stimulus' package. Or if he tripled the projected annual deficit and
intended, within a short period, to double the national debt.''
Elder's point is clear. The national media's double standard has
meant a free pass for President Obama and the Democrats' budget.
The American people should insist on fair news coverage without
regard to political party.

____________________

WELCOME TO NEW COMMANDERS AT FORT POLK AND BARKSDALE

(Mr. FLEMING asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, tomorrow, the 94th Brigade Support
Battalion, part of the 10th Mountain Division's 4th Brigade Combat
Team, will welcome Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Coston as its new
commander at Fort Polk in Louisiana.
Lieutenant Colonel Coston most recently served as a joint logistics
staff officer in Washington, D.C. He is a well-decorated and well-
respected soldier, and I congratulate him on his new command at Fort
Polk.
At the other military installation in my district, Barksdale Air
Force Base, Colonel Steven Basham assumed command of the 2nd Bomb Wing
earlier this week. And may I add that Barksdale was selected today for
Global Strike Command.
Colonel Basham is a command pilot with more than 3,300 flying hours
and served as director of operations for the first combat deployment of
the B-2 bomber during Operation Iraqi Freedom. His leadership has been
commended throughout his career, and I am confident he will be an
exemplary leader for the airmen under his command at Barksdale.
I welcome both officers to my district and thank them for their
dedication to the defense of this Nation.

____________________

{time} 1930
SPECIAL ORDERS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Halvorson). 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.

____________________

DEMOCRAT SPENDING SINCE TARP

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, this has been a historic day.
We just passed a huge bill, cost the American taxpayers $3.5 trillion.
It increased taxes at a time when we shouldn't be increasing taxes, and
I won't restate everything that's been said here today because I think
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle expressed their positions very
well.
But what I would like to say--and I'm not going to take the whole 5
minutes--is that in October we passed the TARP bill, October of last
year, $700 billion. In January, we passed the State Children's Health
Insurance Reauthorization, $73 billion. In February, on the 9th, we
passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the stimulus bill,
for $820 billion plus the interest it will incur, which is about $348
billion. That's $1.16 trillion. On February 9, we consolidated the
appropriations for fiscal year 2009 in the omnibus bill, $410 billion
plus $250 billion in interest. That's $625 billion in total. And then
you add to that the budget which we passed today for $3.5 trillion.
We are in the process of bankrupting this country. We are printing so
much money and incurring so much debt that our kids and grandkids, I
don't know how they're going to be able to live with it.
I heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle applauding when
we passed this budget today. Those of us on this side of the aisle who
have been around here for a while, we were doing anything but
applauding. We were thinking about what we've done to this country.
You know, China has about $700 billion of our debt. Japan has about
$600 billion of our debt. And they don't want to buy any more of our
debt. The only reason they're doing it I think is because this is the
only game in town, but there is a limit to how much these other
countries in the world will spend purchasing our debt.
And so what's going to happen? It's already happening. We're
increasing the money supply. Up until just recently, we had increased
the money supply by almost 300 percent. That means that we've increased
the money supply three times in just recent years. And when that money
gets into circulation, along with the money we're going to be printing
because of all these expenditures I just enumerated, we're going to
have a tremendous amount of dollars chasing fewer and fewer goods and
services. More dollars, less production, and that means we're going to
have inflation.
So I'd just like to say to my colleagues tonight, you may be
celebrating this great budget that you passed, but it's going to end up
costing our kids and our grandkids more in taxes and inflation, and
they're going

[[Page 9776]]

to look back on this day and on what we're doing and they're going to
say, why in the world did you do this to us, why did you do it to us?
And I hope I and my colleagues are alive to look back and remember
what happened today and what's been happening in recent days, weeks and
months. It's a tragedy, and I'm very depressed over it. I hope that
something will change the way things are going. I hope people will see
the light and will start cutting taxes instead of increasing taxes and
spending, but I doubt that's going to happen.

____________________

CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT TO MONDAY, APRIL 6, 2009

Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the
House adjourns today on a motion offered pursuant to this order, it
adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Monday, April 6, 2009, unless it sooner
has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in
House Concurrent Resolution 93, in which case the House shall stand
adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.

____________________

WE NEED TO FIX THE TAX CODE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Madam Speaker, perhaps the most dreaded day of
the year for taxpayers will soon be upon us, April 15. We're all at
home with paper and pen, with stacks of receipts and books, strewn upon
our kitchen table, and as tax day approaches, I come before the House
of Representatives to share Kansans' many frustrations and to call upon
Congress to fix the Tax Code.
Our country desperately needs a better tax system. The United States
Tax Code is complex, confusing, and terribly burdensome to taxpayers,
and it impedes our Nation's economic growth. The IRS has estimated that
individual taxpayers and businesses spend 7.6 billion hours each year
filling out their taxes. To put that number in perspective, that's 3.8
million employees working full time for the entire year.
It's obvious, certainly to anyone filling out their tax return this
year, that an overhaul of the Federal Tax Code is required. The Fair
Tax Act, which I support, H.R. 25, is a direction we should go and
contains many meritorious ideas which would start the process. The fair
tax would repeal income, payroll, and a multitude of other taxes. And
those taxes would be replaced by a national sales or consumption tax on
retail purchases.
But no matter what system we agree upon, what we model our tax reform
around, the fact remains: America deserves an easier, commonsense, and
less convoluted tax system than we currently have in place. We need a
tax system that promotes personal freedom. Decisions should be made
based upon what's good for us individually, what's good for our
families, and what's good for our businesses. It shouldn't be all about
what's good for the tax man.
But instead of tax simplification and tax relief, Americans this year
will be facing the same broken system and a budget proposal that
increases their taxes to pay for more spending. Many are angry at the
reckless spending of this Congress, so much so that a national
grassroots movement of tea parties has opened up this spring. On April
15, over 300 tax day tea parties are planned across the country, many
of them in Kansas.
Kansans are tired of footing the bill for Wall Street bailouts and
rewarding bad behavior in the housing market. They're frustrated with
trillion dollar stimulus efforts that fund projects and programs that
simply won't stimulate the economy. They're upset with massive
government spending that increases our national debt at a time when
most American families are forced to tighten their belts and make tough
choices.
Americans are struggling, and we need to get the country moving, but
increasing taxes to recklessly throw dollars at the problem is not the
solution. I am one of only a few of the 435 Members of this House to
vote against every stimulus and bailout plan. I'd like to say that
there were more of us. Hopefully, this tax day will serve as a reminder
for Congress and the administration to put the taxpayer first--spend a
lot less and create a tax system that is fair and efficient and that
promotes individual freedom.

____________________

HONORING MR. AND MRS. JAMES AILSHIE AND THE ``J4''

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr.
and Mrs. James Ailshie, who are celebrating their 79th year of
marriage. James Ailshie was born in 1912, and his lovely wife, Dussie,
in 1914. The two are proud parents of six wonderful children, all of
whom are residents of East Tennessee.
When asked how they have maintained such an incredible marriage, the
couple always responds with, ``The secret of a long life together is a
four letter word, love.'' In my opinion, the Ailshie marriage is a
living testimony of what love truly is. Let theirs serve as an example
to all of us, that love and dedication can truly last a lifetime.
However, their marriage is more than simply an affirmation of love.
Across the years they have witnessed times of joy and times of
hardship, yet their commitment has endured. The qualities of character
that have enabled them to sustain their union and build their family
are the same qualities that are fundamental to the strength of our
Nation. May we continue to be blessed with Americans who cherish the
values of our traditions.
Married in 1930, the Ailshies have shared many yesterdays together.
It has been said that, ``An anniversary is a time to celebrate the joys
of today, the memories of yesterday, and the hopes of tomorrow.'' It is
my hope that they will go on and see many, many more tomorrows
together.
Madam Speaker, I rise also today to congratulate Jessi, Jedediah,
Josiah, and Josephine Smith, better known as ``J4,'' who were declared
the winner of the CBS Early Show's Singing Family Face Off this week.
The competition began months ago when roughly 700 videos of family
bands performing were submitted by Early Show viewers.
The ``J4'' siblings performed the Mary Mary's song ``Shackles,'' on
the Early Show, which advanced them to the finals. CBS said they were
chosen as the winner based on votes through the network's Web site.
``J4'' is made up of four siblings, aged 7 to 15, all with names
beginning with the letter ``J'' from the Smith family in Bluff City,
Tennessee. The oldest two have played for a couple of years for
services at the church across the street from their home where their
dad, Mark, is pastor.
The Smith kids are the children of Mark and Lori Smith. They're home-
schooled and very involved in music, including piano and violin.
Congratulations again to ``J4.'' They make East Tennessee proud.

____________________

THE BUDGET

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, earlier today I recounted
the calamity that we find ourselves in with the budget and the spending
of money here in the United States. Frankly, of course, the budgets
over the past 8 years and the enormous expenditure of funds created a
huge and growing deficit.
I indicated earlier that we spent $667 billion for the Iraq war, high
unemployment still ongoing, stories that you hear from constituents
about mortgage foreclosures, inability to have their loans re-modified,
and so you can see the importance of the debate today.

[[Page 9777]]

And I'm very proud that, of the number of budgets that I had the
opportunity to participate in and to argue for and to suggest the
direction that they should take, they all focused on restoring the
humanity and dignity of the American people.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus budget focused on reducing the
deficit by 58 percent in fiscal year 2012. In addition, it targeted
waste, fraud, and abuse. It repealed the Bush tax cuts for the top 1
percent of taxpayers. Let me emphasize that, the top 1 percent of
taxpayers. That means that 99 percent of the American people would not
get a tax increase of any kind. In fact, alongside of that principle is
the principle of the President's budget, the budget we passed finally
that guaranteed middle-class Americans a tax cut.
The budget included in the Progressive budget health care for all,
affordable, accessible health care so that there would be no tragedies
such as young people, children needing transplants or transfusions, and
they can't get it because their insurer denies it.
We add an additional $300 billion as an additional part of the
economic stimulus package so that there can be added assistance for
unemployment insurance, food stamps, infrastructure spending, housing
assistance, job creation.
I come from the gulf region, where we are still suffering both from
Hurricane Katrina and Rita and now Hurricane Ike. My neighbor to the
south, the city of Galveston, the mayor and city manager and many of
her constituents are still facing the calamity of trying to build
housing, trying to restore the University of Texas medical branch, and
we, as a Texas delegation, worked with the district Member to try to
ensure that restoration.
The budgets that were put here today respect the fact that there will
be disasters in America, calamities such as fires and floods and, of
course, hurricanes, storms, volcanos, that are spilling out such as in
the State of Washington, that create havoc if those issues occur. And
so this is a time when we opted to opt on the side of the people of
America.
The Congressional Black Caucus budget puts in place $18 billion more
in health care, $17 billion more on education and job training. What
happens to a person who is unemployed? They look for jobs or they look
to steer themselves into another career. And what do you need to do
that? You need job training, whether it's in the community college
system like the Houston Community College, whether or not it is going
into nursing school, going to become a truck driver, or going into IT,
you need job training.
Eight billion dollars on infrastructure so that the roads and the
potholes and the bridges and the tunnels can be fixed, but more
importantly, people can be put to work as we make a new America; $5.5
billion on justice programs; and $4.5 billion on veterans benefits and
services. And of all of these budgets, Madam Speaker, the Congressional
Progressive Caucus and CBC and the President's budget all reinforce our
commitment to veterans and our returning soldiers who put themselves
and their families on the front lines.

{time} 1945

Families and our soldiers are likewise on the front lines. So I'm
very proud to stand here today to say that we did the right thing in
voting on this budget. We did the right thing in focusing on health
care reform--trying to fix the broken system of some 44 million to 47
million Americans who are still uninsured.
In that effort, we managed to save some $316 billion over 10 years;
several provisions to improve quality and efficiency in health care.
Then, as well, we made a significant down payment on health care reform
by putting these savings, along with $317.8 billion from a tax policy
change on upper-income taxpayers, into a $634 billion health reform
reserve.
We're holding a spot, Madam Speaker, so we can fix this for the
American people. I mentioned education and energy. That is going to
bring about green jobs.
Madam Speaker, we did the right thing for the American people and I'm
proud to be part of this Congress and go home to speak with my
constituents on how we have helped to change their lives.

____________________

THE DIRECTION OF OUR COUNTRY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BOOZMAN. As part of my commitment to the people of Arkansas'
Third District, I hold mobile offices in all 12 counties so that I can
hear their concerns and help them when I can. As part of that, I relay
their troubles here.
For many of the people I saw in Fayetteville on Friday, their
attendance at the mobile office was a first. Like so many other people
that I hear from through phone calls, e-mails, they are scared with the
direction of our country.
They've seen Democrats pass a massive stimulus bill that was full of
pet projects but short on job creation, job protection, and protections
for pension plans. They've seen President Obama tout an omnibus bill
that increases government spending, but what they're looking for is how
Washington is tightening its belt, just like so many of them are.
Last week, President Obama said, ``It's with a budget that leads to
broad economic growth by moving from an era of borrow and spend to one
where we save and invest.'' Unfortunately, President Obama isn't living
up to those words with his budget proposal that spends too much, taxes
too much, and borrows too much.
My constituents are upset--and they have every reason to be. ``No
more Federal deficit spending, please. I beg you to stop the financial
bleeding.'' This is from Leslie in Harrison. She e-mailed me last week,
``We cannot afford to continue spending for programs we don't need.
What we need are legislators with the veracity and tenacity to stand up
and cut the spending programs and pay off the national debt.''
Leslie, I hear you. I too have serious doubts. One reason is the
proposed Federal budget would enact the largest tax increase in the
history of the United States.
I also hear Rebecca from Wesley, who wrote, ``I'm 63 years old and
have worked very hard. I pay my bills and do not want to pay the bills
of others. I'm so furious with what is going on in Washington. No to
all tax increases, no to any laws that will increase utility rates, no
to government-run health care. I have no confidence that the government
can run anything.''
We need to work to regain the confidence of the hardworking Americans
like Leslie and Rebecca that they had in the past in our government,
but no longer. This requires us to vote against budget proposals that
include cap-and-trade and that hurt small businesses and discourage
charitable giving.
We need a road to recovery that includes curbing wasteful spending,
focusing on job creation and debt control. We need to do what is best
for our country, and I'm committed to looking for alternative solutions
and fighting for a capitalistic democracy.

____________________

FAMILY SMOKING PREVENTION AND TOBACCO CONTROL ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, today this House passed H.R. 1256,
which takes tobacco regulation to a whole new level and, at the same
time, imposes onerous new fees that are going to be transferred to
consumers as higher prices. The entire debate over the bill was over
what method should be used to do so. Before we close today's
proceedings, I'd like to offer a somewhat different perspective.
Many years ago, author and commentator Bruce Herschensohn made this
point. He said, ``For every pleasure in life, there is a corresponding
risk. I think that's a universal truth--for every pleasure in life,
there is a corresponding risk.
And he pointed out that it's true that with enough taxes and laws and
restrictions and regulations and penalties and lectures, government can

[[Page 9778]]

produce a virtually risk-free society. But it will also be one of the
most colorless, pleasureless, tedious, and miserable societies ever
conceived by the mind of man. I believe that's the case.
The health risks of smoking are real and they are well-documented.
Our schools rightly make a concerted effort to inform every child of
the health risks of tobacco--and they do a good job of it. Our
government warns every adult of the health risks of tobacco--and they
do a good job of it, too.
As a result, I don't believe there's a single individual in the
United States who doesn't well and fully comprehend the health risks of
tobacco. But once those warnings are issued, how much farther should
government go to make individual decisions for rational adults if they
weigh the risks of smoking for themselves?
Ten years ago, after California had imposed yet another tax on
tobacco products, I got a letter from a woman who said, ``I'm 81 years
old. I have been smoking my entire life. If I have to quit now, I'm
going to die.'' She then went on to meticulously calculate how much the
new tax cost would cost her on her limited, fixed income, and asked if
I could help.
Madam Speaker, in every society, in every part of the world, in every
period of history there is always a large group of people who simply
want to be left alone to live their lives according to their own best
judgment. And there's always a smaller but more domineering group who
believe they're so good at running their own lives that they're just
naturally entitled to run everybody else's as well.
Rarely has that conflict between these two groups come into sharper
focus than in the ongoing efforts to restrict and regulate and tax and
harass and intimidate individuals who, after weighing all the risks,
decide to smoke anyway.
Personally, I think they're making a very bad decision. But they
probably think others are making a very bad decision when they decide
to go skiing or bungee jumping or skydiving or thousands of other
pleasures that incur corresponding and calculated risks.
I wonder tonight whatever happened to the notion of personal
responsibility and whatever happened to the notion, as Jefferson put
it, of ``a wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from
injuring one another but shall leave them otherwise free to regulate
their own pursuits of industry and improvement.''

____________________

REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 265

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, the gentlelady from Texas, who is
still here on the floor, had inadvertently put me as one of the
cosponsors on H.R. 265. I would ask unanimous consent to have my name
removed from that particular bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.

____________________

MAKING A PARADIGM SHIFT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is recognized for
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. A few weeks ago, I was in my office and a
respiratory therapist had come into the office. He was talking about
one of the patients that he had who came up and asked him if she could
have a stronger medicine because what she was using simply did not work
for her.
So he said, Well, why don't you show me how you're using it. She
showed him how she used it, and he said, Is that the way you always use
it? The patient said, Yes. Then he said, Well, let's try it one more
time--except this time why don't you take the cap off first.
Now, sometimes I think in the policies that we develop here in the
United States we have the same process--we go through the motions but
we simply don't flat out take the cap off first. One of the things we
need to do to solve our problem is simply take the cap off.
We have had an energy policy in this country for the last 40 years.
It's basically been, we develop nothing in the United States and we
insist on living on cheap foreign oil. The problem is, doing nothing in
the United States for 40 years has put us into a situation that is very
tenable. The other problem is there is no longer cheap foreign oil.
We have just recently voted on this floor on a budget--a budget
outline. A budget outline that, quite frankly, taxes too much and
spends too much and borrows too much. We've all heard that before
because, to be honest, whether you talk now about the budget itself or
the phrases of taxing, spending, and borrowing, they're basically a
redundancy. They are indeed the same thing.
What we have also done in this House is make a major paradigm shift.
For the last 20 years, we have been functioning under the basic
philosophy that the individual is significant and important. The
individual has a worth that is divine. That once you empower that
individual and give that individual options, you're ennobling that
person.
Well, the budget we just passed changes that basic philosophy. It
changed that basic philosophy to say instead of empowering individuals,
it is now the role and function of the Federal Government to solve
people's problems. The Federal Government must now be given the power
because the Federal Government now becomes the sole solution to the
issues and needs of individuals.
Those of us in the West, members of the Western Caucus, have a
different point of view because we basically trust people. We recognize
that one of the most important things that should be given to any
individual is options and choices.
People of the United States must be given options and choices so they
can make a decision on how they want their life to develop. States
should be given options and choices, regions should be given options.
Whenever we try to establish a one-size-fits-all system from
Washington, what we do is limit the ability to empower individuals to
make decisions for themselves and to change their own lives.
When I was growing up, the only kind of music you could buy were on
vinyl records. If you wanted a particular song, you had to basically
buy the entire record.
With new gadgets today, even though they have become much smaller
than this one that I still have absolutely no idea how to use, with
gadgets like these today you can actually download the one record you
want. You have a choice. You have options.
And it seems one of the ironies of our life today is that in every
facet of human life, options prevail. People have choices--except when
it comes to dealing with the government. When that takes place, there
is only one choice given: it is the Federal Government's choice.
We are moving dangerously into an area where that becomes the
predominant philosophy and the predominant result. Actually, the last
bill upon which we voted today, that was exactly the philosophy behind
that bill.
It resolves itself also in the way we look at our energy policy and
our energy future. We could solve many of our problems if we just had a
wiser energy policy. I recognize that there are many people that said
the budget we just did is not specifics; it's just broad parameters and
directions for the future and whatever. But the basic problem remains
that when we talk about people and we insist that our policy as a
government should be to give options to people, then we will come with
an entirely different approach and a strong and intelligent and
rational energy policy for the United States that can open up the
opportunities for--I don't care whether we're talking about cap-and-
trade or oil leases or oil shale or the energy war on the poor or the
myth of green jobs--what we need in each of those areas is to have the
government open up options for individuals.
One of the good things about my party is that in every one of these

[[Page 9779]]

issues we are presenting alternative Republican options.

{time} 2000

We are trying to take the cap off to try and solve problems by
looking at the issue in a new way and, in a new degree, based on
options.
One of those that has been introduced is the no-cost stimulus bill. A
conservative estimate of the no-cost stimulus bill will say that this
particular measure, whose goal is, once again, to increase the options
that America has with its energy policy, would create at least 2
million new jobs and would introduce at least $10 trillion of economic
growth into our economy. It would reduce the cost of living for
individuals, and it would do it with absolutely no tax increase.
Now, I know we have had a lot of people talking in the last few weeks
about the idea that the majority of Americans, if our future path goes
true, would not face a tax increase. In fact, for many it would be the
indications of a middle-class tax cut. I want you to know that I have
an element of skepticism with that, because I clearly remember the last
time a President and Congress promised me a middle-class tax cut, or at
least no increases of middle-class taxes.
At that particular time I was a school teacher making less than
$30,000 a year. And I guess I should have been grateful that the
Federal Government in their wisdom would have classified me as one of
the rich in America; because in that particular year, when I was
offered the opportunity and the guarantee that there would be no
increases but instead there would be a decrease in middle-class taxes,
that is the year I faced the largest tax increase I have ever faced in
my life. My wife had just taken a second job, and everything that she
brought in that year was used simply to pay for the tax decrease that I
had been promised.
I guess it goes back to the original concept of how income tax was
developed. You know, when income taxes were first established, the idea
was that somebody else would be taxed to pay for everything. The idea
was that only .5 percent--so you know something has changed over the
years; .5 percent of your income would be taxed, but the first $3,000
were excluded, which was meaning basically everybody in America who was
a middle-class worker was excluded from taxes. This was going to be a
tax on only those rich people.
Ironically enough, 80 percent of the people who would be impacted by
the first time we instituted an income tax in this country actually
lived in only four States. And, ironically enough, those
representatives from those four States were the ones who voted against
instituting an income tax. And, ironically enough, in the debate on the
Senate on that installment or beginning of an income tax, the actual
debate that took place was a Senator stood up and he said, once we have
an income tax, the government will be more responsible for the way it
handles other people's money.
I think you have seen some changes in that; which is, once again, why
I am so insistent that the no-cost stimulus bill is one we should be
considering, because there is zero tax increase to the taxpayer, as
opposed to the other budgets we are looking about that simply tax too
much, spend too much, and borrow too much.
The No-Cost Stimulus Act treats States fairly. It deals with
increasing our net wealth in this country by the use of royalties. If
that bill were put into effect, just in the Alaska coast alone there
would be $95 billion of new corporate tax, not imposed on the company,
but developed by the expansion of that company. There would be $114
billion in new royalties that would be coming in and used in this
particular country. It would create, just in that one area of Alaska
alone, 730,000 new jobs; versus the bill we just passed, which has a
specific $80 billion tax on the oil industry alone, which creates no
new jobs, which provides no new income. But that tax on that company is
going to be passed on to middle-class taxpayers in this country.
Because, you see, we were talking to an oil executive the other day,
and he simply said: It is obvious. If we tax a business, like this $80
billion tax on only the oil industry, they are going to pass it on to
consumers. That is the way it will always be.
Sometimes we play games here in the District of Columbia where the
idea is, we are not going to tax people, we will just tax the business;
which business then passes that on to the people in the first place.
And how is that going to come? I promise you, it is not going to be
shown simply at the pump.
Of every barrel of gas and oil that is produced, not all of that goes
for energy consumption. A barrel of oil produces exactly 44.68 gallons
of product. Of those 44.68 gallons, 19 of them will eventually become
gasoline running your cars; nine will be diesel, a fuel; three will be
jet fuel. The rest goes to other kinds of products that people use all
the time.
We think about oil and gas increases as something that only deals
with transportation issues. But when I get on the next airplane, if I
get a new Boeing 787 or any of the newer planes, you have to realize
that one of reasons these planes are becoming more fuel efficient is
because they are lighter weight, which means they are now using
composite material. Over 50 percent of the entire airplane of the
Boeing 787 will be composed of composites, and all of that composite is
made from natural gas.
When you sit on an airplane, you are sitting on natural gas. If you
go out to your farmer, or even in your back garden and you need to put
some fertilizer on that, realize that fertilizer is a byproduct of
natural gas. When we fail to develop natural gas in this country, we
put farmers at a disadvantage to the point that even today we are
importing fertilizer from Russia because we are not doing enough to
help ourselves.
Five percent of the global natural gas consumption goes to ammonia,
which is the basic product used in fertilizer.
Whenever you pick up one of those electronics that you play with,
when your kids start playing with it, they are made of lightweight
plastics. That is oil and a natural gas. All of those are developed
that way. If you get tired of watching your kids play with those
electronics, or you get tired of listening to me speak tonight and you
decide to go take an aspirin, I hate to say that, but that is oil and
natural gas. What you don't know is that aspirin is derived from
hydrocarbons that are found in every barrel of oil.
If you want to have Kevlar to protect our soldiers or our police, you
are going to make that stuff out of oil and natural gas. If you are
walking around right now, you might look at your shoes and figure out
that the stuff that holds them together comes from oil and a natural
gas. If you are the tying them, the strings are a petrochemical
compound. In fact, the soles are probably going to be imitation rubber,
all of which comes out of a barrel of crude oil. Even the shoe polish
you use comes from oil and natural gas. If you have a PVC pipe in your
basement, that comes from petrocarbons. If you use a ballpoint pen to
write a letter--in fact, I have in my hand a list of 84 examples of
products that utilize oil and natural gas as the basis of those
products, everything from golf balls to pantyhose to perfume to
dentures.
And how are the companies that are now being hit by an $80 billion
oil tax going to recoup that? They are passing it on to anyone who uses
golf balls or pantyhose or dentures or perfumes, or who writes with a
pen or sits on plastic or who wears shoes or who flies in an airplane.
That is a tax on all of us when we increase the cost of living.
And how do we solve that problem? Well, we need to look around and
simply decide that, as a policy, we are going to take the cap off the
medicine, we are going to think of new options, and use what we have to
solve our problems, to make our life better, and to solve our budgetary
problems, because we have the capacity to do it. We just are refusing
to do it right now.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, if I may, I would like to yield some time
to the gentleman from Louisiana, who has come up here and done such a
great job in his first year as a Member of the House of
Representatives. He also

[[Page 9780]]

comes from an extremely significant energy region, which is going to be
impacted not only by the budget we just passed but also by the energy
policy decisions we make in the near future.
If I could yield to the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Fleming, I
would appreciate it.
Mr. FLEMING. Well, first of all, I thank the gentleman from Utah, Mr.
Bishop, for his leadership in this area, both on the budget as well as
the discussion on petroleum. He was a leader and the one who took the
initiative on this no-cost stimulus plan, which I also cosigned as
well, along with Mr. Vitter on the other side of the House and I think
one or two other Senators. So I thank Mr. Bishop for his leadership and
also allowing me to participate in the discussion tonight about the
budget.
What has happened here this afternoon in passing this budget in the
House of course yields three very bad things; that is, a budget that
spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much.
It was only a few days ago that I spoke on the floor here about the
fact that it is not just a matter of how much we spend, but it is a
matter of where do we get this money from? And there is only two ways
to get money that you don't have, and that is if you discount the
Social Security Trust Fund, which we of course steal from daily. That
is, either to borrow money, and you have to find people who have got
the kind of dough that can lend that; or, you have got to print it out
of thin air.
Well, who have we been borrowing money from? Well, we have been
borrowing it from China. And the amount of spending that we are doing
is now getting to an extent that even the Chinese, who seem to be flush
with cash, can't seem to keep up and don't know how long that they are
going to be able to lend us money before those interest rates begin
going up.
Well, of course the other option is to print money. And we have been
through that before. In fact, there is a number of precedence that we
have seen over history, and the one that I point out that is the most
poignant is pre-World War II Germany. And what happened there?
After World War I, the winning powers of the allies imposed a war
reparation requirement on Germany. Germany couldn't afford this, and so
in order to pay the money back, money they didn't have, they just
simply printed it. And of course they had humongous inflationary rates
to the point where, to buy a loaf of bread, you had to actually carry
your currency in a wheelbarrow. Zimbabwe today is having a very similar
situation.
We have also seen this precedence in our own economy. The spending
spree that we went on in the sixties began to hit us in the seventies,
along with, of course, the oil and gas problems that we had. And by the
late seventies we had severe problems with inflation that was as high
as 10, 12, 13 percent. And it was one of those things where, if you
didn't get a raise every year, you were actually getting your pay cut.
That ultimately led to terrifically high interest rates in the range of
20 percent, and of course we went into a severe recession in the early
eighties.
It seems like that we in this body don't seem to learn the lessons.
And the lessons are that any way you frame it, if you spend it, you are
going to someday have to pay for it. And, you know, it is interesting
in our own personal budgets, in our homes, in our cities, and in our
States, we have to balance our budget. But for some crazy reason, we in
the Federal Government are not required to balance our budgets.
Sometimes it makes sense to borrow money, just as a in your home you
might want to borrow money to take out a mortgage to buy a home,
perhaps that makes sense. But when it comes to running up tremendous
credit card debt, spending today and paying tomorrow, then certainly it
is a very difficult and dangerous way to live, and that is what we are
doing today in America.
With this budget that has just been passed, we are seeing that
deficits are now immediately exploding from a high of $500 billion a
year to over $1 trillion a year. We are going to see a debt that
already was growing pretty fast accelerate such that it doubles in 5
years and it triples in 10 years. But let me talk a little bit about
the subject that my friend Mr. Bishop was discussing, and that is
energy.
This FY 2010 budget has a negative impact on energy, just as he
suggested. For one thing, it removes over $30 billion in tax incentives
for oil and gas businesses. Now, I am sure the Shells and the Chevrons
can handle that just fine, but the vast majority of exploratory
drillers out there are small family businesses. And, of course,
drilling is a risky operation to begin with, and that is the whole
reason for having tax incentives is to encourage businessmen to go out
and take a risk. But now that the tax incentives have been removed,
what is going to happen? There is going to be less risk taken, there
will be less drilling. Of course, that is going to further our oil
dependence. And in my State of Louisiana, which is a heavy petroleum
dependent State, it is going to tremendously affect jobs, and that is
good jobs.

{time} 2015

We could, over time, lose as many as 70,000 jobs. And again, we are
talking about independent oil drillers. We are not talking about the
big ones. The loss of the depletion allowance and the loss of the
write-off of intangible drilling costs will effectively shut down these
businesses in many cases. It will broaden our dependence on foreign
oil, as I mentioned, and result in increased threats to our national
security as we have to search around the world to have energy sources
to run our Nation.
I support exploring alternative energy resources such as, of course,
solar and wind. But when do we expect that we will be pulling up next
to a windmill and filling our car up with windmill fuel? It just isn't
going to happen. Solar, we are not there yet. None of these
technologies are coming on line. Yes, we see them in Europe, but they
are subsidized by the governments. They have to stand on their own. We
just went through a recent experience with this with ethanol where we
were running the cost of feed through corn in order to create ethanol,
and that was, of course, done with subsidies. And then in the meantime,
it drove up the cost of chicken. And that severely impacted my
district, where we have Pilgrims Pride, the chicken-producing farms,
and almost created bankruptcy for over 200 chicken-producing families,
not to mention the jobs that would have been lost. Hopefully we have
saved that. But that came directly as a result of efforts to subsidize
and encourage ethanol from corn, which is really a very inefficient use
of corn.
Nonetheless, I do support research in these areas. And at some point
when we can actually create electricity into our grid in a cost-
effective way, I'm all in favor of it. I'm also in favor of the use of
nuclear energy. It doesn't produce any carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere. And certainly anyone who ``thinks green'' has got to think
that nuclear energy is the way to go for electricity. And other
countries have taken the lead on that, such as France, with about 80
percent of its electricity produced that way.
Well, let me discuss a little bit, and I hope the camera can pick
this up, this, of course, is the ArkLaTex, this is Arkansas, northwest
Louisiana and Texas. And in the crosshatch here is an area called the
Haynesville Shale. Now, shale is a rock formation in which certain
petroleum products are found, sometimes oil, sometimes natural gas. In
this case, it is natural gas. And we have known about these deposits
for many years. However, we didn't know how to get to them. The
technology was not there. And something was invented called
``horizontal drilling,'' where we can literally go down deep in the
ground, turn horizontally, we can crack open the shale and we can take
out the natural gas.
Now, what lesson does that teach us? Well, it teaches us that the
more we advance technology, the more access to fossil fuels we have and
the safer we make it. As far as safety, I will give

[[Page 9781]]

you an example, and that is offshore drilling, OCS, where, for
instance, with Hurricane Katrina, there were a number of rigs that were
destroyed; however, there was not an appreciable leakage of any oil
from these rigs. In fact, there is more oil in the ocean leaking today
from the bottom naturally than ever from any rigs. So we know that
technology, when put together with fossil fuels and with nuclear
energy, is really the future until hopefully some day we can harness
the power of the wind and the sun.
This Haynesville Shale is projected to contain over 200 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas production, one of the, if not the, largest
natural gas deposits in the world. Now, natural gas emits probably half
the carbon in other products as other forms of energy such as oil,
certainly much less than coal. So it is cleaner. And here in
Washington, D.C., we see buses driving around, and on the side is
printed ``this runs on natural gas.'' You don't detect any odor. You
don't see any smoke coming out there. There is no question that that is
a better way to go. But we don't have the infrastructure yet where you
can pull your car, if it did run on natural gas, to the pump and get it
filled. But we can do that. It is just a simple matter of taking the
initiative, and that will come with time. So we can become, as a
nation, far more independent by using natural gas than we can trying to
develop oil. But we still can't ignore the opportunities for oil such
as in ANWR and offshore and even on Federal lands.
I will also point out that beyond the 200 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas production potential, we are already seeing 10 to 20
million cubic feet of natural gas production per day in the ArkLaTex.
Lots of jobs are being produced. Money is flowing in the economy, and
it is really helping out northwest Louisiana in these difficult times.
In fact, our unemployment level is half what it is in some States. We
don't have the real estate issues that others have. And certainly it is
not just because of the Haynesville Shale, but it certainly is helping.
It is injecting tremendous amounts of capital into our local economy
and creating thousands of jobs.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just what to say that the issue with the
budget is still problematic. We are, again, pushing this country way
over into the leftist socialist realm. Even the leftist socialists from
socialistic countries in Western Europe think we have lost our marbles.
They think what we are doing is crazy. Even the ones that used to
criticize us for being too conservative are now criticizing us for
being too liberal. Just the other day, both France and Germany said
``no more stimulus packages.'' They think we are crazy if we want to
move forward with another one. So enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. And
this budget that passed the House today is way over the top. And I'm
afraid that we are going to see even more coming down the pike.
So, in closing, I want to thank Mr. Bishop, my friend from Utah, for
giving me this opportunity to talk about this. And I await some more
discussion about the petroleum industry and its impact through the
budget.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate very much the gentleman from
Louisiana taking some time here and going through and reminding us of
options that we do have as a country, and how we should be developing
those options. Gas is one of them. Oil is another one of those. We have
a whole bunch. And I appreciate his leadership, as well, on a no-cost
stimulus bill which has about half a hundred sponsors here in the House
already.
One of the problems we do have, though, is we need to be realistic on
how we are going to get from here to there. One of the options we
always talk about is renewable energy. It is an important option to
have. It needs to be developed. But we also have to be realistic on how
we can actually get there. According to the Department of the Interior,
the EIA, they have tried to estimate where we will need to be in the
year 2030. And they estimate we will need about an 11 percent increase
in the total amount of energy that we will be consuming by the year
2030. And if you look at where we were back in 1980 and where we need
to go 50 years from that into the future of 2030, even if we were able
to double the increase of biomass and renewables and double the
percentage of nuclear that we are using, and making the assumption that
we can actually squeeze a little bit more out of hydrogen power, this
clearly shows you where we will be. The bottom three strata all are
fossil-based fuel. We will not be able to turn ourselves over into that
kind of alternative energy supply by ourselves. There needs to be some
kind of impetus to do it. And as the gentleman from Louisiana easily
said, if it is going to be a tax policy, that retards the ability
because businesses will not be entering into the exploration and
development. What we need to do is have a royalty policy, which simply
means we are still going to be needing oil, gas and coal in the future,
but if we use the royalties that are developed from the expansion of
these areas and put them into a trust fund so the United States can use
it to develop the alternative sources, we can dramatically change these
strata coming in here, and we can do it in a logical and realistic way,
which is, once again, what the no-cost stimulus bill tries to do.
What we need to do is simply say, look, there are easy ways for us to
move into a better direction if we actually use the resources that we
have at hand to help build our fossil-fuel resources to help pay for
the renewable resources that we need to have. It is a simple process.
We should be doing it. But we are not doing it right now, which is why
the American people are probably saying, take the cap off, and use the
medicine the way it was intended to be used.
We have one of those other problems that goes along, I will
illustrate by being very parochial right now. My State of Utah has a
whole lot of public land that has a whole lot of natural gas and oil
developed. Recently, the Bureau of Land Management went through a 7-
year review for land management policies in the State of Utah. I want
to emphasize that again. Seven years of review to come up with a land
management policy. What they came up with is actually less area
developed that is usable for resources than they had 50 years ago when
we first came up with this process of having land management policy
plans.
They actually, in this recent one, took 3 million acres out of
potential production. Yet there was a cry that took place that said
maybe we are trying to drill for oil and gas too close to national
parks. Now, I want you, if you have a chance, to see very carefully
here, this is Arches National Park outlined in green. The areas in
purple around that are what actually the BLM in their land management
plan, that took 7 years to develop, took off the table so they could
not have any kind of natural oil or gas exploration done in those
areas. Now so, far so good. But when they decided to actually produce
the other leases and put them out for bid so that private industry--
especially as was mentioned before, we think of big oil companies like
Exxon or Mobil. Ninety percent of all the oil and natural gas that is
drilled in the United States comes from small companies, names that you
don't know, people that have less than 500 employees. These are the
people who are dealing with these particular lease issues. When those
were presented, the Secretary of the Interior decided to remove 77
leases from the table from development with two arguments. Argument
number one was we didn't spend enough time to study it. He claimed that
there had been a rush to judgment. Now I find that difficult because it
took 7 years for the local BLM to do their work and come up with a
system that was not only signed off by the BLM but also signed off by
the National Park Service and also was signed off by the State of Utah.
And I especially find it interesting when we passed a $1 trillion
stimulus bill in this House even after we guaranteed that we would have
48 hours to look at it and we actually ended up having between 4 and 8
hours to look at it, that was okay. But 7 years was a rush to judgment.
The second thing he said is, well, these leases are too close to
existing

[[Page 9782]]

national parks. Now I pointed out where Arches is. And I pointed to the
purple that were taken off. The stuff that is brown is existing leases
right now. The stuff that is pink were leases that had been let, and
the Secretary of the Interior decided to let them go through. The ones
that are in red are the ones he said were too close to the national
park. This one up here is in red. This all was allowed. The pink and
the brown is in existence. And this is too close to the national park,
even though the other leases are not. This one over here, once again,
in red, was denied, taken off the table, even though this one was
allowed and these are existing leases that take place.
If I were to say ``this is irrational,'' I don't think I would be too
far off the point. If I were to say that the reason these red spots
were taken off is because they were subject to a lawsuit instituted by
a special interest group, I would be closer to the point. The bottom
line is this was not a rush to judgment. This was a 7-year, carefully
hatched plan that had been reviewed by everybody in hundreds of town
meetings with thousands of comments. And they are not too close to the
natural beauties of the national parks. They are, in fact, miles away
from them with areas that are currently being leased and developed much
closer to these who are.
What is the net result of this? The net result is the State of Utah
lost $3 million last year to be put into their education system simply
because those were off. And unfortunately, because of the State Trust
Land system that we have in the West, many of these areas that are red
have State Trust Lands abutting them that are also sterile now and not
able to be used to develop funds that we need desperately in the State
of Utah for our own kids.
Sometimes I'm amazed when we talk about how the impact of what we do
with our oil and gas leasing and our land plans, and we don't take
those ancillary effects into account. For example, this is a simple
chart that compares the salaries of teachers in Montana and Wyoming.

{time} 2030

Montana is the one at the bottom. Wyoming is the one at the top. And
if you ask yourself, why is Wyoming starting their teachers at 20 grand
a year more than Montana, it's because Wyoming is developing their
resources.
There are other spin-off effects. If I want to have decent colleges,
or a K-12 system in the State of Utah, I need to develop these
resources and not have them capriciously taken off the table because it
was a rush to judgment or they are too close to a national park.
Now, those are some of the problems that we simply face. Like, when I
was first elected to the legislature in the State of Utah, that was
clear back in 1978, we had a policy at that time called a recapture,
which means if you put property tax on property in the State of Utah,
whatever it raises, there is a minimum the State will guarantee. If
your local district cannot raise the minimum school level by local
property taxes, the State will subsidize it.
In the seventies, late seventies, when I started, and early eighties,
when I started, one of the unique concerns was we had a recapture,
which meant there were three school districts in Utah that not only
could raise enough property tax revenue to meet the minimum school
level, there was enough to be taken away and given to the other
districts to help the State out, which meant that every taxpayer in the
State of Utah benefited. And the reason we had recapture was because
there was energy development. Since the early eighties there has never
been a recapture. There is nothing even close to a recapture today. And
if I wanted to do a recapture, I need to develop these resources, which
the BLM, Bureau of Land Management, after a 7-year study, justified.
And unfortunately, because of actions of this administration, they are
now taken off the table, and we are still struggling.
And what is really sad is the next time, at a different location,
there was a lease sale. It was the worst attended, the lowest
productivity lease sale we have had in the history of those sales
because, simply, business saw what happened in the State of Utah and
realized they're not going to take the chance of developing and putting
their resources in an area where the Federal Government simply might
change their mind.
All we need to do to solve our problems is say, look, take the cap
off the medicine. It'll solve the problem. Some people say, well, we're
developing too much land.
I like this comparison. If you see how much land was developed in the
Clinton administration, and how much was developed in the Bush
administration, I would love to go back to the years of the Clinton
administration when we were actually developing more land and
developing more leases for energy resources to help us meet the needs
of the country. We're actually decreasing in all those areas, not
increasing at the same time.
And as you noticed, as I said, the reason these were taken off the
table is they were subject to a lawsuit. One of the things we have also
found is a significant problem is, simply, we have become litigious-
happy in this country.
We are actually up, according to the Department of the Interior, 100
percent in the amount of permits to drill that have been applied. The
wells that are completed are up 100 percent. But the environmental
lawsuits are up 700 percent in the same area. That's why Utah lost
those $3 million, a 700 percent increase from the year 2000 in the
amount of lawsuits that are given.
In 2008, off the coast of Alaska there were 487 leases that were let,
and there were 487 lawsuits that were filed immediately afterwards. 50
percent of all the leases for energy development in the inner mountain
west are right now involved in some kind of lawsuit. We can never
develop our energy independence and our domestic energy policy, which
will help solve our problems, if we have to continue going through this
process of having continuous lawsuit after continuous lawsuit.
And who are the people that are being hurt by it? Every American that
will be paying more for their airplane tickets and their ball point
pens and their shoes and their fertilizer, because we're adding more
taxes on the oil industry, and every kid that goes to school in the
West, because we cannot afford to fund the program because the money
has been taken out because we simply have decided not to take the cap
off and use the resources we have to help solve our problems. We can
create jobs and we can stimulate this economy if we just do things in a
logical and rational way.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been joined here by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, another great new Member of the House of Representatives
who is adding a great deal to the style of this body and the substance
of our debate by his understanding of the issues. And even though
Pennsylvania is considered an eastern State, we consider him a
westerner because he faces the same issues in his part of Pennsylvania
that we face in the State of Utah, maybe just with not quite as much
public land, but the same issues.
I wish to yield time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Well, I thank my good friend and
colleague from Utah. You know, America does have an energy addiction.
There's no doubt about it. But it's an energy addiction to foreign
energy. And it's an addiction that's just absolutely unnecessary. We
are facing a crisis in the fact that over 70 percent of our energy
resources we obtain from foreign countries. Many of those countries are
those that, frankly, don't like us very much, and they take our money
willingly, but what they use it for could potentially easily do us harm
in the future. And that's wrong. That's a threat to our economy.
And we know that we have been spending a lot of time in this body
talking about the economy in the past 3 months since I came to
Congress. And it's a threat to our national security.
So what are the--such a looming crisis that we're experiencing every
day, and what's the solutions that my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle, our Democrat Party solution? Well, we saw that just a couple
of hours ago

[[Page 9783]]

with the budget that was proposed. That was cap-and-trade. That's how
we address energy. We put a tax on everything. We put $1.8 trillion in
taxes.
Now, The White House's budget showed somewhere around $630 billion of
new taxes that we placed on. But I know that there was a briefing on
the Senate side with somebody from, a White House staffer that was able
to talk that actually the impact on the economy will be triple that.
We're talking $1.8 trillion.
I've got to tell you, Mr. Bishop, before I came to Congress I didn't
know how many zeros were in a trillion. That's a new skill for me.
Unfortunately, it's a sad skill to have to have and have to profess
here.
We're looking at broken promises. The President promised that 95
percent of all Americans would have a decrease, see their taxes
decrease. Well, that promise has been broken with cap-and-trade,
because cap-and-trade puts a tax on just absolutely everything.
In Pennsylvania alone, it's estimated that our energy costs, the cost
of turning on your electrical switch, is going to increase by 40
percent. And that's going to increase, and then you have the tax on
everything, anything that's produced or consumed, if it's made with
carbon or it's got a carbon footprint which is, you know, we took pride
in that, that that advances our economy and our society, but today it's
a bad word. But that, anything that uses that puts a tax today.
Well, that's going to impact everybody, businesses industries,
families. But I've got to tell you, the people I feel--I'm scared most
for are the people that are living, just barely getting by, paycheck to
paycheck, those folks who are poor, those who are not making it today.
And just the electricity costs alone are going up by 40 percent in
Pennsylvania. Cap-and-trade, cap-and-tax, that's a war on the poor. And
what that's going to do to people that are just living, just barely
getting by today is, it's absolutely unacceptable. It's just not bad
policy, frankly, it's harmful.
Now before I came to Congress, I worked 28 years in health care. I
actually thought that I was going to retire in nonprofit community
health care. And for me that meant that hopefully they'd have a nursing
home bed for me when I got to the end of my career in nonprofit
community health care.
But one of the things I learned first in my health care career was,
do no harm. And I use that in my decision-making here on the House
floor. The first thing in terms of any type of public policy is, do no
harm. And that's something that would serve all of myself and my
colleagues to remember in the public policy we're doing, especially on
this energy debate, because cap-and-trade is harmful.
Now, we have great potential, I think, for moving towards and
accomplishing energy independence. Let me talk a little bit about that,
starting with domestic oil.
150 years ago this year, and actually, the third week in August, in
Titusville, Pennsylvania, Colonel Drake drilled the first well ever in
the history of the world and produced energy, produced oil. And that's
something we take great pride in. And we have tremendous domestic oil
resources today that we have not been utilizing, that we could be
utilizing to not just be dependent on foreign sources, but what a great
economic stimulus that would be to take that $700 billion that we send
overseas every year and invest that in American energy-producing
companies that hire American workers. That's the best stimulus that we
could have done, and that's the stimulus that we need to do, and it
will be the first stimulus that we do out of this Congress that will be
effective in this congressional cycle.
Let me talk about natural gas. Credible, clean energy. And we have
lots of it. The Outer Continental Shelf. We certainly have it
throughout my district. We have the third largest natural gas play in
the world that goes through Pennsylvania, 15 of my 17 counties,
wonderful, clean, natural gas that's available. And we have at least
two bus lines in my Congressional district that runs on compressed
natural gas. It's clean, it's cheaper, and it's a good resource, and we
need to be using more of that.
Nuclear. We haven't built a new nuclear plant in how long? Countries
such as France are way ahead of us. Nuclear energy has come a long way
since the days when we were concerned about accidents. It's clean, it's
safe and the technology advancements are wonderful.
Coal. We have, my district, I'm proud of the fact that we have a
tremendous amount of coal. We have a history of providing coal for the
country. And, in fact, we've got great educational institutions in my
facility, we have lots of them, but one in particular is doing some
wonderful research on coal sequestration techniques. And that
technology is being developed with the researchers that we have right
in rural Pennsylvania where we have these vast coal resources to be
able to use.
And then alternative energy. And I do believe in all of the above and
support an all-of-the-above approach to addressing our energy
independence. But if you take the alternative energies today, where
we're at today with solar, with wind, we're looking at producing less
than 1 percent, meeting less than 1 percent of our energy needs. So
let's say we work real hard and we double that. All right. That's 2
percent. We're a long ways off from fulfilling and meeting the energy
needs that our country has today.
We need to be able to use our domestic resources, oil, natural gas,
coal, and continue the research and development of alternative
energies.
I'm very proud of the higher education institutions that I do have in
the district that are working also on developing these alternative
energy sciences. But as I talk with those researchers on alternative
energies, they tell me that the best hope for the future, to be able,
at one point, to be able to replace the use of fossil fuels perhaps is
solar at this point. But even with that, they tell me it is generations
and generations away from being developed to the point where we can
actually fill that gap.
So for us to be energy independent, to meet our economy needs, to
provide good jobs for Americans, producing domestic energy and for our
national security, we really need an all-of-the-above type solution to
our energy.
So why are we dependent on foreign energy?
Well, the best way to do that is, let me illustrate with a bit of a
riddle. My alma matter, I've talked about Penn State. We have a great
winning football coach, Joe Paterno. How'd you like to be in your mid
eighties and just get a 3-year extension on your contract? He's a great
guy and he's got a great record.
So here's the riddle. What's the difference between Coach Paterno's
winning record and America's energy policy? Well, actually Coach
Paterno's winning record really is there, it really exists. We do not
have, America has never had an energy policy. And, in fact, the biggest
barrier we have to American energy independence, and American economic
independence using our energy resources, has been the Federal
Government. And it's time for that to stop.
And let me share with you a living example of how government gets in
the way of using domestic resources, domestic energy resources. In my
district, in the northern part, we have this wonderful four counties,
it includes the Allegheny National Forest. It's 513,000 acres. It's a
wonderful area. It was formed back in 1923. 85 years it has existed,
and it was formed for the purpose of providing a sustainable timber
supply for industry, and also to supply sustainable energy,
specifically, oil to begin with, and now natural gas that is drilled in
the forest.
And, in fact, the Federal Government, in its wisdom in 1923, when it
secured all these lands to form this national forest, chose not to
secure the private property subsurface rights, the mineral rights
there. And the reason for that was because it felt that private
property owners would be better able to access and to produce the
energy that is contained in those minerals, the oil and the natural gas
that is there today.

{time} 2045

Well, that has worked well for us for approximately 85 years. Just
about a

[[Page 9784]]

little over 70 days ago, the Forest Service, who manages that, decides
to no longer proceed with what's called ``notices to proceed.'' That's
basically the green light to be able to go after the oil and the
natural gas that our country needs to fuel our needs. It's domestic
energy.
Now, the impact of that in just 70 days has been, as you can imagine,
on the businesses. First of all, it's an attack on those who own the
private property rights, which is wrong. We respect private property
rights in this country, but then there are the businesses, the drillers
who go after the oil. We haven't had a new start on a well in over 70
days. You have the schools and the counties and the municipalities that
rely on that, that being the big part of our economy in those four
counties. Then you have the families, the families who depend on those
jobs, and we have seen job loss, and we have seen people's hours being
cut back across the board in many different industries. It's just not
the drillers. They're the individuals who are involved with the small
excavating companies, who come in to clear the access road. They're the
folks who work in timbering, who remove the timber to be able to open
up those areas for drilling.
You have to remember that this is something we have worked well
together on with the Forest Service for 86 years. It has been a great
partnership of making sure that we provide the resources that America
needs. Then, all of a sudden, the Forest Service, because of lawsuits
by environmentalists, has shut this process down. It has shut down the
economy in the four counties, in the Allegheny National Forest and in
those counties that depend on that economy around it. Well, that's
wrong. That's absolutely wrong.
You know, America has the ingenuity. In terms of being energy
independent and in using our resources, we've got the ingenuity. We've
got the resources. We've got the American spirit. We've got people who
work hard in those industries, I mean long days, days that a lot of
Americans wouldn't want to put in, but they do that because that's what
they enjoy; that's their passion, and they help to provide the energy
resources that our country needs.
As I said before, the biggest barrier to accessing these domestic
resources, to accessing America's energy resources for America's being
energy independent, has been our own government. It's time for smart
government energy policy.
Again, I propose that the best stimulus that we could ever do for our
economy would be to access all of our domestic energy resources. That
would be oil, natural gas, the building of nuclear plants, the use of
coal, the development of the alternative energies at the same time,
concurrently. As we do that, we put American energy-producing companies
to work that are hiring American workers.
I thank my friend and colleague from Utah for the opportunity to join
him this evening.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate Mr. Thompson from Pennsylvania for
going through many of the significant issues that have to be addressed
and that can help us solve our budgetary problems if we just provide
people options and take the cap off and let them use the medicine.
He did mention one of those, which is cap-and-trade. Now, we did a
great deal of talking this week about how we're not going to raise
taxes on middle-income individuals, but we've already talked about how
the $80 billion tax increase for the oil industry alone is going to be
passed on. Cap-and-trade, which the gentleman also mentioned, has the
same individual effort. It has been estimated that cap-and-trade will
cost about $1.9 trillion, and that comes out to an average per
household of just under $2,000 a year for the next 8 years.
For those people who are now going to have to come up with that under
the cap-and-trade approach, they either have to make $2,000 a year more
every year or find some way of cutting back. To help them out, the
Bureau of Labor has come up with some statistics that show what the
average family does spend.
For example, on all of their meat, their poultry, their fish, eggs,
dairy products, and fruits and vegetables, the average family will
spend about $1,700 a year. Well, that's not quite enough that they'd
have to cut. For all furniture, appliances, carpets, and other
furnishings, the average family spends about $1,700-plus a year. If you
just do clothing, the average family spends $1,800 a year. For
electricity and energy needs, the average family spends a little over
$1,700. In property tax, the average family hits again $1,700.
Those are some ways that people could actually afford the cap-and-
trade or cap-and-tax program because--I'm sorry--whether we say it's a
tax increase or not, it's going to cost average Americans.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I'll yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Just a point on this:
For those who were watching the debate--and it went on all day
yesterday on this issue and for hours long during today as well--there
were assertions on the other side completely made over and over again.
Any time we raised this issue as far as the tax on the American family
and individuals as well and as to whether it's going to be $1,600 or
$1,700--you said it's under $2,000--there was an assertion on the other
side of the aisle that's it's not in there. That's not true.
Ranking Member Ryan, I think, had the definitive statement on it.
It's not us making those statements. It's not even outside
organizations making those statements. Although, outside organizations
have, in fact, confirmed that that would be in place. In fact, it was
our very own, nonpartisan CBO, Congressional Budget Office, that came
up with that figure. So it is in there. It is relevant, and it has been
documented.
I just wanted to reinforce that point.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey for
pointing that out because, once again, we provide options for people.
We take the cap off the medicine, and we can still solve all of our own
problems. Let me talk very quickly about two final points:
One is the concept that we can change to green energy jobs. I call it
the ``myth of green energy.'' This administration has praised Spain,
and has said that they should be an example we should follow as a
country who has achieved long-term growth, going down a massive
subsidization of green energy jobs.
The only thing I worry about, according to their most recent studies
of what has taken place in Spain, is that their green energy efforts
simply have hindered their way out of their current economic crisis
because, for every green energy job that was produced, it required a
subsidy between $30,000 and $100,000. The total cost to Spain was $36
billion. The energy increase to Spain was a 31 percent increase for
average people in Spain for their energy increases. I hate to say this,
but for every energy job that allegedly was created, there were 2.2
jobs that were killed as a result of them. This is actually a job loss.
One of the problems we have in doing that is, simply, there is no
definition of what is a ``green job.'' In reality, as we found once
again in Spain, clerical work, bureaucratic work and administrative
jobs are now considered green jobs. The net effect, though, still in
Spain is, for every job they created, they lost 2.2 jobs.
Now I would like to just say in some conclusion to this--and we could
go on and talk about a lot of other things--that there is the issue of
offshore drilling in which the previous administration had a 60-day
comment period. This administration has decided to put in an
unprecedented 6-month comment period as if we don't know what we're
doing already.
There is the issue of oil shale in my State, and once again, this
administration has decided to stop the development of leases and the
development of resources for oil shale. In conservative estimates,
there is three times the

[[Page 9785]]

amount of oil potential just in the States of Utah, Colorado and
Wyoming than there is in Saudi Arabia.
But I want to remind people of why we're talking about this issue of
energy as it relates to the budget at all. One of the things we as a
government ought to do is try to avoid pain. I realize that there are
some people who have said it's a shame to waste any crisis, but one of
the things, maybe, that we should be trying to do is to prevent future
crises.
I think some of us can remember back to last fall when gasoline was
over $4 a gallon and how terrible the situations and lifestyles were
back then, which have now been placed on the back burner because it's
not so frantic and not so necessarily needed, because we faced one of
the unique phenomena that has happened only once in the world, which is
that the entire world dropped their consumption of oil. We are now
consuming 1.4 million barrels in the world less than we did last fall
when it was $4 a gallon. Our experts tell us that that will probably
continue through the year 2009, but come 2010, it's going to go right
back up. Since the United States has yet to solve its energy production
problems--not for the short term, not for the long term because we
refuse to take the cap off the medicine and make options for people--we
still import 40 percent of our energy from foreign countries. We are
still bound and determined to do whatever Hugo Chavez wants in some
particular way.
For whom are we fighting? Remember last fall for whom we were
fighting--for the people in my State, for the kids who need their
education, for the 1,100 airline employees who were laid off when 100
planes were taken out of one company's system, for the Ethiopian cab
driver here in Washington, D.C. who told me that he had to drive 2
hours every day longer to make up because of the high cost of energy
and that, for the first time in his life, he was not able to be home
when his kid came home from school, for the father in Virginia who
refrained from going to fathers' and sons' activities because he
couldn't afford the cost of gas, or for the Wisconsin high school that
tried to have a fashion show to show kids how they could dress warmly
in fleeces and in zipped sweaters and try and compensate in that
particular way, or for North Dakota where they cut their schools back
to 4 days a week, or for a district in Iowa that decided the only kinds
of trips they could go on were going to be athletic events--no more
choir, no more field trips, no more junior high trips whatsoever, even
for the American Defense Department, which saw its energy budget go
from $3 billion to $13 billion a year just because of the increase of
gas, or for the church in Vermont that found itself with a $10,000
increase in its electrical bill out of the blue, or for the nurse in
Chicago who dropped cable television in an effort to try and solve her
problems, or for the elderly people who no longer went on trips, or for
the guy in St. Paul, Minnesota, who only went out if he were in his
electric wheelchair because he could recharge it for free in his
apartment.
In this country, when we talk about energy policies, we talk about
them as if they were some ethereal concept that was out there, an
abstract concept. It's not. When we talk about our energy policy, we
are talking about how people cook their food and how they heat their
homes, and we create jobs because of it. For every dollar that is spent
on energy for those people who are in the most vulnerable situations,
for those who are in the lowest half of our economic stratum, for every
dollar they have to spend on high-energy costs, it was a dollar they
couldn't spend on a luxury like Hamburger Helper.
It is energy that is the great social equalizer. It is energy that
creates economic opportunities, and this country has more energy
imprisoned than most countries have. All we need to do is to try to tap
into that potential, for when prices increase--and they will again--
jobs will be lost; income vanishes; social programs suffer; America
suffers at the same time, and it hurts those who are on fixed incomes
and those who are on the poverty level the most. That's 45 million
people who are on fixed incomes. You see, if the social and economic
elite of this country can easily solve this problem, if you're rich,
the high cost of energy is nothing more than an inconvenience.
We had Presidential candidates who would fly around the country in
three different jets one day, and it was okay. All they had to do was
buy a carbon offset for it. We have a former political leader whose
home consumes 20 times more energy in one day than an average family
will consume in a year, and it's okay; he can just buy an offset. It's
like going back to the medieval time period. An ancient duke or earl,
if he did something wrong, could go out and buy an indulgence, and his
life style would go on the same without any kind of impact.
If you're rich, that's what the energy crisis means to you, but if
you're poor, that's when you hurt. That's when you have to decide
whether you're going to pay for gas or for heating or simply for food.
That's who gets hurt the most. Eleven percent of a rich person's income
goes for energy consumption. For anyone at the poverty level, 50
percent goes for energy consumption.
This country has the ability of solving that problem. Think of all
the great inventions this country has done. In 1784, we came up with
bifocals; in 1805, refrigerators; in 1849, the safety pin; 1867 was a
great year because this country came up with the typewriter, barbed
wire and toilet paper all in one particular year. And we can't come up
with a solution to this problem?
We can if we, once again, unlock the potential within every American
and offer them options and then give them rewards for those options.
England had no idea in the 1700s of how to chart the ocean, so they
asked for a competition, for somebody to come up with the answer. In
1714, a clock maker came up with the system of longitude and latitude
that we are still using today. Napoleon didn't know how to feed his
troops. He came up with a competition, and in 1810, the concept of
vacuum packing that we use today was developed. Even Lindbergh, when he
flew across the Atlantic, was responding to a competition established
by a newspaper.
All we need to do is unlock the potential of Americans. We have the
potential. We need to have options. We need simply to have the
government take the cap off the medicine so America can grow. If we do
that, we can solve our energy problems. We can have energy solutions
into the future, and we can solve our budget problems all at the same
time. They are interrelated, and this is where America simply needs to
ask their government to take the cap off.
Let us grow. Let us succeed.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your patience, and I appreciate the time. I
yield back.

____________________

THE GREAT ECONOMIC HOLE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nye). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank)
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to address what is one of the major issues that is now
confronting the country. We have the problem of digging out from under
the great economic hole in which we find ourselves, not just here but
worldwide, but as we do that, it is important that we take steps to
make it much less likely that we'll be in such a difficult spot again.
It's a hard thing to do simultaneously--to recover from a serious
problem and also to prevent its occurrence.

{time} 2100

I want to talk today about what we have to do to prevent its
recurrence. Now, obviously, to prevent its recurrence, you need to have
some sense of what caused the problems. There are two competing
theories. The one that I believe, that the President believes, that he
is in Europe today discussing--and which a wide variety of European
thinkers somewhat inaccurately said

[[Page 9786]]

today on the floor from the other side, It was the socialists in Europe
who were pushing the President. Well, those socialists were primarily
the conservative Christian democratic Chancellor of Germany and the
conservative Gaullist President of France. They are the ones who were
saying we have to come together and improve financial regulation.
In England, when I became the chairman-in-waiting in 2006 after that
election, I was told that we in America should emulate Great Britain. I
was told this by conservatives, by people in the financial industry.
Great Britain, we were told, had the financial services authority that
used the light touch when they regulated.
The head of the financial services authority recently announced the
era of light touch, of soft touch regulation is over. That bastion of
regulatory flexibility now says we erred with too little regulation.
Unregulated credit default swaps. Cauterized debt obligations.
Financial entities largely unregulated taking on far more debt than
they could pay is a major cause of the problem.
Now, how do we get there? There is to some extent agreement on one
particular aspect of this. And that is that it was the proliferation of
subprime mortgages to people who could not repay them that was at the
root of the problem. The mortgage loans were made to people who
couldn't repay them by people who did not expect to be repaid because
they were selling that right. They were securitizing them.
And other sophisticated financial institutions then took these badly
made loans and rocketed them around the world through sophisticated
financial investments. And there is a great agreement that that is the
root cause of the problem.
But what caused the cause is disputed.
Now, there is a conservative view that says, You know what happened?
It was the liberals, the Democrats. There they went again trying to
help poor people, and they forced these poor institutions, these
vulnerable lenders, into making bad loans.
Now, we have seen a proliferation, a coordinated proliferation of
that argument. It was trying to help poor people that did it. Some of
the poor people were black and Hispanic, others--a majority of them,
this being the United States with our ethnic composition--were white.
But that's what's getting blamed, and it's in a coordinated way.
The talk show hosts, Vice President Cheney said that in his last
interview, Mr. Rove has been arguing that. It is fairly coordinated.
Now, I do not argue that we are facing a vast right-wing conspiracy.
What we are dealing with is something, however, equally troubling. It
is crass right-wing mendacity. It is systematic dishonesty, lying,
distortions, misrepresentations, bad history being promulgated.
Now, I speak as one of the Democrats who's learned our lesson. For
too long we acted as if inherent implausibility was self-refuting. A
man I admire greatly, John Kerry, a war hero, was victimized in 2004
because for too long he delayed fighting back the inherently
implausible charge that he had not distinguished himself in battle. The
Swift-boating of John Kerry was a terrible moment in American history,
and his decency, his belief in fairness, held him back for a bit. He
fought back, but it was later than it should have been.
We've had earlier examples of that. We're seeing it now. We are
seeing a concerted right-wing effort to misrepresent the facts to avoid
a result they don't want. The result is regulation. The result is that
this country will do what it has done at least twice before.
We have a situation in which significant financial innovation in this
country, beginning about 20 years ago or so, transformed mortgage
lending. Mortgage lending used to be a matter of you going into your
community bank--and by the way, among the victims of this whole
operation have been the community banks. The community banks who have
been no part of the problem but get the criticisms on an
undifferentiated way and some of the burden. And we on the Financial
Services Committee are determined to do everything we can to shelter
them from that kind of unfair denunciation and excessive regulatory
burden.
But what we had was a proliferation of lending now outside of the
banks. Non-banks were able to lend because of liquidity in the world.
You didn't have to go to depositors. If you get money from depositors,
you're regulators. If you get money from pools of liquidity from Asia,
from oil people in the Middle East, from elsewhere, you do not have to
face that regulation.
The other thing, of course, that happened was securitization. Thirty
years ago people who got a mortgage were getting it from someone who
expected it to be repaid by the borrower, and they were careful about
the borrower. Increasingly, loans were made by people who did not
expect to be repaid by that borrower but who were going to package the
loans and sell them to other people. And the discipline of a direct
lender-borrower relationship eroded.
Then the sophisticated collateralized debt obligation derivatives and
credit default swaps came in and took loans that should never have been
made in the first place and sent them around.
The problem is that there were no regulations, insufficient
regulation. In the lending process, virtually no regulation in the
process by which the bad loans were packaged and sent around the world.
So our job today is to do what Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson
did: address innovations in the private sector. And we are a private
sector country fortunately, and it is the private sector that creates
wealth. But in periods of great innovation by definition there are no
rules, no regulations. So you get a great deal of productive activity
and you get some abuses. And the job of a sensible public policy is try
to restrain the abuses while getting the benefit of the innovation.
Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson did that. They did antitrust
laws, they did the Federal Trade Commission. And the contemporary
version of today's right-wing ideology said, Oh, my God. You're going
to ruin everything. They were bitterly opposed to Theodore Roosevelt
and his trust busting.
And when the stock market became important as a consequence of the
large industrial enterprises becoming the basis of the economy to a
great extent, Franklin Roosevelt did the same thing with the stock
market. And if you want to read complaints similar to today's laments
that regulation will ruin the economy and throttle competitiveness, go
to the Congressional Record of the 1930s and read what they had to say
about the Securities and Exchange Commission. That's our job today.
That's what we want to do. We want to put rules in place that allow us
to get the benefit of innovations, the benefit of securitization, but
without the abuses.
The economic fundamentalists feel threatened by this. The
consequences of their deregulatory policy--which had been successful in
America for far too long--are devastating, and they understand that the
American people are unhappy with that and plan to impose regulation.
And they are as opposed today as they were against Theodore Roosevelt
and Woodrow Wilson and against Franklin Roosevelt who said, ``The
economic royalists hate me, and I welcome their hate because they know
I am a threat to them.''
We are a threat to the abusers, and by the way, Mr. Speaker, good
rules are pro-market. Franklin Roosevelt made it possible for people to
invest with confidence when he created the SEC. He created a situation
in which you could have mutual funds with the Investment Company Act.
We suffer today from people who will not invest because of their fears
of abuse, and creating a set of rules that give comfort to investors
will get this economy functioning again, get the credit markets
functioning again.
All right, what do the conservatives say? First of all, you made us
lend money to poor people. It was the Community Reinvestment Act. I
will insert in the Record the article from October

[[Page 9787]]

12 from the McCarthy newspapers, Messrs. Goldstein and Hall about that
myth. And we will do a Special Order later on it.

[From McClatchy Newspapers, Oct. 12, 2008]

Private Sector Loans, Not Fannie or Freddie, Triggered Crisis

(By David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall)

Washington.--As the economy worsens and Election Day
approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global
financial crisis on a government push to make housing more
affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk
radio and e-mail.
Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market
meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically
targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6,
contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused
Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.
Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true,
and that the private sector, not the government or
government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime
lending at the core of the crisis.
Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest
borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to
2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.
Federal Reserve Board data show that: More than 84 percent
of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private
lending institutions; private firms made nearly 83 percent of
the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that
year; Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was
directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by
conservative critics.
The ``turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by
a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S.
subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into
2007,'' the President's Working Group on Financial Markets
reported Friday.
Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration
pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more
available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their
ability to pay the mortgages.
``I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and
Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks
is a disaster,'' said Neil Cavuto of Fox News.
Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and
Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend
money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase
loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the
loans.
It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the
loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even
more.
This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home
ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of
Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and
Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into
the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52
percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.
To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become
homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous
lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of
homeownership into nightmares.
But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income
families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at
the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans
and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't
criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they
were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S.
homeownership.
Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding,
Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of
the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market
to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside
Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that
Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than
many of the unregulated players in the private sector who
weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt
or are now in deep trouble.
During those same explosive three years, private investment
banks--not Fannie and Freddie--dominated the mortgage loans
that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage
market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized
almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie
and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications
that track this data.
In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton
administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private
sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all
mortgages.
Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices
between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and
that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the
technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company,
usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them
into the secondary mortgage market.
About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this
secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.
Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess
on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at
freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods.
Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of
redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked
the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and
the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA
requires federally regulated and insured financial
institutions to show that they're lending and investing in
their communities.
Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently
that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, ``it led to
tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--who in
turn pressured banks and other lenders--to extend mortgages
to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called
subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current
calamity.''
Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to
sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their
private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new
restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing
even more market share in the booming subprime market.
What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow
CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-
bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp.
and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.
These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap,
allowing them to be regulated by 5o different state banking
supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage
brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or
the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.
In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion
that the push for affordable housing created today's
problems.
``Most of the loans made by depository institutions
examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans,''
she said. ``The CRA has increased the volume of responsible
lending to low- and moderate-income households.''
In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in
June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich
wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates
high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the
pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default
rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he
wrote, ``that this new lending is good business.''
____

[From the Financial Times, Sept. 9, 2008]

Oxley Hits Back at Ideologues

(By Greg Farrell in New York)

In the aftermath of the US Treasury's decision to seize
control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, critics have hit at
lax oversight of the mortgage companies.
The dominant theme has been that Congress let the two
government-sponsored enterprises morph into a creature that
eventually threatened the US financial system. Mike Oxley
will have none of it.
Instead, the Ohio Republican who headed the House financial
services committee until his retirement after mid-term
elections last year, blames the mess on ideologues within the
White House as well as Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the
Federal Reserve.
The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE
reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the
current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.
He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. ``All
the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without
remembering how the House stepped up on this,'' he says.
``What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger
salute.''
The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform
Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers
to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their
portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.
Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking
Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure
support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning
bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331
to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate
and faced hostility from the Bush administration.
Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by
Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House
attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that
the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.
``We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a
lot of the problems we're facing now, if we hadn't had such a
firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury
and the Fed,'' Mr Oxley says.
When Hank Paulson joined the administration as Treasury
secretary in 2006 he sent

[[Page 9788]]

emissaries to Capitol Hill to explore the possibility of
reaching a compromise, but to no avail.

Very simple. The Community Reinvestment Act covers banks, not
mortgage finance companies, not all of these other entities, not Fannie
Mae, not Freddie Mac, not Goldman Sacs, not Merrill Lynch, not the
hedge funds. If mortgage loans had only been made by institutions
covered by the Community Reinvestment Act, there would be no crisis.
These are the community banks that do not deserve to be falsely blamed.
They're not all crazy about the Community Reinvestment Act. But it is
not, by any means, the source of this problem.
Most of the bad loans that were made were made by institutions not
covered by the Community Reinvestment Act. The article I just quoted
says only 1 of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject
to the CRA.
Well, then, they say okay--by the way, to their credit, every
regulator in the Bush administration at the Federal Reserve, at the
FDIC, at the controller of the currency, repudiates the notion that the
Community Reinvestment Act caused this. Literally, no competent bank
regulator believes that for a minute because they know, as regulators,
they would not have allowed this.
Well, then, the next argument is it was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
And I will say I am personally involved here because my conservative
colleagues have done me the compliment of impugning to me powers I
never thought I had.
Now, here is the legislative record of the Republican Congress during
the 12 years that this--the Republicans controlled Congress for 12
years. Here are the legislative records of 12 years of Republican
control. Legislation upon bad subprime lending: zero. This is a very
energy-efficient chart. You can use the chart for both issues.
Legislation to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac passed while the
Republicans were in power from 1995-2006: zero. Now, one of the
arguments--okay, they can't deny the facts.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will someone tell the gentleman from Iowa
I will begin yielding after a certain amount of time. I want to get the
complete argument out. I will yield some time and I will say more than
that.
I look forward to when we return to debate--these things get too one-
sided. Let's each take out an hour and we will share the hours and go
back and forth in debates.
But that's irrefutable. Zero. Republicans in control of Congress, no
legislation adopted to ban subprime lending or to regulate Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac. Now why is that the case? Well, one argument is that I
wouldn't let them do that. Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay apparently had a
secret passion to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but my secret
hold kept them from doing it.
Mr. Speaker, I wish I knew that. If I knew I could have stopped them
from doing things, I wouldn't have let them impeach Bill Clinton.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I told the gentleman that I would not
yield.
Mr. Speaker, will you please instruct the gentleman from Iowa, who I
thought would have known better, that he has to be yielded to.
Mr. KING of Iowa. It's misstated facts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, regular order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts controls
the time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Please instruct the gentleman from Iowa
if he asks me to yield and I say ``no,'' he's not allowed further to
speak. Those are the basic rules of the House.
I said to the gentleman after a certain amount of time, I will yield.
I am sorry he is upset by the fact that the Republican Party, of which
he is a member, had a zero record of accomplishment during those 12
years in which they controlled it. I will allow debate and yielding
later. People have spoken for hours on this without any interruption. I
am going to speak for at least 40 minutes without interruption and I
will then yield.
So I will instruct the gentleman the rules of the House do not allow
him to interrupt without permission. I do not interrupt people without
permission, neither may he.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I hope the people will stick around, and I will
yield to the gentleman when I have the time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will you please instruct the
gentleman of the rules of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts controls
the time and does not wish to yield at this time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. As I said before the gentleman from Iowa
tried to divert attention from it, zero legislation adopted by the
Republican.
The argument again is Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay wanted to do it.
They overcame my objection to have a war in Iraq--that I thought was a
terrible mistake--to cut taxes to very wealthy people, to intervene in
the Terry Shiavo case, to do other things that I thought were unwise.
But I kept them from regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Well, I
wish I did have that power. I was the minority member of the Committee
on Financial Services who had jurisdiction. It was then called the
Committee on Banking. In 2003, I did become the senior member, the
minority leader.
In the Republican House, the minority leader did not have a great
deal of power. The Republicans had the power.
And so here's what happened. It is true that in 2003, the chairman of
the committee, Mr. Oxley, decided to try to regulate Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. He scheduled a vote on the bill, the Republican chairman
on the committee, Mr. Oxley. Let me read from a CBS report October 7,
2003.

{time} 2115

Strong opposition by the Bush administration forced a top Republican
Congressman to delay a vote on the bill that would create a new
regulation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Let me quote from the Washington Post on October 8. The Bush
administration is at odds with the Republican-controlled House
Financial Services Committee over legislation to impose tougher
oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The dispute dims prospects
for quick passage of the bill.
So, Mr. Speaker, apparently I not only had the power to stop the
Republican Party; I had a secret power over the minds of men, as the
old radio serial used to say, and I managed to get Bush and the
Republicans in the Congress to fight with each other. Boy, I wish I'd
have known that at the time. There was a lot of damage I could have
avoided. So the bill did not pass that year because the Bush
administration stopped it because Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
Abernathy denounced the Republican bill.
Now, it is true in 2003 I did say at a hearing that I did not think
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac faced a crisis. I did not think they did at
the time. I didn't think Wachovia did at the time. I didn't think
Merrill Lynch faced one at the time, or AIG or a number of other
financial institutions that have failed even more spectacularly than
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That didn't mean I wasn't for some
regulation. I didn't think they faced a crisis.
But I changed my mind a year later because, in 2004, as is made clear
in an excellent book by Mark Zandi--Mr. Zandi is one of our best
economists. He's level-headed. He's advised President Obama. He's
advised John McCain. He wrote a book called ``Financial Shock: A Look
at the Sub-Prime Mortgage Implosion.''
And here's what he said happened. He said, Clinton started on
homeownership for low-income people. President Bush readily took up the
baton at the start of his administration. Owning a home became one
pillar of his ownership society. To reinforce this effort, the Bush
administration--once again, it's my secret power at work--put
substantial pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their
funding of mortgage loans to lower income groups.

[[Page 9789]]

So, yes, I didn't think they were in crisis in 2003. In 2004, the
Bush administration, according to Mr. Zandi's book, put pressure on
them to increase this.
OFHEO, the Bush-controlled regulator, set aggressive goals for the
two giant institutions. By the time of the subprime financial shock,
both had become sizeable buyers of these securities.
Now, I didn't think that was a good idea. Let me quote from the
Bloomberg News Service, Mr. James Tyson. He used to cover financial
news. This is from 2004, June 17. As Mr. Zandi noted, it was the Bush
administration that pushed Fannie and Freddie, a year after I said they
weren't in crisis.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush
administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to
people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on the congressional
panel that sets regulations. That was me. I was by then the senior
Democrat, still in the minority. The rule compelled the companies to
put 57 percent of their financing towards homes for people with incomes
no greater than the median income. The White House could do some harm
if you don't refine the goals, said Representative Barney Frank.
Frank's comments echo concerns that the new goals will undermine
profits and put new homeowners into dwellings they can't afford.
Yes, I thought this was a bad idea. I didn't think giving people
loans that they couldn't pay back was a good idea. It wasn't we,
Democrats and liberals, who were pushing loans to low-income people. It
was, as Mr. Zandi said, as Bloomberg said, the Bush administration
because they wanted homeownership. By the way, that was part of an
overall policy in which they cut funding for affordable rental housing.
And throughout, my difference with them has been I wanted affordable
rental housing. Yes, in that 2003 quote I said I was worried that
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would cut back on affordable housing, and in
our language that we use in the housing area, affordable housing is
rental housing. I tried to get Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac not to buy
bad subprime mortgages but, if they had profits, to put some of them
into affordable rental housing.
So, yes, in 2004, I got worried that they were, as Mr. Zandi said, as
the Bloomberg News said, putting people into low-income housing. Around
that time, I had a discussion with Alphonso Jackson, the Bush Secretary
of HUD. He said he wanted to cut people off the rental housing
assistance program after 5 years, the section 8 program whereby you
help people rent housing. He said, What do you think? I said, Well, if
you can stop them from being poor after 5 years that would be perfectly
sensible. He said, No, no, be serious. Why aren't you for it? I said,
Mr. Secretary, what will happen to some of these people who can't
afford to rent if you cut off their rent supplement after 5 years? He
said, I will help them become homeowners.
This was the Bush social policy. This was their compassionate
conservatism. They were the ones pushing this, not CRA because it
wasn't the banks doing it. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were doing it at
the orders of the Bush administration.
So, in 2005, I did agree now, given this, that it was time to
regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and I joined Mr. Oxley, the
chairman of the committee who tried to do it in 2003 and was stopped by
the Bush administration, and in 2005, Mr. Oxley began again a bill to
regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
It passed the Committee on Financial Services, of which I was the
senior Democrat still, by 65-5. That was the bill Mr. Oxley put out.
Five Republicans voted against it. They were on the Bush side; it
didn't go far enough. But 28 Republicans voted for it, with all the
Democrats. So 65-5. The bill passed the House in 2005 to regulate
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's been argued that, oh, yeah, but the
bill was too weak because at the markup session, the committee vote,
Democrats blocked good amendments.
Let me be very clear. Let me check the record. I have the record
here. I'm going to put it into the Congressional Record. No amendment
at that session on the committee vote which received a majority of
Republican votes was defeated. Some Republicans were defeated, but they
had a minority of Republican votes. A majority of Republicans carried
the day on every vote.
There were two efforts to try and tighten it. They were both defeated
against the chairman's wishes, with a majority of Republicans against
them on both sides.
I'll yield later on. I will put that in there. I will yield to the
gentleman to clarify that.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I would like to ask you about that. I'm
listening to what you are saying, if I could.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman may--I will yield briefly.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I'm thinking back. If you're referencing
the time when--actually, I think I had one of those amendments, if I'm
not mistaken. I know one of the amendments I made and I withdrew, and
then I made some other amendments, and I think Ed Royce and I'm trying
to think. There was a whole series of amendments.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have the amendments. I'll read them.
I'm sorry, I'm not going to waste time. I'm sorry, we don't have time,
but I'm not going to give up my scarce time while the gentleman wanders
through memory lane. I am sorry, I take back my time. I'll read the
amendment. I'll look for the amendment offered by Mr. Garrett.
An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered
by Mr. Garrett, number 1R, was withdrawn. We go down. An amendment was
offered by Mr. Paul. It was defeated 14-56. There were 37 Republicans
on the committee. An amendment was offered by Mr. Royce. It was
defeated, 17-53, 20 beat 17. Then we have the only one I see by Mr.
Garrett, who's asked me to yield, it was withdrawn. So Mr. Garrett
offered one amendment at that markup, and it was withdrawn.
I will put the record in there. I don't have further time to yield.
If the gentleman wants to see if the record was incorrect, and at one
point I quoted something about the gentleman that was incorrect and I
apologize, but this one I have double-checked. So Mr. Garrett offered
one amendment, and it was withdrawn.
Amendments to strengthen the bill, to put some spine in Mr. Oxley,
who the Republican administration thought too weak, the author of
Sarbanes-Oxley, the coauthor, two Republican amendments taken a roll
call, both defeated. A majority of Republicans defeated them, and then
we went to the floor of the House on this--and I voted for the bill.
We went to floor of the House. We came to the Rules Committee, and
Republicans then in the Rules Committee did something outrageously
procedurally. We had in there a provision that said some of the money
from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac profits would go, if they had the
profits, to rental housing, not subprime mortgages, to rental housing,
and it would go through organizations. Conservative Republicans said,
oh, no, some of these organizations are nefarious, you can't be giving
money to some of these organizations; you better give only to housing
groups; if you give it to a multipurpose organization, bad things will
happen.
So they put an amendment in that had not been offered in committee
and did not allow a vote on it on the floor. It was a self-executing
rule as they call it. A self-executing rule is what you call it when
you jam it in and don't let people vote on it. This was the Republicans
in the Rules Committee. Mr. Oxley was not in favor of it, but he had to
be a good soldier.
It said no organization could get any money to build this rental
housing if housing wasn't their prime goal, and we heard from some of
those radical organizations who were upset. I remember particularly the
Catholic Church, which does a very good job of building affordable
housing. I work very closely with the Catholic Church and they do
excellent work in the Archdiocese of

[[Page 9790]]

Boston, the Diocese of Fall River, Arlene McMame and Lisa Alberghini,
two wonderful women working under our cardinal and our bishop in this
regard.
And the Catholic Church said, you know, it says we can't get any
money unless housing is our main purpose. Now, we care a lot about
housing, but God has to be our main purpose. So the Catholic Church
apologized for the fact that they could not claim for the purpose of
getting money that their main purpose was to build housing. They would
have been excluded. I was angry about that, and so when the bill passed
the House I voted against it. I still wanted the bill to be passed
without that.
But the point is this. 2003, Republicans in power, no bill is
offered. So it's apparently my fault that the Republicans, since they
were fighting each other, wouldn't offer the bill.
In 2005, it is offered, and unlike the gentleman from New Jersey, I
joined the chairman of the committee and a great majority of the
Republicans, 32 of the 37 Republicans, to bring the bill to the floor.
I didn't vote for it on the floor because I didn't like the housing
piece, but it got 300 votes on the floor of the House, and it was about
to go to the Senate.
At that point, according to Mr. Oxley, once again the Bush
administration intervened to kill it. And Mr. Oxley said--I hope it's
late enough in some parts of the country for me to quote Mr. Oxley--in
his interview in the Financial Times, he said the ideologues at the
White House blocked this regulatory bill that would have improved
regulation that was voted on by 300 Members of the House, by a 10:1
ratio in the committee, by an overwhelming majority of Republicans in
both bodies. He said the administration ideologues gave him the one-
finger salute, which I will not illustrate on the floor of the House
given propriety.
So, once again, it was blocked by them. I was supportive of Oxley in
committee. I wanted a bill that created the housing thing. It got 300
votes on the floor. Did I stop it?
What happened was, it went to the Senate, and then the Republican
free-for-all multiplied. It went to the Senate, and the Republican
Senate voted the bill out by one vote, but it never went to the floor,
and you had a three-way dispute: the Senate Republican chairman, Mr.
Shelby; the House Republican chairman, Mr. Oxley; the President of the
United States. The Secretary of the Treasury actually sided with Mr.
Oxley, he said.
That's why we got no Fannie Mae bill. That's the history. By now the
clock runs out on them. We passed the bill in 2005 in the House. I
voted ``no,'' but I was prepared to vote for it with an amendment that
did not affect the regulatory structure. Goes to the Senate and dies.
The Republicans killed it.
I certainly don't think I had the power to stop anything from
happening in a Republican House, but the notion that I have a secret
power over the Republican Senate is bizarre even by the standards of
the myth-makers who have gotten into this effort.
2007 comes, and I'm told, oh, I'm responsible. In fact, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Akin)--and I checked the record by the way, and Mr.
Akin, there is zero record of Mr. Akin showing any interest in Fannie
Mae or Freddie Mac, filing a bill, making a statement, until the
Democrats took power. So my Republican friends, it's kind of like in
the bar, the guy who's all ready for the fight as long as the other guy
isn't there. When the other guy was there, they were very meek and
mild.
Mr. Akin said, Well, I was chairman of the committee when the
collapse came; do I take any responsibility? No, not for that, because
I tried to work with Mr. Oxley in 2005 to pass a bill over what he
called the Bush ideologues who blocked him. And in 2007, I became
chairman of the committee on January 31.
On March 28, the committee passed a bill that improved the regulation
of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in a way that was tougher than the Oxley
bill of 2005. In fact, the Bush administration that thought that the
Oxley bill was too weak approved our bill. They said it was the right
way to do it. It was the right form of regulation.
In fact, Richard Baker, who unlike many of the Republicans who now
are full of fight, was a leader in an effort to restrain Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, was quoted at the time as saying Mr. Baker had been the
leader in this and here's what he had to say, talking about the bill.
Here's a quote from Politico: Barney Frank had witnessed Baker's
battles as ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee.
When he became chairman this year, he moved swiftly and pushed the bill
through the Chamber in May with a 314-104 vote. The Frank legislation
is significantly tougher than the one Fannie and Freddie fought so
bitterly in 2000, an irony that pleases Baker. And the gentleman, our
former colleague says, With every iteration--it, the bill I sponsored--
it got stronger. It's to the point where I didn't know what else there
was to put in it.
And then there's a group called FM Focus. They were formed to be a
critical block that sought regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Here's what they said in Congressional Quarterly. The chief lobbyist
was asked, were any other Democrats helpful? Here it is.

{time} 2130

Here's what the chief lobbyist for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
group said: ``The Senate Banking Committee passed a very good bill in
2004.'' It never got to the Senate floor. That was under the
Republicans. There I go again stopping the Senate Republicans from
bringing their own bill to the floor.
The Senate Republicans had a bill. Never came to the floor of the
Senate when I was in the Democratic minority in the House. Then the
House introduced a bill, which it passed, but we couldn't get it to the
floor of the Senate.
``Then, after the 2006 election, when everyone thought FM policy
focus issues would be tough sledding with Democrats in the majority,
Barney Frank as the new chairman of the House Financial Services
Committee stepped up and said, `I'm convinced we need to do something.
He sat down with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and, frankly, upset
people in the Senate and Republicans in the House.'' Because they
wanted an issue to complain about. They didn't want to see a solution.
``They came up with a bill that was excellent--and it was the bill
that largely becomes law, and they were able to be phased out.''
So let me just summarize on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The
Republicans do nothing to pass a bill in their 12 years in power. 2003,
Mike Oxley tries to pass one. The Bush administration called it off by
pressuring him.
2005, he gets one passed in the House. The Bush administration
denounces, he denounces them, and the Senate doesn't pass it. 2007,
when I became chairman, we passed it. So I don't think I apologize for
this.
Unfortunately, Senate deadlock again occurred this time with the
Democrats in a 2-vote majority, but it has a happier ending because the
Democrats in the Senate ultimately did pass the bill.
In January of 2008, worried that the Bush policy of pushing them into
too many subprime loans, which I document starting in 2004, I appealed
to Secretary Paulson, who will acknowledge this, when we did the
economic stimulus bill, and said, please, would you put the Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac regulatory bill which you like into the stimulus. It
also had an affordable housing trust fund.
So the right wing didn't like it. They didn't like the idea of
helping build affordable rental housing. But building affordable rental
housing avoided the problem of bad subprime mortgages. That was the
solution I always worked for. And Mr. Paulson basically said, I'd like
to do it, but I've got conservatives here who won't let me.
So we could have had that in the stimulus in 2008. It didn't finally
pass until July of 2008. By that time, it was too late to avoid the
disaster with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But if I had been successful,
we would have passed it in 2005, myself, working as a

[[Page 9791]]

junior member of a coalition with Mike Oxley. We would have passed it
in 2007 if the Senate had been able to do it. So that's the story of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
So it is the Republicans' fault because they ran the House and the
Senate and the Presidency that we didn't get passage of a Fannie Mae-
Freddie Mac bill until the Democrats came back to power. It's
indisputable. Republican President, Republican House, Republican
Senate. No bill.
Democrats take over. We get a bill through the House in 1 year.
Unfortunately, a year later we have to wait before we get it through
the Senate.
But when my Republican friends think about it, I don't want them to
feel too bad--on this issue--because while they were clearly the ones
who were responsible for no regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I
don't think it had as much negative impact as they think. I think the
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapse was as much an effect as a cause of
the subprime crisis. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not originate
mortgages. That's not their goal. They bought mortgages made by other
people. If people hadn't made those bad mortgages in the first place,
there wouldn't have been any. So were a lot of others in the private
sector.
And that's where the real blame lies. Blame lies with Republican
policies that resisted our efforts to restrict inappropriate subprime
loans. This is the crux of it. Bad subprime loans were the root of
this--and there could not be a clear partisan divide on the issue.
Again, I would urge people to read Mark Zandi's book.
In 1994, the last time the Democrats had a majority before 2007, my
predecessor, an excellent consumer fighter from the State of New York,
helped pass a bill called HOEPA, Home Ownership Equity Protection Act.
It said to the Federal Reserve: Regulate subprime loans. Remember, the
problem I mentioned before is that we got a new form of lending that
went outside the banks and went to the mortgage finance companies and
they weren't regulated.
So the Democratic Congress said: Mr. Greenspan, regulate them. Mr.
Greenspan said explicitly: No. In fact, Mr. Zandi, a man who's been an
advisor to John McCain, headlines on page 152 of his book on the
Financial Shock, a subchapter headlined: Greenspan's Regulatory
Failure.
Mr. Greenspan acknowledges much before the Government Reform
Committee this year. By the way, another one of those who has said that
we were secretly behind this, who was a member of the Republican Party
and did nothing in the House to stop this was the gentleman from
California, Mr. Issa. He was a member of the Government Reform
Committee for many of these years. They did nothing about Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac until Mr. Waxman took over and got into it during the
first Congress among Democrats.
But Mr. Greenspan refused to do that in 1994. Many pressed him to do
it. He refused. In 2004, when the Bush administration began pushing
harder for subprime loans, many of us became concerned.
Here's what Mr. Zandi says again. ``A group in North Carolina was
particularly concerned about that,'' the Committee for Responsible
Lending, ``working with two of their very effective and thoughtful
members''--members of our Financial Services Committee, Mr. Watt and
Mr. Miller--``they sought to get legislation enacted that would prevent
this sort of abuse.''
We began conversations. I was then the senior Democrat still on the
committee. The Republican chair of the committee that had jurisdiction
on Housing was the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bachus, now the ranking
member, the minority member.
And I will do him a favor--I will not impute to him the secret powers
imputed to me. I don't blame Mr. Bachus for what we do or don't do.
We're the majority and we will take the responsibility. It's the
Republicans who won't take the responsibility for their zero batting
average for 12 years when we were in the minority.
But we sought, as Mr. Zandi documents, to pass legislation to
restrict subprime lending. Alan Greenspan would use his authority, so
we tried to do it. And the problem is that the Republican philosophy
that ruled of no regulation knocked it out of the box.
I think Mr. Bachus was serious. Mr. DeLay was even more serious. He
didn't want it. We were in negotiations. Now the gentleman from Alabama
was chair of the subcommittee. He could have, any time, called a
markup, brought a bill out. We thought his bill would have been strong
enough. He could have outvoted us. Republicans often did that when they
were in the majority, as we often do today.
But here is what Mr. Zandi said: ``Democrats in Congress were worried
about increasing evidence of predatory lending. The Bush administration
and most Democrats wanted a Federal equivalent to the North Carolina
law to cover all lenders, not just the banks. The Bush administration
and most Republicans in Congress,'' who were in the majority, ``were
opposed, believing legislation would overly restrict lending and thus
slow the march of home ownership.
``The last attempt to pass antipredatory lending legislation occurred
in 2005, but it was also stymied by the Republican leadership.''
So here's where the Republicans failure is. They pushed for greater
home ownership among low-income people--not CRA, the Republicans,
because this was their philosophy. This was their social program as
opposed to rental housing, much more appropriate for low-income people.
And then they blocked our efforts to regulate it.
Once again, we had to wait until 2007. In 2007, when the Democrats
became the majority, we did pass legislation to block inappropriate
subprime lending, predator lending. We got the bill through the House.
This time, we weren't able to get it through the Senate but we did have
some success because the Federal Reserve under Mr. Bernanke has been a
much more responsive institution to these kind of problems than Mr.
Greenspan. I thought Mr. Greenspan did a good job in macroeconomic
policy. But he was lousy because of his ideological opposition to any
kind of regulation.
Mr. Bernanke used the authority in 2007--after we even moved on our
legislation--he used the authority Mr. Greenspan wouldn't use and
promulgated rules to ban subprime lending. I don't think they go quite
far enough, and they should be statutory.
So we will get a test, Mr. Speaker, because when we return from the
break, the Committee on Financial Services will bring out a tough bill
to put rules on all subprime lending. Essentially, we're going to use
our community banks as a model--these well-run institutions. We're
going to take the rules they have long used and apply them to all loans
to prevent the bad subprime loans.
The last time we did that, two-thirds of the Republicans voted
against it. In fact, we were opposed by the Wall Street Journal.
I do think the Wall Street Journal's role here deserves some
coverage. The Wall Street Journal has been one of those in this
dishonest, anti-historical efforts to blame the Democrats. In
particular, they had an editorial recently which said I was pushing for
people to get subprime loans. Exactly the opposite is the case. And I
wrote a letter, by the way, documenting that, and it could not be
printed.
I have to say this. I respect the press, but the people who write the
Wall Street Journal editorials in this, Mr. Paul Gigot and Mr. Stephen
Moore, are cowards and liars. They print stuff that they know is wrong
and will not give me the access to reprint. Fortunately, I have this
access, and I'm going to put into the Record the letter I sent refuting
it.

Letter to the Editor of the Wall Street Journal

House of Representatives,

Financial Services Committee,

Washington, DC, December 5, 2008.
Editor: I am used to having my views severely distorted by
the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board--in contrast to the
accurate representation that its reporters present. But the
opening of the editorial on December

[[Page 9792]]

3rd doesn't distort--it gets the truth absolutely backwards.
In short, the Journal's assertion that I have ``spent [my]
career encouraging mortgage loans to people who can't repay
them,'' is not only entirely inaccurate; it blames me for
policies that the Journal has itself defended.
I have consistently argued that the push for homeownership
that existed in the Clinton administration, but was
significantly upgraded in the Bush administration, made the
mistake of assuming that virtually all people could be
homeowners. In contrast, I argued that the majority of low-
income people should be aided by policies that promoted
affordable rental housing.
For example, on February 18, 2002, at a hearing on the
budget I said ``I am in favor of trying to help lower-income
people get the advantages of homeownership . . . but almost
by definition, the large majority of poor people are going to
need rental housing.'' On March 6, 2004, the National Journal
reported that ``When the FHA's plan to insure subprime loans
was included in a Senate-passed appropriations bill, Frank .
. . a staunch supporter of low-income housing, wrote a highly
critical letter urging that the measure not be included . . .
Not only had the House committee not examined . . . the
proposal he said then, but the measure also offered no
protection against lenders inappropriately steering people
towards these high-cost loans. Nor did it offer safeguards to
ensure that participants `were fully suitable for
homeownership.'
That same year, when the Bush administration insisted that
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac raise the percentage of below-
median income homeowner mortgages they bought, I was
correctly quoted in a Bloomberg article on June 17th as
saying that this would ``do some harm,'' and the writer noted
that ``Frank's comments echo concerns . . . that the new
goals will undermine profits and put new homeowners into
dwellings they can't afford.''
It was a consistent series of statements like that on my
part, and efforts to act on them--although these were often
unsuccessful when I was in the minority--that led frequent
Republican economic appointee and Wall Street Journal
contributor Larry Lindsey to write in April of this year that
``Barney Frank is the only politician I know who has argued
that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer
homeowners and more renters. Politicians usually believe that
homeownership rates should--must--go ever higher.''
In fact, I was one of the supporters in 1994 of the
legislation that directed the Federal Reserve to restrict
inappropriate mortgages at the subprime level, and I also
lamented Alan Greenspan's refusal to implement this--a
refusal which he in a forthright manner acknowledged recently
was a grave error. When he refused to do this, I and others
in Congress, mostly but not only Democrats, pushed for
legislation to restrict subprime mortgages.
As Mark Zandi notes in his recent excellent study of the
financial crisis, when ``the Bush administration put
substantial pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to
increase their funding of mortgage loans to lower-income
groups,'' I and other Democrats stepped up our efforts to
pass legislation that banned the inappropriate loans that
have led to the current crisis. In Zandi's words, ``Democrats
in Congress worried about increasing evidence of predatory
lending . . . and the Democrats wanted a federal (law) that
would cover all lenders nationwide. The Bush administration
and most Republicans in Congress were opposed, believing
legislation would overly restrict lending and thus slow the
march of homeownership . . . the last attempt to pass any
predatory lending legislation occurred in 2005 but it was
also stymied.''
In other words, I was consistently arguing against efforts
to extend homeownership to people who could not afford it,
and instead sought to increase rental housing. Indeed, as the
Journal knows, one of their criticisms of my attitude towards
Fannie and Freddie has been my ultimately successful effort
to create an affordable housing trust fund that takes money
from Fannie and Freddie and puts it into rental housing.
In fact, Zandi's comment that the last effort to pass any
predatory lending legislation was 2005 is correct as it
applies to those years from 1995 until 2006 when the
Republicans controlled Congress. However, when the Democrats
achieved a majority in 2007, and I became Chairman of the
Financial Services Committee, the first major piece of
legislation the committee approved was a bill adopting the
regulatory upgrade for Fannie and Freddie that had been
strongly advocated by the Bush administration, but which it
had been unable to get the Republican Congress to pass. Next,
we moved on to anti-predatory lending legislation and
succeeded later in 2007 in passing a bill that, had it been
law earlier--when we were in the minority and unable to enact
it--would have prevented most of the bad loans.
But, while the predatory lending bill passed by a large
majority in the House, there were staunchly conservative
advocates of unlimited homeownership who were critical. One
prominent conservative voice lamented in November 2007 that I
planned ``to hold a committee vote on the Mortgage Reform and
Anti-predatory Lending Act that would impose new rules and
financial penalties on subprime lenders while providing new
lawsuit opportunities for distressed borrowers.'' In
objecting to this legislation, this commentator defended the
record of subprime lending, although conceding that there had
been some ``lending excesses.'' Decrying the attacks on
subprime lending, this statement said that ``For all the
demonizing, about eighty percent of even subprime loans are
being repaid on time and another ten percent are only thirty
days behind. Most of these new homeowners are low-income
families, often minorities, who would otherwise not have
qualified for a mortgage. In the name of consumer protection,
Mr. Frank's legislation will ensure that far fewer of these
loans are issued in the future.''
Exactly. That was my intention then, and it was my
intention years earlier when Republicans blocked it and
carried out the spirit of these comments to allow fairly
unregulated subprime lending. And of course the statement I
have been quoting here is the Wall Street Journal Editorial
of November 6, 2007.
Barney Frank,
Chairman.

By the way, one response to their argument--this is my letter--that I
was pushing for subprime loans--they said that I was the one who was
always trying to push subprime loans. Here's a quote from Larry
Lindsey. Mr. Lindsey was an advisor to Ronald Reagan and to both
Presidents Bush. He was fired by the most recent President Bush because
he predicted that the war in Iraq would cost $100 billion, and he was
told that was wrong. He was wrong. It was way too low. That's not why
they fired him.
Here's what Larry Lindsey wrote in the Wall Street Journal, all
places, on April 2, 2008, talking about regulation. ``In fact,
Representative Barney Frank is the only politician I know who has
argued that we need tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer
homeowners and more renters. Politicians usually believe that
homeownership rates should--must--go even higher. The rarity of Mr.
Frank's thinking is a reminder that when markets are committing
excesses, we should not except Washington actors to check on them.''
The Wall Street Journal, as I said, lies about this. In fact, in
2007, when we passed a bill over the objection of most Republicans,
although we had the support of the then ranking member of the Financial
Services Committee, although I understand he got in a lot of trouble
with his right wing over this and promised maybe never to do it again.
We'll see when this comes up.
But here's what the Wall Street Journal editorial said when we passed
a bill to stop abusive subprime lending. ``For all the demonizing of
subprime lending''--2007, they said we were demonizing subprime
lending, the Wall Street Journal editorial--``about 80 percent of even
subprime loans are being repaid on time, and another 10 percent are
only 30 days behind.''
Isn't that wonderful? Only 10 percent are more than a month behind.
Ten percent default and 30 days another 10 percent? Only the Wall
Street Journal in this ideological fantasy world would think an 80
percent repayment rate of mortgages to low-income people is a good
thing.
But here's what they said. ``Most of these new homeowners and low-
income families are often minorities''--so apparently it the Wall
Street Journal who's pushing to get minority loans which are going to
get a default at a rate up to 20 percent--``who would not otherwise
qualify for a mortgage. In the name of consumer protection, Mr. Frank's
legislation will ensure that far fewer of these loans are issued in the
future. I hope so, exactly.
It was our goal, our intention, our mission to have far fewer of
those loans. And if we had gotten the bill passed in 2007, we still
would have had a crisis. It wouldn't have been as bad today. It was
stopped by Republican opposition in the Senate.
So that's where we are. Republicans are in power. They do nothing to
regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They do not only nothing to
regulate, they push more subprime loans through the Bush administration
and they block our efforts to legislate about them.
We now have an agenda to go forward, and I am going to outline that
briefly. But I will at this point--I have

[[Page 9793]]

about 17 minutes left--I will yield 4 of my 17 minutes to the gentleman
from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for reaching his conclusion
and allowing a yield. I sat and listened to this. One thing I think the
chairman would agree to as just a minor correction to one of the
posters that references Mr. Paulson as Frank Paulson rather than Henry
Paulson. Small little correction. It wasn't the reason I asked to
yield.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. What poster mentions Frank Paulson?
Mr. KING of Iowa. That's what the poster said. Frank Paulson.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for that profound
correction. I will see that the typist is severely chastised.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I know that the gentleman is very interested in
making sure the Record is correct. Having been corrected myself by the
chairman, I would also offer that correction.
But my point was this, if the gentleman would yield to a question,
and that is I'm listening to this this evening and I'm thinking of an
evening that my recollection tells me was a debate on this floor on
October 26, 2005, and it had to do with regulation of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. It was an amendment offered by the former chairman of the
Financial Services Committee, Mr. Leach of Iowa, that, in essence--and
I can't quote it to the gentleman from memory--but, in essence, it
would have regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the same
categories--very similar to the same categories of that of other
lending institutions.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman is correct. Does the
gentleman remember how many votes that got on the floor of the House in
a Republican House?

{time} 2145

Mr. KING of Iowa. I think there were around 35 to 38 votes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Thirty-six. The gentleman has a very good
memory, 36; 30 were Republicans, 6 were Democrats.
So it is true, the former chairman of the committee offered an
amendment to tighten this up, and then the House, with about 230
Republicans, 30 voted with him and 200 Republicans voted against him.
Was that my fault?
Mr. KING of Iowa. If the gentleman would further yield, a
recollection from the Congressional Record would have been that the
gentleman, who is now chairman of the Financial Services Committee, had
made the statement in that debate that he wasn't concerned about Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac's viability, and that it wasn't necessary to
increase the regulation or the capitalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac. And, that if anyone was investing in Fannie's and Freddie's
shares, they shouldn't be confident that the gentleman from
Massachusetts would support a bailout of Fannie and Freddie.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No.
Mr. KING of Iowa. And today, we have the nationalization of Fannie
and Freddie.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will take back my time and say it is
exactly the opposite. Throughout the debate, I said to people that they
should not consider that there was a guarantee, that they should not
consider there was an implicit guarantee. I consistently said that.
They benefited from people's perception when in fact, the share
holders--I'm sorry, I haven't yielded again. I have consistently said
that.
When there was an intervention that Mr. Hank Paulson asked for, it
did refer to the bondholders, as we often do. The shareholders were
wiped out, including the preferred shareholders.
So, in fact, when I was chairman of the committee and we responded to
Mr. Paulson, we wiped out the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders,
as I had always warned that they could be. I did think at the time we
passed the bill, at Mr. Paulson's urging, or that we were about to,
that it would be helpful. It turned out things were worse than I
thought. But he did mention Mr. Leach, so let me give the voting
record. And I was neglectful of this.
The bill came to the floor of the House, the bill the Bush
administration thought was too weak. Now, the Republican Rules
Committee allowed nine amendments. By the way, when the bill came to
the floor when I was the chairman, we had 24 amendments, because I do
believe, I think, in a more open process. We had the manager's
amendment was one of them, a couple by voice vote. Mr. Leach sought to
put in minimum capital levels. He lost 378-36. This is in the
Republican House.
Again, the argument is, who did it? This is part of your zero. I
should have had a footnote. The one time you did try, Mr. Leach, who
thought Mr. Oxley was being too weak, he got 30 Republicans with him
and 200 against him. Now, Mr. Royce also had an amendment; Mr. Royce,
another critic. He did better than Mr. Leach. He got 73 votes versus
346. So in both cases, the two amendments that were allowed--oh, I take
it back. Mr. Paul had an amendment, too. And I guess this is a sign of
the state of the Republican Party.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am sorry, the gentleman has raised a
point and I am going to respond to it.
The point is this: Mr. Paul also--there were three amendments offered
to toughen the bill in 2005. Mr. Paul got 47 votes. Well, that is the
Republican Party; Mr. Paul gets more votes than Mr. Leach.
But here are three amendments offered to toughen it, all three
defeated by an overwhelming majority of Republicans.
The point is, I supported Mr. Oxley. I thought we had a good bill.
I would also note that by 2007--and, by the way, in 2005, I was
hoping that we would regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but also
restrict subprime loans. As it became clear to me that Republican
opposition would prevent us from blocking subprime loans, I did become
convinced of a need for tougher regulation. That is why Mr. Baker, your
former colleague, said the bill we brought out in 2007 was as tough as
it could be.
Now I will yield again.
Mr. KING of Iowa. And I appreciate the chairman yielding. But is it
also true that you opposed those amendments that would have regulated
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes. I will----
Mr. KING of Iowa. The policy underlying--regardless of how the
Republican votes came out, did the gentleman oppose those regulatory
amendments that came to the floor?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes. I am taking back my time to say yes.
My point is that it was not my fault that 200 Republicans voted
against it. I did vote with the overwhelming majority of Republicans.
The question is, who is responsible?
But I would also say this. You know, when you are in the minority you
can't always shape things. Sometimes you have to make unpleasant
choices. When I became the chairman of the committee on January 31,
2007, I was able then to combine tough regulation, knowing that we were
going to be able to restrict subprime, and with help for rental
housing.
So the fact is that when I was in power, not forced to choose among
Republican alternatives but in the majority, I helped pass a bill that
was tough enough, tougher than the bill in 2005, that was acceptable to
the Bush administration, acceptable to the leading critical group,
acceptable to Mr. Baker.
So, yes, I voted with the great majority of Republicans. So I guess
that is what I am responsible for: I voted with the overwhelming
majority of House Republicans to report out a bill that the Republicans
thought would work.
I will yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I want to just thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I yielded to the gentleman from New
Jersey.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I am happy to thank the gentleman, and compliment
him on his diminishment of his own persuasive powers, and be happy to
yield back.

[[Page 9794]]

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I agree--the gentleman says my
persuasive powers. That is the joke of it all. That is, frankly, the
gap between the propaganda and the reality.
The Republicans are in control; they pass the bill. In fact, they cut
out the affordable housing part I wanted. I did at the time hope that
we could combine moderate regulation of the sort Mr. Oxley wanted and
the overwhelming majority of Republicans wanted with an affordable
housing program and with restrictions on subprime. When we were not
able to get the subprime bill through and things had deteriorated, I
then said, okay, and I was for tougher regulation.
So, by the way, at that point the gentleman from Iowa I believe voted
against it. I know the gentleman from New Jersey did. Do you know why?
I will tell people, Mr. Speaker. Because I, in the chairmanship that I
had, was able to get a bill that toughened the regulation of Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac.
But what about the Catholic Church getting money to build rental
housing, and allowing nonhousing groups like the Catholic Church, and
others, to build rental housing? They opposed it.
So, yes, a majority of Republicans voted for the bill in 2005 that
the Bush administration was too weak, and a majority of the Republicans
opposed the bill in 2007 that the Bush administration was strong
enough, because their opposition to rental housing for low-income
people overcame that. But that is the story.
Now I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Just two quick points. And I appreciate
the gentleman yielding. One, as an individual who was one of the few in
those numbers who voted ``no'' on those amendments----
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. And ``no'' in committee.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Right. And ``no'' in committee. Obviously,
I saw some of the problems and had concerns early on.
Secondly, I will make a suggestion to you as to why you get the
accusations, if you will, or the statements about you, as you will. I
didn't see the program. I heard you were on Lou Dobbs and other things
like that the other night where those statements are often made. I will
make the suggestion as to why that may be, if you will.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yielded to the gentleman. He may do
what he wishes.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. When I came here in 2002, in that election
and that year and joined the committee, I immediately became somewhat
involved in this issue, although I had never been involved in it
before.
I saw in our committee, between both parties, that one person stood
out, in my mind, and a lot of other people's mind, as the person who
was always trying to fight to rein in the GSEs. And that person, who is
no longer with us, is Richard Baker. He was articulate, he was
eloquent. He was always on the facts and what have you. He was always
pounding, pounding, pounding at every opportunity. So I and other
people saw him as being on that side.
And, quite candidly, when we had those debates, when some of those
amendments as you referred to before--and I think there were other ones
in the later months that I and others made from the conservative point
of view; a number of us saw the champion on the other side of that
issue out of both parties, out of both Republicans and Democrats; and I
agree that there were some Republicans who were vociferous as far as
letting Fannie and Freddie do----
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will take back my time to say a
majority of the Republicans at every turn. Don't say--not some
Republicans. A majority of Republicans in the committee, a majority of
Republicans on the floor. Not some Republicans. But every time the
issue arose, a majority of Republicans were on the side of Mr. Oxley
and myself.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. What I am saying is not how the votes were
going. I was saying as to which Members actually stood up and were most
vociferous on this issues. Not all the Republicans were vociferous on
it; there were one or two or three that were vociferous, as Richard
Baker was on this side.
And on those other issues, maybe because you were ranking member in
the minority years, but otherwise you were very vociferous on opposing
those bills.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I take back my time. Now I guess I am
guilty. Yes, I was the senior Democrat, and I spoke out. I wish that I
had that effect elsewhere. You would not have been able to kill the
affordable housing trust fund.
While I was the ranking minority member, when I was the senior
Democrat of the Housing Subcommittee and then on the full committee,
the Republican majority killed virtually every affordable rental
housing production program we had. They beat up public housing
unmercifully, to the great distress of lower-income people.
I wish I was as persuasive as the gentleman now, I must say, less
than convincingly tries to argue. And in fact, no, I do not think I
charmed the majority of Republicans. And, by the way, it was Mr. Baker
whom the gentleman correctly identified as the leading opponent of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who said in 2007, when I became chairman
and was able to put together the right ingredients in the bill, quote,
``With every iteration, it got stronger. It is to the point where I
didn't know what else there was to put in there.'' So I appreciate Mr.
Baker's endorsement of the bill which I helped pass.
Now, I do want to address one issue as he closes, and I may expand on
this. There was one other point--and we have had a legitimate debate.
But in an article in a publication called Investors Business Daily,
to my great dismay circulated by the Republican staff of the Financial
Services Committee, I was accused of betraying my oath and my
obligation because of a relationship I had with a man who worked at
Fannie Mae. And I want to address that scurrilous piece of defamation
right now and express my disappointment that people I have worked with
on the Financial Services Committee, that their staff, presumably with
the approval of somebody, would have circulated such a scurrilous lie.
As we know, there are members in this body who have spouses and
partners who are variously employed, and it has never been the rule
that you couldn't do anything because your partner is employed. We have
a Member of the Republican Party who very conscientiously has been
voting ``present'' recently on some measures because of his wife's
position. And the article falsely said that I was having a relationship
with a senior executive at Fannie Mae, and that is why I did it.
Now, obviously the fact that it is a gay relationship adds to a
certain piquancy with the right wing when they circulate this sort of
vicious defamation.
The fact is that the man with whom I had a relationship graduated
from business school in 1990. He was a new MBA. He then went to work in
an entry-level position at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He was never a
senior executive. He had a working position at Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac.
After eight years, we ended the relationship. He left town. I was by
that time a lower ranking member of the committee. The events we are
talking about happened many years later after we had separated, when he
had, to my knowledge, no financial interest, and he was 3,000 miles
away.
No, I have to say to the gentleman from New Jersey, I reject the
suggestion that I was so persuasive that the only one issue on which I
could prevent a right-wing rampage on the part of his party on the
Financial Services Committee, in which I was unable to get decent
regulation, in which I was unable to get good subprime lending, or I
was unable to protect affordable housing--the only thing I was able to
do was to stop them from regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And
that is why a majority of them never took that position and we never
got a good bill until I became chairman. No, I think it is something
else.
I think it is the fear of the right wing that regulation is coming;
that unregulated credit default swaps are going to

[[Page 9795]]

be no longer the case; that we will have rules that will prevent
irresponsible subprime lending. As Mr. Zandi, a great thinker on this,
notes in his closing passage: Regulators didn't create the subprime
financial shock, but they did nothing to prevent it.
In other words, no, it wasn't the CRA that did it; it was the lack of
regulation that did it. This was the result of first policymakers'
distrust of regulation in general, their enduring belief that markets
and financial institutions could effectively police themselves; and,
second, of the Nation's antiquated regulatory framework. The
institutions guiding the Nation's financial system were fashioned
during the Great Depression; and, as finance evolved rapidly, they
remained largely unchanged, and overhaul was indisputably overdue.
I happen to be chairman of the committee that is going to have a
major play in this overhaul, and there are right-wing forces that don't
want that to happen. So I accept the fact that I am the target. I don't
think it is me, personally. I am not that paranoid. It is that if they
can go after me and blame me, and, unfairly, Senator Dodd--who wasn't
even the senior Democrat when this was happening. It is particularly
far-fetched to blame Senator Dodd. He wasn't even the senior Democrat.
The notion that he was as the second ranking Democrat he was running
the Senate I would have thought was too implausible. But, again, we
have learned from Swift Boating and elsewhere that vicious right-wing
propaganda cannot be allowed to go unrebutted.
The fact is that, yes, there is this concerted effort, there is this
fear that we won't have unregulated subprime mortgages. And we will see
this when we bring the bill up, that we won't have any more unlimited
credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations.
It is the fear of regulation that Franklin Roosevelt confronted, that
Theodore Roosevelt confronted. It is the fear that the disastrous
results of the policy of deregulation have led the American people to
understand that the time has come, once again, in our history to adopt
a good set of regulations.
I believe that is why there are these lies, distortions, and smears
about my record, why I am being held accountable for the 0-12 record of
the Republican Party. And the time has come to have that debate,
because we have learned, I think, that if we wait too long, the lies
will stick. And not only will that be bad for reputations; even worse,
it will be bad for the public policy we need to prevent a retention.
I yield back the balance of my time.

____________________

{time} 2200
LENDING REGULATION

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foster). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 60
minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being recognized to
address you here on the floor of the United States House of
Representatives. And I want to say, at the departure of the chairman of
the Financial Services Committee, I appreciate his yielding to each of
us who have differing opinions on his presentation this evening. And
that is something that I'm prepared to do should the gentleman raise an
issue with statements I make. I know that Mr. Frank is competitive and
very willing to engage in debate. And I know that he had a lot of
things he wanted to get off his chest tonight. I was here to listen to
it all. And I heard every word.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman yield? Yes, I think
it would be a very good idea if instead of--and I thought it was catch-
up time for me. But when we come back, I would like to have, and we can
do 2 hours, we can have one D and one R, and have 5 minutes each. We
can have a fair debate thing. I look forward to debating these. So I
thank the gentleman for that. And when we return, I'm going to ask my
staff to start getting some hours and we can work with Members on the
other side. Let's have some genuine debates on these issues. And I
thank the gentleman for the spirit in which he said that.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman, and I will say into the
Record tonight, that is a request that I would be happy to meet with,
and I will be looking forward to the time when we come back on the
other side of Easter. I appreciate it.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I listened to the statements made on the part of
the chairman of the Financial Services Committee tonight. And it occurs
to me that a man who has the full attention of the entire committee on
any day he decides to choose to hold a hearing or a markup, a man who
has full attention of the floor when he decides to speak here, it seems
to me that since we have been through 2 days of budget debate, Mr.
Speaker, that there must have been a lot of things that the chairman of
the Financial Services needed to get off of his chest. And I heard a
lot of them tonight. It occurs to me, though, that there is a high
degree of sensitivity. And where I come from, when you throw a rock
into the pigpen, the one that squeals is the one that you hit.
So I think what I heard is a rejection of the concept that the
gentleman from Massachusetts and many of the Democrats that followed
him in his leadership on these financial services issues, a rejection
that he resisted the idea of regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
resisted the idea that the Community Reinvestment Act was a component
of the financial meltdown that we had. And I heard the gentleman say to
us that there were three Republican amendments on the legislation that
would have and could have regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I
raised the issue of one. And I do remember the day. It was October 26,
2005. It was an amendment that was offered by Mr. Leach of Iowa that
would have regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac down the same lines as
the regular lending institutions who are providing mortgage loans and
real estate. I think that would have been a good thing to do. And I
recall that debate. And it was a compelling argument made on the part
of Mr. Leach that Fannie and Freddie were underregulated and
undercapitalized, and they needed to be capitalized more and regulated
more. Now I have just heard the gentleman from Massachusetts say that
Republicans are afraid of regulation. In fact, it is the ``fear of
regulation,'' he has said, that drives Republicans to reject changes in
the control of the financial institutions in this country.
I would submit that we are for regulation. We are for the kind of
smart, responsible regulation that ensures that we have viable lending
institutions. In fact, we came to this floor and supported amendments
that would have capitalized and regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I
have introduced legislation that would repeal the Community
Reinvestment Act. And I have introduced legislation that would
capitalize Fannie and Freddie Mac like the other lending institutions
and move them towards privatization. I recall the debate that evening
on October 26, 2005, when the gentleman who is now the chairman of the
Financial Services Committee, and I don't disagree with his
characterization here, it is a matter of emphasis, it is not a matter
of accuracy, at least the disagreement on the accuracy, but I recall
that. And it was that he would not support a bailout of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac because he didn't believe that they were undercapitalized,
underregulated or in trouble.
Well, it turns out that was October of 2005, and easily, by the late
fall of 2008, we can all see that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in
trouble. In fact, they have been nationalized. And the risk and the
liability that comes to the American taxpayers was calculated at the
time to be about $5.5 trillion. Now the taxpayers own Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. And regardless of whether there was a majority of
Republicans that supported or opposed the amendment that would have
regulated and capitalized Fannie and Freddie, it is true that the
chairman of the Financial Services Committee opposed those

[[Page 9796]]

amendments. And I think he underestimates has own persuasive powers. In
fact, he must have gotten here for some reason. I think persuasive
powers are part of it. I compliment him on that. I think he is an
engaging fellow who has a very nimble ability to engage in this debate.
And I look forward to those kind of debates, and I know I will be
tested. But it remains a fact that some of us wanted to regulate Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac. Some of us wanted to move them towards
privatization. Some of us wanted to capitalize them more. Some of us
wanted to regulate them more. I am among those people. The voting
record and the Congressional Record indicates something else on the
part of the current chair of the Financial Services Committee. I don't
think the Republicans have been opposed at all to regulations of our
financial institutions. We have been in favor of smart regulations of
our financial institutions, to essentially fix this problem ourselves.
So there is not a fear of the right wing that regulation is coming.
There is a fear that we had an underregulation, and that is why we
brought those amendments and brought that legislation. That is why the
gentleman from New Jersey brings up the issue of Mr. Baker from
Louisiana.
I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. To the gentleman from Iowa, I appreciate
your organizing this hour on the floor. And I came here ostensibly to
talk about the issue affecting the American public today, and that you
touch on it at the end there as far as the regulation of our financial
system. But inasmuch as the chairman of the Financial Services just did
spend the last hour addressing the sub issue of that is whether the
charges against him, whether they were legitimate, was the basis of his
discussion for the last 55 minutes whether it is legitimate as some on
this floor and outside in the media as well and other groups and what
have you and have accused him of being primarily or ostensibly
responsible for some of the problems that we now find ourselves in.
I will just spend a minute, even though he spent 55 minutes, on that.
As I said before, in Congress there have been various champions on
either side of this issue. Richard Baker, when I came to Congress and
you came at the same time, was a champion of trying to rein in the
excesses that were in the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There were
other people on the outside, as well, actually in the Bush
administration. He chastised the Bush administration for not pushing
this legislation and putting other impediments of going forward with
it. The truth of the matter is that the Bush administration in the form
of the Secretary of the Treasury, I believe it was both Snow and
Paulson, who came to the Financial Services committee while I was
there, and said, there are problems in the GSEs. There are problems in
the Fannie Mae. There are problems in Freddie Mac. And they were ones
that the Bush administration was, in fact, pushing for some sort of
control, some sort of limitation, some sort of reining in of the GSE.
So the Bush administration was doing that.
Richard Baker, who was always sitting up in the top row way above me
since I was a freshman and a sophomore at the time, was championing
that cause as well to say how do we rein them in? And I became involved
with it, and I put in some amendments myself, and one was to direct the
new regulator to establish limits on the GSE's portfolios in case there
were any issues of safety and soundness or possible systemic risk, a
word that we discuss now.
Representative Paul offered amendments to cut off Fannie and
Freddie's $2 billion line of treasury which would have been one of the
key aspects of sending a message to the private markets as to whether
they can believe or not, whether the Federal Government were to stand
behind them. I know the chairman just said, and he said repeatedly,
``to those investors who believe that when they are investing in the
GSEs that the full faith and credit of the United States Government
would stand behind them, I'm telling them right now it is not the case.
Well, that, of course, was the case. It was an implicit guaranty. It
became explicit, however, when things began to fall apart in the last
year, and now you and I know what has been the cost to the American
taxpayer, literally hundreds of billions of dollars.
But the chairman did say, as far back I think it was, as in the year
2000 which before I was even there, when the Bush administration was
pushing these issues saying there are some problems here, he said he
did not see, the chairman said, actually he would have been the ranking
member at that time, he did not see the need for the further
regulations because he said ``there are no problems here.'' And he did
it again I guess in 2003, saying, again, he did not see a problem with
those, either one of those companies. I know later on he did say that,
probably in 2003, any one of us would have said the same thing with
regard to other banks, the Bank of Scotland or some other banks what
have you, there wasn't any problems there, and now, of course, we
know--I shouldn't have mentioned this particular bank that he had
said--but other banks back in 2003, a lot of us would not have said
there were problems in those banks. But we are talking about a
different level of problems with that situation.
Today we are having problems with those banks, with their
investments. With the GSEs, the argument that a number of us on our
side of the aisle was making, that President Bush's administration was
making as well, was a systemic risk, that by allowing basically
unfettered lending by these institutions and by the implicit guaranty
that the Federal Government placed behind them by the $2 billion line
of credit, you place a systemic risk. And by putting no limitations on
either one of those organizations, you allow them to borrow and borrow
and borrow with no limitations on their portfolio, which is something I
and others were pushing strongly to try and rein them in, you create a
systemic risk. So, yes, there was obviously a systemic risk both in
2003 and 2000 as well, until it finally exploded to what we have today.
So I think that is where the outside groups, maybe some Members in
this Congress, try to say, that some Members were pushing for tighter
regulations, others were leading the fight saying there wasn't any
problem, that you didn't need it, so that in 2005 the facts were some
of us were actually going to committee, and I don't have them all here,
but I was going to committee and saying, here are some other bills,
yes, he is right, a lot of Republicans voted against those bills as
well, but he was obviously the ranking member and saying that there was
no need for those.
And I will yield back.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman. Reclaiming my time, as I
listen to that, and you lived in the middle of the Financial Services
Committee for these years into the seventh year, and that is background
and experience that hardly anybody in America has shared with you, Mr.
Garrett, and so I just ask you if you could, in the middle of this,
throughout those, beginning into the seventh year at least,
characterize the general philosophy that you gathered with regard to
the thrust now of the committee and the majority within the committee
as to whether before this financial meltdown, this economic crisis that
we have, did you sense that there was any initiative on the part of the
Democrats in the Financial Services Committee to regulate Fannie and
Freddie, to capitalize Fannie and Freddie and move them towards any
kind of privatization, or would it have been more or less business as
usual with Fannie and Freddie? Which way was that line going from the
Democrat side on the Financial Services Committee? And I yield.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I guess it would be a fair generalization
that from the other side of the aisle that the push was, the emphasis
was for the GSEs to focus on their public housing program, in other
words, that they should be created, although that was actually a change
in their original mission, as you know, but that new changed mission
was to say, how can

[[Page 9797]]

they be used to advance the cause of affordable housing? And so that
was always the posture from the other side of the aisle. And that is
why there was constant pushback when Ed Royce or other Members on our
side said, well, maybe we should put some limitations on one of my
amendments, on the portfolio, rather the conforming loan limits, to say
that it shouldn't be too high. Well, no, they want to have no
limitations, or the portfolio limits, no, there should be no
limitation. So it is always clear they were in one direction and we
were slightly in a different. I yield.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming, from the gentleman, if he would further
examine this question, I understand their response that the Bush
administration was very much focused on increasing the percentage of
homeownership. And I recall a State of the Union address made by
President Bush here in this Chamber one of those Januarys that made the
statement that we had the highest homeownership of a free country in
the world, or at least the United States, that 68 percent of the people
in America lived in a home that was owned by themselves or one of the
people that lived in the home with them. It does sound like it is a
laudable goal. And it is certainly a goal that would be reached for,
that was reached for by the Bush administration. It would be something
that would be reached for I think by all of us, Democrats and
Republicans alike.
But from the restraint side of this, from those who were lending a
voice of caution, that were saying Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the
secondary market for mortgages, are getting out of control, they are
undercapitalized. They are underregulated, and we need to rein them in
before we have a problem that is far bigger than the one that is
apparent today. If you had to give credit or blame to Republicans or
Democrats in the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Garrett, where was
the predominant voice for caution? Where was the predominant voice for
capitalization? Where was the predominant voice for regulation? Where
was the predominant voice for privatization of Fannie and Freddie
during those years before the crisis was evident to all of us?
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Well, my dad always said give credit where
credit is due. And the chairman was correct to say that those of us who
were really strongly pushing these issues didn't get as much support as
we would have liked to from our colleagues on this side of the aisle.
But as I look at some of the other amendments I put in, I got almost
virtually no support from the other side of the aisle for some of our
amendments which would have put in limitations. For example, I put in
an amendment that would require the GSEs to hold only mortgages and
mortgage-backed securities that exclusively support affordable housing.
Now there is an idea if you think about it, if the idea behind the
GSEs, one of the functions is to support affordable housing, then if
you put that amendment in, it should fall in line with what the other
side of the aisle was advocating. And they should support it. But there
is another side benefit to allowing them to expand and grow outside of
the area of affordable housing and that basically helps their balance
sheet and also helps the remuneration to the people at the top of the
organizations, to their CEOs, because if their balance sheet is good
and their profits are based just like AIG, these bonuses and what have
you, it benefits them as well.

{time} 2215

But we got no votes, well, from the chairman, I'm certain of, but
basically from everyone from the other side of the aisle.
My good friend, I'll explain one other amendment. The portfolio
limitation, Representative Price offered that amendment as well. Same
thing, to reduce the amount of the GSEs portfolios again. I do recall
that the chairman was opposed to that, and I believe that just
generally speaking, no support from the other side of the aisle.
So I think that's the underlying message that's probably out in the
media and outside of this House as well, as to where the two parties
stood on it. Maybe we didn't have as much support as you and I would
have liked from our side, but clearly it was a one-sided push for a
long time of seeing that there was a systemic problem and trying to do
something about it.
Mr. KING of Iowa. And reclaiming my time from the gentleman from New
Jersey, and I thank him for his historical rendition of what's taken
place within the committee. And I would take this a little further and
ask this question, and that would be, did the subject of reform of the
Community Reinvestment Act or the repeal of the Community Reinvestment
Act come up in the Financial Services Committee in the years prior to
the financial crisis that emerged here in this Congress, I am going to
pick a date, September 19 of last year? Was there discussion dialogue
in the committee, and did it take place in a way that would have
illuminated the circumstances we have today, and does the gentleman
from New Jersey accept the premise that was delivered by the Chair of
the Financial Services Committee that only 1 out of 25 lenders were
affected by restraints in Community Reinvestment Act? Does that seem to
be a balanced delivery, or would there be a particularly different
viewpoint that the gentleman would like to discuss?
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Well, I'm certainly not going to question
the statistics of the chairman because I believe he was holding a paper
or had some other statistics before him. Since I don't have them, I'd
certainly take the chairman at his word.
I think though that you have to see the larger issues that came out
of that. And the message that the government was sending, whether
through that or through other mechanisms, did have a profound impact
upon the rest of the marketplace, not only in the low-income area but
otherwise, not only through that program, but through the Federal
Reserve regulations, the Boston Fed issuing certain guidelines, if you
will, as far as lending practices, and that had profound impact, not
only on those institutions as the chairman made reference that may come
under their auspices or their control or their authority, but through
the rest of the marketplace as well.
In other words, once you sort of get the ball rolling as far as what
the new underwriting standards, and this is really what was being
created during this time, in one segment of the market, that ball was
just continued right across the rest of the marketplace as well. Some
of us, as I said before, seeing that as just the beginning piecemeal of
this was rolling out we said there may be a problem as that ball goes
along and grows, gains weight and what have you and has impact
elsewhere, and eventually we saw that it was picked up by the rest of
Wall Street.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman. Reclaiming, I think this
might be a good time for me to lay out how I think the sequence of
events took place with the economic crisis that we are in. And I'd ask
the gentleman's indulgence and analysis of whether he would agree with
this particular analysis.
But I would take us back, Mr. Speaker, to 1978, to the inception of
the Community Reinvestment Act. The Community Reinvestment Act, I
think, was passed for the right motivations, and the idea was that we
had lenders that were redlining districts. They were drawing a red line
around districts in particular cities and refusing to loan for real
estate in those districts because the value of that real estate was not
being sustained, and it was declining. That was maybe the right kind of
motive to do that. But as we moved on from 1978 until the nineties,
when the Community Reinvestment Act was refreshed under the Clinton
administration, and it got a little tighter, it essentially said this,
that if you're going to be a lending institution that will--that is
inclined to want to expand, you're going to have to make loans into
these neighborhoods that were heretofore redlined. And we're going to
need you to have a certain percentage of the loan portfolios go into
these communities that were red-lined around them and provide those
loans to

[[Page 9798]]

lower-income people. So the bottom line was, the Community Reinvestment
Act was a regulation that put an incentive in place to give loans to
people that didn't have a record of being able to pay it back and
provided a merit for the lenders to do that if they were going to
expand. So it was a perverse incentive. It essentially was an incentive
that said to lending institutions, if you want to grow, you're going to
have to make bad loans. That was the Community Reinvestment Act. Fresh,
new 1978, refreshed in the early nineties, about 1993 or 1994 under
Bill Clinton. And that became a foundational piece of legislation that
didn't seem to be a very big problem except for a couple of things. One
of them was, during the last years of the Clinton administration, Mr.
Speaker, the technology that we've developed, the ability to store and
transfer information more efficiently than ever before created the dot-
com bubble. That existed because investors understood this ability to
store and transfer information more effectively and more efficiently
than ever before. And they invested in that ability. And they didn't
make the corrections for the necessity that that ability to store and
transfer information needed to translate into more efficiency in our
economy, the ability to produce goods and services or deliver them more
effectively. That was, Mr. Speaker, the dot-com bubble. So the dot-com
bubble came about because of technological success, and let me call it
an irrational exuberant optimism about the benefits that would come
from that ability to store and transfer information more effectively
than ever before. So we had a dot com bubble through the second half
the Clinton administration. Part of the reason there was a balanced
budget in this Congress was because, 1, the Republican majority here
was determined to slow down and shut down spending and the growth in
Federal Government, and they did that effectively. The new
revolutionaries that arrived here, elected in 1994 and sworn in in
January of 1995, were determined to produce a balanced budget, and they
did. Part of it was out of fiscal conservatism, and part of it was out
of resistance to the Clinton administration. But whatever those
proportions were, we had a budget surplus for a number of those years.
And we had a dot com bubble in the market that was not adjusted to
rationality. And when the lawsuit was brought against Microsoft, that
was the needle that penetrated the dot-com bubble until it burst. And
when it did, we had a declining economy. A declining economy because of
the aftermath of the collapse of the dot-com bubble, translated into
the beginning of the George W. Bush administration, the first
administration of his, when he was elected in 2000. And Mr. Speaker,
when that took place, we needed to do some adjustments to recover this
economy and we had Alan Greenspan look at this and concluded, I
believe, and by reports that I've read, not characterizing his inner
thoughts necessarily, that we needed to stimulate the economy. That
brought about decisions made that resulted in unnaturally low interest
rates, especially on mortgage lending, which created an unnaturally
exuberant housing economy. This unnaturally exuberant housing economy
that came about from unusually low interest rates was something that
helped bring us out of the decline in our economy that resulted in the
burst of the dot-com bubble, Mr. Speaker. And as that was finding its
place in this economy, we were attacked on September 11, 2001. Our
financial centers literally collapsed. We lost 3,000 American lives all
in the matter of a few hours. And we needed to do something to
stimulate the economy.
And so the President of the United States, George Bush, this Congress
came together and decided to quickly enact some tax cuts and a stimulus
policy. That was 2001. That bridged a small gap, and they weren't all
that particularly effective.
But on May 28 of 2003, the real Bush tax cuts were enacted, and they
were the reduction in capital gains, the reduction in interest and
dividend income, and that resulted in a real economic growth. But as
this economic growth came from the Bush tax cuts, we also had economic
growth that came from the unnaturally low interest rates and this
housing market that was created by those low interest rates, and we
found our way through to this point now where the foundation of our
economic difficulty, rooted in the Community Reinvestment Act, flowing
through from, as I didn't mention, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a
refusal of this Congress to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even
though we had legislation that was brought before the Financial
Services Committee, as Mr. Garrett has described, even though there
were amendments brought to this floor, which I actively worked for and
supported, that would have capitalized Fannie and Freddie, and
regulated Fannie and Freddie, those things were resisted by the current
leadership, the people that say it wasn't their fault, it was
somebody's else fault, seems to be always Republicans fault. But this
is a historical document. It can all be read. It all flows through.
In the end, we got to this point where not only was there a dot-com
bubble that burst that I think stimulated the unnaturally low interest
rates that put us in the place where we had the housing bubble that
burst, but the housing bubble was created not just because of
unnaturally low interest rates, but because lending institutions were
given an incentive under the Community Reinvestment Act to give bad
loans in bad neighborhoods, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were
undercapitalized and under-regulated, and there was a perverse
incentive for them to pick up these secondary market loans and tranche
those and roll them on up the chain.
And while that was going on, we had mark to market accounting, which
is a good process when you have a market that's going up, and if you
have a market that's going down, it accelerates the decline. It was a
brutal and horrible self-inflicted wound, the mark to market accounting
component of this.
While this was going on, additionally, we had a Congress that again
refused to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and you had AIG that
was insuring these mortgage-backed securities and these bundles of
securities, and they had such a large market share there was nobody in
the country that could look over their shoulder and pass judgment upon
their evaluation of the risk.
And so we had a market that was under-regulated, a market that wasn't
indexed back to the real estate value that underlined the bundles of
toxic debt that we call it today, the mortgage-backed securities.
That's how we got here.
There were many people that made mistakes along the way. And there
was a failure to be clairvoyant on the part of all of us. But the
voices that I have heard, there's been many voices that said, from my
side of the aisle, capitalize Fannie and Freddie, regulate Fannie and
Freddie. The Community Reinvestment Act is a perverse incentive, and
mark to market accounting was a self-inflicted wound, a hideous self-
inflicted wound on this country.
All of those things, put together, none of us are without fault in
this. But there is no one that laid out the clarity of this in the
beginning that can look back to the record and say, I got it all right;
you just wouldn't listen to me. Some did. Some got parts of it right
and we've talked to some them of them tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to yield to the gentleman from
Texas, my friend, Mr. Gohmert, East Texas I might say, and an
``Aggie.''
Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend from Iowa yielding, and I
appreciate his discussions here on the floor tonight.
And if I may seek indulgence in the last 5 minutes, I'm hoping to pay
tribute to one of my constituents that won a--not won, but earned a
Silver Star, if I might be allowed to do that at the end of the hour.
But what had concerned me, you know, we all have these meetings and
hearings and it goes on all day long and often, around 11, 12,
midnight, I sit down and I can catch up on some news. I can catch up on
replays, sometimes

[[Page 9799]]

on C-SPAN. But anyway, C-SPAN does help because, you know, we can see
things from our office that we weren't able to get to the floor because
of other things going on.
But I had seen on C-SPAN debate with the chairman with whom my friend
from Iowa was engaging earlier, and I had seen him engaging with my
friend from Texas, Mr. Culberson.

{time} 2230

And I became very disturbed. As we know, there are rules of decorum
here on the floor that we're not to insult another Member of Congress,
that we're not to insult a Senator or the President, and so I became
intrigued and very concerned as I heard Chairman Frank making
statements. I've gotten the Record since then. The comment was made
about my friend Mr. Culberson by Chairman Barney Frank.
``I've never seen people, Mr. Chairman, so attached to something they
hate. This is presumably a psychological disorder which I'm not
equipped to diagnose.''
Well, that caught my attention. He's accusing Mr. Culberson of having
a psychological disorder, and so it seemed--well, in Shakespearean
words, ``Me thinks he doth protest too much.'' So I began to listen
more. He went on and continued speaking, and this is a quote from
Chairman Barney Frank.
``Speaking about being undone, my Republican colleagues are being
undone by the loss of their whipping boy.''
So I'm wondering this is a gentleman who is getting very sensitive
and who is lashing out with what seemed to be inappropriate, perhaps
not skirting over the rule, but there were other comments that
certainly seemed inappropriate and unnecessary.
Chairman Barney Frank said, ``The bill under consideration is 5\1/2\
pages. I believe even the gentleman from Texas could have read it by
now, and if the gentleman from Texas had not been able to read this
5\1/2\-page bill, I will talk long. Even if you read it slow, you'll
get it done.''
He went on and said, ``My colleagues on the other side are kind of
like kids who have a toy bear or a blanket, and this security blanket
means a lot to them. Their security blanket is being able to complain
about something that happened before the break. This bill undoes what
happened before the break and makes it a nullity. They at some point,
Mr. Chairman, have to outgrow the security blanket.''
So he's calling people on this side of the aisle little children. Of
course the debate that was going on was the concern from our side that,
first of all, we had been promised by our new President and by the
Speaker, and we'd even passed a bill in here that said we had to have
48 hours to review any bill that they rushed in here to the floor. We
had to have that chance. Yet they came in and immediately filed a bill.
I think it went up on the Internet at around 11:00 or 12:00, and at
9:00 or 10:00 the next morning, we were having a debate on it and a
vote on it that day. There was no 24 hours, but we were told we had to
do that. It was critical. It was a crisis. People were losing their
jobs every minute that we didn't vote on it and pass it.
So they ran roughshod. They would not allow any Member of this body
the time to read the bill. They ran roughshod over everybody. Nobody
had a chance to read it. Then to come in and accuse people on this side
of the aisle, who were concerned about that, of being kids wanting a
security blanket, I'll tell you: It is a security blanket to me that we
could be able to read bills before we cram them down the throats of
Americans. So I'm hearing this on C-SPAN.
Here is another comment by Chairman Frank: ``The gentleman from Texas
has now had a chance to read the bill, and has a question for me about
this bill.''
He goes on and says, ``He can have all the Special Orders he wants in
order to beat that dead horse, because it is a dead horse. This bill
that he does not want to debate the merits of, that he is probably
prepared to vote against--that he didn't want to debate the merits of?
That was uncalled for and was inappropriate. We were entirely prepared
to try to debate the merits, but here again, it had to do with seeing a
bill rushed through here without a chance for anybody to read it and
then rushing in last week and saying, ``Here. Let's quickly vote on a
90 percent tax after the fact, ex post facto, a bill of attainder in
all likelihood, due process issues, taking issues, equal protection
issues, all kinds of questions about it.
Rush that in as a fix. Then here they come, rushing right back in,
saying, ``Well, we've got another fix. This will even be better,'' and
we wonder why people would want to question it. Well, you know, is this
5\1/2\-page bill any better than the one you rushed through last week?
There were concerns.
Chairman Frank also went on and said, ``Apparently, there are two
alternative strategies that the minority has in discussing this bill:
One, discuss a bill that was passed 6 weeks ago; two, ignore the rules
of the House and just talk whenever they feel like it. Neither one
seems, to me, to advance debate.''
So I'm hearing these things coming from Chairman Frank. There was
something amiss here.
He went on to also say, ``This is a revolt against King George, in
effect, and it is--King George Bush.'' That is really unnecessary,
slamming the former President. Talk about a whipping boy. They made
former President Bush quite the whipping boy at every chance. They
still are.
I mean, the Constitution makes very clear that Congress is the one
that has to appropriate money and pass spending bills. After the
Democrats took the majority in 2007 and 2008 and passed these enormous
spending bills, which only Congress can do, they still want to blame
the President who had no power to legislate.
Chairman Frank also went on and said, ``I wish I didn't have to
listen to some of these speeches, particularly the repetitive ones
about the bill 6 weeks ago.''
He also said, ``But when Members complain about something that might
happen that won't happen, it is because they are against what is
happening but don't have the confidence that, if they said it, people
would believe it.'' This was also a slam at the motives of the people
who had proper concerns about the rush repeatedly to pass something so
it looked to people across America that something was being done.
As a former judge, when I hear people being that sensitive and
lashing out at others, there is something here, so I had gone back and
had pulled some quotes to see if, perhaps, this was the source of the
sensitivity.
On September 25, 2003, at the hearing on H.R. 2575, The Secondary
Mortgage Market Enterprises, Mr. Frank said, ``There are people in the
country who are prepared to lend money to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at
less interest rates than they might get elsewhere. I thank those people
for doing that. I must tell them that I hope they are not doing that on
the assumption that, if things go bad, I or my colleagues will bail
them out. We will not.''
Also on page 4, ``I think it is clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
are sufficiently secure, so they are in no great danger.''
Also on page 4, this again is Mr. Frank. ``I don't think we face a
crisis; I don't think that we have an impending disaster. We have a
chance to improve regulation of two entities that I think are, on the
whole, working well.'' Well, we know now they were not at all.
In debate on the floor here on H.R. 1461, to reform regulation of
Fannie and Freddie, October 26 of 2005--this is in the Congressional
Record--Mr. Frank said, ``There are banks who complain that because
Fannie and Freddie are perceived to have some backup from Congress--and
let me say right now, if you are listening, if you are buying Fannie's
or Freddie's paper because you think I am going to vote to bail you
out, sell it and cash it in. I am not going to do that. I do not think
there is a Federal guarantee.'' We know, apparently, he didn't mean
what he said or he has changed his mind since then.
On July 19 of 2008--and this is Air America's 7 Days quoting Chairman
Frank--``It's really been a test of regulation . . . a conscious
decision

[[Page 9800]]

brought by Alan Greenspan, who is the arch de-regulator. Because in
1994, not coincidentally, the last time the Democrats had a
congressional majority before this year, a bill was passed that was
called the Homeowner Equity Protection Act, that said to the Federal
Reserve, `Look, we now have loans being made by non-regulated entities,
so please pass some rules. We give you the statutory authority to pass
the rules to contain their activity and make it more responsible.' Alan
Greenspan said, `Oh, no. That's interfering with the market. I can't do
that.' He didn't do it; that's where the crisis came.'' Interesting
place to blame.
In any event, on September 10 of 2003, there is one other quote from
Mr. Frank. ``The more people, in my judgment, who exaggerate a threat
of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of
serious financial losses to the Treasury''--and these are Mr. Frank's
words--``which I do not see. I think we see entities that are
fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster
scenarios.'' That was from The Wall Street Journal on October 2, 2008,
bringing back that quote from 2003.
So, as I look back--and I was looking for the justification of why
such an intellectual man as Mr. Frank would be lashing out, calling
names, accusing people here on the floor of having psychological
disorders--I began to get a picture, and it may have to do with what
the gentleman from Iowa pointed out earlier about who ends up
squealing. There was something there that did trigger, perhaps, more
sensitivity than we might have thought necessary, but when you get to
the bottom of it, there are quotes here that are a problem, that did
help protect Fannie when they should have had some things done to shore
them up and should have had a protection that prevented that from
happening.
So I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Again, I go back. There was no need to lash out at Mr. Culberson and
at others, but the more you look back at the quotes over the last 5
years, even into the nineties, you begin to see, maybe, why there is
such sensitivity on these issues.
I appreciate my friend yielding. I yield back to him.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from
Texas for that measured response to, I think, the very long response
that was delivered by the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I sat here for an hour and took notes on that because I
thought it was important that I listen carefully to that presentation,
as unusual as it is to have the Chair of the Financial Services
Committee come and ask for a late hour after the adjournment, after the
break for Easter recess, when most of the Members have gone and have
caught flights for home. To have the chairman of the Financial Services
Committee come to the floor and ask for an hour to be able to make his
case to the American people after a budget is passed, after we've had
this intensive 2 days of debate on the finances of this country, I
think, is relatively unusual.
In my pages of notes that I took during that 55- or 60-minute period
of time, as I scanned those notes after the fact. There seems, to me,
to be a lot of things in these notes that are somewhat repetitive, and
there are not a lot of significant points that can be raised out to be
rebutted. The subject boils down to this, Mr. Speaker, and that is:
Who was in favor of the regulation of our financial industry and who
was not? Who is on record as opposing the capitalization and regulation
of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Who is on record of supporting the
Community Reinvestment Act? Who is on record as advocating the
irresponsible financial activities here in this country? Who seems to
be, I think, unusually defensive about his position and consistently
making the charge that Republicans have a fear of regulation?
Here is another one: ``the fear of the right wing that regulation is
coming.'' Another statement would be: ``It was a lack of regulation
that did it.''
There is an emphasis on fear of regulation when we have Members who
have consistently supported wise and smart fundamental regulation. In
fact, we want to see businesses that are able to operate, function,
profit, and thrive within the tax and regulatory environment that we
give them.
By the same token, Mr. Speaker, we're opposed to the idea that we
should leave holes there that will be perverse incentives that would
allow Fannie and Freddie to collapse and to put that entire liability
on the backs of the American taxpayers--yes, maybe $100 billion for
each of those entities, Fannie and Freddie, but $5.5 trillion of
potential liability wrapped up in those two. Now it's a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Federal Government. Fannie and Freddie are
nationalized, and that's a fact, Mr. Speaker, and they're nationalized
because we didn't have the right kind of regulations which I supported
and voted for on this floor and that others, who seemed to be very
defensive, opposed directly. It's a matter of the Congressional Record.
It's a matter of the quotes that have been delivered by Mr. Gohmert of
Texas and those that I've pulled out of my memory in the dialogue with
the chairman. That's just Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
If you go down through the rest of the list of these flaws that we
have in our financial structure, where were these clairvoyant gurus in
2007 when mark-to-market accounting slid through without objection?
It's something that didn't show up on very many radar screens. It's
something that remains a foundation to the hideously self-inflicted
wound that we have in our economy.

{time} 2245

That's the regulation of mark-to-market accounting. Additionally, the
AIG, which I spoke of, AIG sitting there as a large insurance company,
essentially a bonding company that laid out the premiums to guarantee
bundles of mortgage-backed securities in their performance not based
upon the value of the real estate that was the collateral that
underlined those bundles of mortgages but based upon what their
judgment was of the performance, the anticipated performance of these
bundles of mortgage-backed securities. Based upon speculation but not
oversight over the shoulder of AIG.
Another perverse incentive which was that AIG executives, the people
who were actually the executives and the front-line people who were
marketing these insurance policies that ensured the bundles of
mortgage-backed securities were getting their commission out up front,
Mr. Speaker. And so once they cashed their check, they didn't have any
responsibility any longer or they didn't have any accountability to
what would be the result of whether those loans were performed on or
whether they were not.
I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend from Iowa yielding.
I have run across some quotes.
I was at the home of some friends of mine in Dallas, and they had a
number of fantastic quotes from our history, and I think what we've
seen today as this budget, this terrible, terrible budget was passed,
just one of the quotes from Thomas Jefferson, this brilliant man, was,
``the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government
to gain ground.'' And that's exactly what we saw today with this
budget. Liberty was yielding, the government taking more and more
control of everything. Thomas Jefferson knew it.
I mean, it's like Solomon said, There is nothing new under the sun.
These things that people think are new and innovative, it is not new.
It failed in the New Testament church, it failed the Pilgrims when half
of them nearly starved the first winter. They came up with this grand
idea, let's give everybody their own private property and make them
responsible for producing on their own property--and they have access.
It's theirs. They can borrow it, sell it, whatever. It's theirs. It was
a great idea. And that carried over 150 years into the Constitution,
this idea of private property and the government not trying to run
everything.

[[Page 9801]]

But what I would humbly submit, the way it appears to me and why
we're seeing so much government intervention, the more it does, the
more it feels like it has to do.
But what we've seen like Madoff, things like Countrywide, some of the
people there who shoved people into mortgages they couldn't afford,
packaged them together and then sold them off without recourse, made
their millions. You know, things like that, those are the things this
Nation, this government of this Nation, are supposed to be looking for.
We're supposed to make sure there is a level playing field. We're
supposed to protect this Nation against all enemies, foreign and
domestic. We had some domestic enemies that were hurting people in this
country.
But what happens is when we get so caught up in trying to run
everything, telling Detroit exactly what kinds of cars you have got to
make, telling the business people this is what you have got to do,
we're so busy telling people how to run their lives, how to run their
businesses, that we lost what we are supposed to be doing. We're
supposed to provide these people with a defense from the crooks from
the domestic and foreign enemies. But oh, no. We're too busy telling
them what they are supposed to do.
I love what Abe Lincoln said. He said, ``We have been the recipients
of the choicest bounties of heaven. We have grown in numbers, wealth
and power as no other Nation.'' He concluded, ``though but we have
forgotten God. Because if you know that there is an ultimate Universal
source of right and wrong, then you care more about doing right and
trying to help others do right.'' And that's what this government is
supposed to be doing. We're supposed to be catching cheaters, dishonest
people hurting America, and we lose that grip when we try to run
everything.
And I would also point out as you try to get your hands around this
huge budget that increases the deficit--I mean, people--we got beat up
in 2005 and 2006. My first years here, we were in the majority. We were
beat up because we were spending too much money, and we were. But then
turn around to 2007 and 2008, the Democrats have control of everything.
They are not reigning in spending. It goes through the roof. And now
it's gone even further.
So if you want to know the bottom-line secret of what this budget is
about, I would submit to you it can be found in one action: that was in
this administration sending Secretary of State Clinton to China to beg
them to loan us more money. That's what this budget does. It makes us
beg China for more money.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I very much thank the gentleman from Texas.
I am starting my seventh year here, and I have watched some sea
changes politically. I have watched some things shift. I have watched
the majority change. I have watched the Presidency change, and I have
watched the majority change in the United States Senate. I don't think
that I have worked within every possible configuration out of those
three entities but a number of different ones.
And one of the things that I have observed is that the voice that I
heard from the Democrats consistently over those first 4 years that I
was here, and then to some degree over the next two, was especially,
especially from the Blue Dogs, Mr. Speaker, that came to this floor and
said, We've got to have PAYGO, pay-as-you-go accounting. We've got to
have a balanced budget every year. We have to have a fiscally
responsible government. And I would make the argument that they would
want to tighten down the spending, that we were spending too much
money. They always wanted to spend a little more money than we wanted
to spend, but they thought we were spending too much in relation to the
tax revenue that was coming in.
So their idea was hold down the Democrat spending idea and increase
the taxes a little bit and get this thing to a pay-as-you-go equation.
That's the mantra of the Blue Dogs. And we've gone through a long
debate on this budget, Mr. Speaker, and it has been two intense days
that this comes down to, but this debate has gone on several weeks now.
What I have noticed is the absence of the Blue Dogs. Where are they?
Where is that voice of ``we must balance the budget''? Where is PAYGO?
What has happened to the people that were the strongest advocates for
fiscal responsibility among the Democrats? I heard the debate. I was
impugned by your debate over these last 6 years. But where are you now?
Puts me in mind of Punxsutawney Phil. When he comes out of the hole
up there in Pennsylvania, Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, and the groundhog
sees his shadow, he gets scared and goes back in the hole again for 6
more weeks of winter. I don't know that that's necessarily the case,
but I think the Blue Dogs have become the groundhogs of politics. They
have gone down in the hole, and they are going to stay in there until
there is a little bit more favorable climate that comes out, maybe not
quite so much bright light shining, not quite so much shadows that are
cast by President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, this troika that
drives this irresponsible spending bill. But they feel compelled to
support the President. But he's our President, too.
But I don't support an irresponsible budget, Mr. Speaker, and I would
have been really regretful to come to this floor to see a President of
the United States of my party that had offered the kind of spending
that would double our debt in 5 years and triple it in 10 years. The
kind of spending that grows this irresponsible socialization of
America--we rejected for a long time the European socialization--the
socialized economy of the Europeans, and now we have--the President's
over in Europe and is being lobbied by the Germans and the French. They
are saying, Get a grip, Mr. President. Don't be spending money so
irresponsibly. The Germans are saying, Get a handle on this thing. We
don't agree with you in this Keynesian, almost intoxicated Keynesian
approach to spending. This is Keynesian.
And the President said to us on a day in early February that--well,
he said to America that spending is stimulus. And then he said that
FDR's New Deal actually would have worked except FDR essentially lost
his nerve and was concerned about spending too much money. And so what
you had was, according to the President, was a recession within a
depression. And if you look at the records, there was a little dip in
the economy in the late 1930s, but he argued that along came the
biggest stimulus plan ever, which was World War II, which brought us
out of the Great Depression.
Mr. Speaker, I will argue that the New Deal wasn't a good deal. No
amount of more government spending, more profligate spending was going
to get us out of the Great Depression. If you look at the data, there
is no Keynesian approach in free market history that you can
demonstrate that prevailed or produced a positive result.
In fact, if you look at the New Deal in the 1930s, that Keynesian
spending, which I think intoxicated FDR for the first half of that
decade, doesn't show that the economy grew. It shows that it was flat
and then it declined.
And if you look at the wild Keynesian spending that took place in
Japan when they had their economic recession in the 1990s, the more
money they spent, the deeper they went into debt and the less they had
to show for it. That's odd. That's what Henry Morgenthau said back in
the 1930s as well, Mr. Speaker.
So when you look at that data--and if the people on this side of the
aisle and the people that are running this show out of the White House
can't point to an economic time in history that their model, which is
the New Deal, they can't point to a time in history when it works, the
data is not there. It does not exist, Mr. Speaker. And yet the
President was only critical of FDR to the extent that he lost his nerve
and he should have spent more money in the 1930s.
Well, I can tell you this President has not lost his nerve. He is
spending money hand-over-fist in a fashion that is unparalleled in
American history

[[Page 9802]]

and maybe unconceived by any world leader in American history. And the
price that we are paying for this--we've said over and over again--goes
into the next generations. And the best you can hope for with a New
Deal, a new New Deal--because we had an old New Deal that was a failed
New Deal--the best you can hope for with an uber new New Deal of
President Obama's is it may diminish the depths to which we might
otherwise decline.
But the price for it's a very, very long delayed recovery, Mr.
Speaker. That's what we're faced with today.
This budget that's crossed the path of the floor of this House is an
irresponsible budget. It's a budget that spends way beyond our means.
It's a budget that doubles our deficit in 5 years and triples it in 10.
It's a budget that's irresponsible. It's one that doesn't even meet the
needs of the United States of America, and it's one that I don't want
to see my children saddled with.
And I can tell you, it's one that my children--or now men--call me
and send me e-mails on an almost daily basis and are saying, What are
you letting happen to me? What is happening to me? And they are going
to be paying the price. My grandchildren will be paying the price. And
I fear, Mr. Speaker, that my great grandchildren, should I be blessed
with any, will be paying the price.
The gentleman from Texas has a point to make before we adjourn. I
will be happy to yield.
Mr. GOHMERT. You know, many in this body think this Nation will go on
forever. We know no nation will last forever. We are endowed by our
Creator with certain inalienable rights. But those rights are like any
inheritance. You only get to have them if people are willing to fight
and protect them, fighting government and then fight our enemies
abroad.
Well, in the summer of 2008, media from around the country released
reports on an attack on an American military outpost base in the Kunar
province of Afghanistan near the Pakistani border. Accounts say that 45
U.S. paratroopers and 25 Afghan soldiers were assaulted by up to 500
Taliban and al Qaeda fighters, bombarding our soldiers with rocket-
propelled grenades and mortars. Nine U.S. soldiers were killed, 15
injured, and it was called the deadliest attack on American forces in
Afghanistan since 2005.
I am here today to honor these servicemembers for their incredible
sacrifice and to especially recognize one in particular who I am so
very proud and humbled to represent as his U.S. Congressman.

{time} 2300

Army Specialist Aaron David Davis, from Kilgore, Texas, was serving
as an anti-armor gunner of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team and
was sent in as reinforcement when insurgents assailed our soldiers on
July 13, 2008.
In the rural town of Wanat, Afghanistan, Specialist Davis and his men
were bombarded by enemy fire from all sides as insurgents took over
homes and mosques in their attempts to seize the newly established
American base there. Specialist Davis and his fellow soldiers were
vastly outnumbered, but they continued to courageously fight.
Specialist Davis saw many of his fellow soldiers killed in the midst of
that chaotic combat and was wounded himself; yet he was not deterred
from fiercely protecting the base and his friends.
An American military helicopter finally came to the rescue, but even
after he was told to get on the helicopter that would surely be his
ticket to safety, a wounded and hurting Davis was more concerned with
the protection of others. With his own life in peril, he stayed and
continued to fight.
Among his heroic actions, Specialist Davis crawled to the frontline
to check on a fellow soldier, and then he helped save three fellow
soldiers, putting them on gurneys and helping get them airlifted out of
the ongoing battle. While fighting to protect these men, Davis was
again wounded, receiving shrapnel in his left hand, left arm, and
behind his right eye. He became so wounded he finally had to be lifted
away from the fight himself.
There is so much more to the story, and I wish there were more time
to elaborate on this young man's incredible selflessness. Aaron Davis
spend many weeks recovering from his wounds at Walter Reed Army Medical
Center, and he is now back on active duty at Fort Sam Houston,
continuing to boldly serve his country while still further
rehabilitating.
He was recently awarded the Purple Heart for the wounds he suffered,
as well as the Silver Star, the third highest military decoration that
can be awarded to a member of any branch of the United States Armed
Forces, for his incredible courage and unwavering commitment to his
country and his fellow soldiers. Specialist Aaron Davis deserves our
thanks for his bold bravery and selfless sacrifice.
It is the courage and commitment of Aaron Davis and his fellow
soldiers and those like them that allows us to continue to enjoy our
freedom as U.S. citizens. We are manifestly proud and permanently
grateful. To Specialist Aaron Davis, may God bless Aaron Davis and he
and all he has done for this Nation.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I will let that be the concluding word this
evening.

____________________

HOUSE BILLS AND A JOINT RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT

The President notified the Clerk of the House that on the following
dates he had approved and signed bills and a joint resolution of the
following titles:

February 4, 2009:
H.R. 2. An Act to amend title XXI of the Social Security
Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance
Program, and for other purposes.
February 17, 2009:
H.R. 1. An Act 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.
March 6, 2009:
H.J. Res. 38. A joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes.
March 11, 2009:
H.R. 1105. An Act making omnibus appropriations for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other
purposes.
March 20, 2009:
H.R. 1127. An Act to extend certain immigration programs.
H.R. 1541. An Act to provide for an additional temporary
extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other
purposes.
March 30, 2009:
H.R. 146. An Act to designate certain land as components of
the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize
certain programs and activities in the Department of the
Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 1512. An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United
States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport
improvement program, and for other purposes.

____________________

SENATE BILLS AND A JOINT RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT

The President notified the Clerk of the House that on the following
dates he had approved and signed bills and a joint resolution of the
following titles:

January 16, 2009:
S.J. Res. 3. A joint resolution ensuring that the
compensation and other emoluments attached to the office of
the Secretary of the Interior are those which were in effect
on January 1, 2005.
January 29, 2009:
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.
February 11, 2009:
S. 352. An Act to postpone the DTV transition date.
March 9, 2009:
S. 234. An Act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 2105 East Cook Street in
Springfield, Illinois, as the ``Colonel John H. Wilson, Jr.
Post Office Building''.

[[Page 9803]]

____________________

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Hinojosa (at the request of Mr. Hoyer) for today on account of
major knee surgery and replacement.
Mr. Westmoreland (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today on account
of a personal illness.

____________________

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. Massa) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Murphy of Connecticut, for 5 minutes, today.
Mrs. Christensen, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Lipinski, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Schiff, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Burton of Indiana) to
revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Reichert, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Rogers of Michigan, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Roe of Tennessee, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Boozman, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. McClintock, for 5 minutes, today.

____________________

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED

Lorraine C. Miller, Clerk of the House, reported and found truly
enrolled a bill of the House of the following title, which was
thereupon signed by the Speaker:

H.R. 1388. The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, an Act
to reauthorize and reform the national service laws.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of
today, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 2 minutes
p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday,
April 6, 2009, at 10 a.m., unless it sooner has received a message from
the Senate transmitting its adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 93,
in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that
concurrent resolution.

____________________

EXPENDITURE REPORTS CONCERNING OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL

Reports concerning the foreign currencies and U.S. dollars utilized
for Speaker-Authorized Official Travel during the first quarter of 2009
pursuant to Public Law 95-384 are as follows:

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, DELEGATION TO ITALY AND AFGHANISTAN, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN FEB. 14 AND FEB. 22, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or Employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker............. 2/14 2/22 Italy.................... ........... 3,517.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,517.00
Hon. John Larson....................... 2/14 2/22 Italy.................... ........... 3,517.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,517.00
Hon. George Miller..................... 2/14 2/22 Italy.................... ........... 3,517.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,517.00
Hon. Rosa DeLauro...................... 2/14 2/22 Italy.................... ........... 3,517.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,517.00
Hon. William Pascrell, Jr.............. 2/14 2/22 Italy.................... ........... 3,517.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,517.00
Hon. Anna Eshoo........................ 2/14 2/22 Italy.................... ........... 3,517.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,517.00
Hon. Edward Markey..................... 2/14 2/22 Italy.................... ........... 3,517.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,517.00
Hon. Michael Capuano................... 2/14 2/22 Italy.................... ........... 3,517.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,517.00
Hon. Wilson Livingood.................. 2/14 2/22 Italy.................... ........... 3,517.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,517.00
Hon. Brian Monaghan.................... 2/14 2/22 Italy.................... ........... 3,517.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,517.00
Michael Sheehy......................... 2/14 2/22 Italy.................... ........... 3,517.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,517.00
Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker............. 2/20 2/21 Afghanistan.............. ........... 75.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 75.00
Hon. John Larson....................... 2/20 2/21 Afghanistan.............. ........... 75.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 75.00
Hon. George Miller..................... 2/20 2/21 Afghanistan.............. ........... 75.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 75.00
Hon. Rosa DeLauro...................... 2/20 2/21 Afghanistan.............. ........... 75.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 75.00
Hon. William Pascrell, Jr.............. 2/20 2/21 Afghanistan.............. ........... 75.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 75.00
Hon. Anna Eshoo........................ 2/20 2/21 Afghanistan.............. ........... 75.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 75.00
Hon. Edward Markey..................... 2/20 2/21 Afghanistan.............. ........... 75.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 75.00
Hon. Michael Capuano................... 2/20 2/21 Afghanistan.............. ........... 75.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 75.00
Hon. Wilson Livingood.................. 2/20 2/21 Afghanistan.............. ........... 75.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 75.00
Hon. Brian Monaghan.................... 2/20 2/21 Afghanistan.............. ........... 75.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 75.00
Michael Sheehy......................... 2/20 2/21 Afghanistan.............. ........... 75.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 75.00
Nadeam Elshami......................... 2/14 2/22 Italy.................... ........... 3,802.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,802.00
Stacy Kerr............................. 2/14 2/22 Italy.................... ........... 3,802.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,802.00
Kate Knudson........................... 2/14 2/22 Italy.................... ........... 3,802.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,802.00
Bridget Fallon......................... 2/14 2/22 Italy.................... ........... 3,802.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,802.00
Steven Rusnak.......................... 2/14 2/22 Italy.................... ........... 3,802.00 (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,802.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 58,522.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
\3\ Military air transportation.
HON. NANCY PELOSI, Speaker of the
House, Mar. 24 2009.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, DELEGATION TO NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY WINTER MEETING IN BRUSSELS, BELGIUM, OECD MEETING IN PARIS, FRANCE, AND BILATERAL MEETINGS IN
VIENNA, AUSTRIA, AND OBERAMMERGAU/GARMISCH, GERMANY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN FEB. 14 AND FEB. 22, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or Employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. John Tanner....................... 2/14 2/17 Belgium.................. ........... 618.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,880.55
2/17 2/18 France................... ........... 627.78 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/18 2/20 Austria.................. ........... 862.13 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/20 2/22 Germany.................. ........... 772.64 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. John Boozman...................... 2/14 2/17 Belgium.................. ........... 618.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,880.55
2/17 2/18 France................... ........... 627.78 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/18 2/20 Austria.................. ........... 862.13 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........

[[Page 9804]]

2/20 2/22 Germany.................. ........... 772.64 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. Jo Ann Emerson.................... 2/14 2/17 Belgium.................. ........... 618.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,880.55
2/17 2/18 France................... ........... 627.78 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/18 2/20 Austria.................. ........... 862.13 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/20 2/22 Germany.................. ........... 772.64 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. Baron Hill........................ 2/14 2/17 Belgium.................. ........... 618.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,880.55
2/17 2/18 France................... ........... 627.78 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/18 2/20 Austria.................. ........... 862.13 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/20 2/22 Germany.................. ........... 772.64 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. Carolyn McCarthy.................. 2/14 2/17 Belgium.................. ........... 618.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,880.55
2/17 2/18 France................... ........... 627.78 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/18 2/20 Austria.................. ........... 862.13 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/20 2/22 Germany.................. ........... 772.64 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. Charlie Melancon.................. 2/14 2/17 Belgium.................. ........... 618.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,880.55
2/17 2/18 France................... ........... 627.78 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/18 2/20 Austria.................. ........... 862.13 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/20 2/22 Germany.................. ........... 772.64 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. Jeff Miller....................... 2/14 2/17 Belgium.................. ........... 618.00 ........... 4,253.93 ........... ........... ........... 4,871.93
Hon. Dennis Moore...................... 2/14 2/17 Belgium.................. ........... 618.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,880.55
2/17 2/18 France................... ........... 627.78 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/18 2/20 Austria.................. ........... 862.13 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/20 2/22 Germany.................. ........... 772.64 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. Mike Ross......................... 2/14 2/17 Belgium.................. ........... 618.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,880.55
2/17 2/18 France................... ........... 627.78 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/18 2/20 Austria.................. ........... 862.13 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/20 2/22 Germany.................. ........... 772.64 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Hon. David Scott....................... 2/14 2/17 Belgium.................. ........... 618.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,880.55
2/17 2/18 France................... ........... 627.78 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/18 2/20 Austria.................. ........... 862.13 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/20 2/22 Germany.................. ........... 772.64 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Melissa Adamson........................ 2/14 2/17 Belgium.................. ........... 618.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,880.55
2/17 2/18 France................... ........... 627.78 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/18 2/20 Austria.................. ........... 862.13 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/20 2/22 Germany.................. ........... 772.64 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Kathy Becker........................... 2/14 2/17 Belgium.................. ........... 618.00 ........... 3,391.10 ........... ........... ........... 6,271.65
2/17 2/18 France................... ........... 627.78 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/18 2/20 Austria.................. ........... 862.13 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/20 2/22 Germany.................. ........... 772.64 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Paul Belkin............................ 2/14 2/17 Belgium.................. ........... 618.00 ........... 3,391.10 ........... ........... ........... 6,271.65
2/17 2/18 France................... ........... 627.78 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/18 2/20 Austria.................. ........... 862.13 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
2/20 2/22 Germany.................. ........... 772.64 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Delegation Expenses:
Representational Funds............. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 17,815.15 ........... 17,815.15
Miscellaneous...................... ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 684.97 ........... 684.97
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 35,184.60 ........... 11,036.13 ........... 18,500.12 ........... 64,720.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
\3\ Military air transportation.
HON. JOHN S. TANNER, Chairman, Mar. 24,
2009.

____________________

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

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

1178. A letter from the Attorney, Office of Assistant
General Counsel for Legislation and Regulatory Law,
Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final
rule -- Weatherization Assistance Program for Low-Income
Persons [Docket No.: EEWAP1201] (RIN: 1904-AB84) received
March 25, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
1179. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementations Plans; Kentucky; Approval Section
110(a)(1) Maintenance Plans for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard for the Huntington-Ashland Area, Lexington Area and
Edmonson County [EPA-R04-OAR-2007-1186-200821(a); FRL-8781-5]
received March 25, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
1180. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plan; Maryland; Reasonably Available
Control Technology Requirements for Volatile Organic
Compounds [EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0058; FRL-8780-2] received March
25, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
1181. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Volatile Organic
Compound Reasonably Available Control Technology for Reynolds
Consumer Products Company [EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0093; FRL-8779-8]
received March 25, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
1182. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Amendments to
the Control of Air Pollution from Combustion of Refuse [EPA-
R03-OAR-2009-0110; FRL-8782-2] received March 25, 2009,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
1183. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Revisions to the Alabama State
Implementation Plan; Birmingham and Jackson Counties [EPA-
R04-OAR-2007-0359-200823(a); FRL-8781-7] received March 25,
2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
1184. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of State Air
Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants;
Control of Emissions From Existing Other Solid Waste
Incinerator Units; Arizona; Pima County Department of
Environmental Quality [EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0942; FRL-8781-2]
received March 25, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
1185. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Delegation of National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories;
State of California; Amador County Air Pollution Control
District, San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
[EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0759; FRL-8783-7] received March 25, 2009,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.

[[Page 9805]]

1186. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- New Mexico: Final Authorization of
State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision [EPA-R06-
RCRA-2008-0756-; FRL-8784-9] received March 25, 2009,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
1187. A letter from the Senior Legal Advisor, PSHSB,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- In the Matter of Improving Public
Saftey Communications in the 800 MHz Band; New 800 MHz Band
Plan for U.S. -- Canada Border Regions [WT Docket 02-55]
received March 23, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
1188. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the
Treasury, transmitting the semiannual report detailing
payments made to Cuba as a result of the provision of
telecommunications services pursuant to Department of the
Treasury specific licenses, as required by Section 1705(e)(6)
of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, 22 U.S.C. 6004(e)(6), as
amended by Section 102(g) of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, and pursuant to Executive
Order 13313 of July 31, 2003; to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
1189. A letter from the Chief Operating Officer/Executive
Secretary, Agency for International Development, Bureau for
Africa, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
1190. A letter from the Chief Operating Officer/Executive
Secretary, Agency for International Development, Bureau for
Africa, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
1191. A letter from the Chief Operating Officer/Executive
Secretary, Agency for International Development, Bureau for
Asia, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies
Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
1192. A letter from the Chief Operating Officer/Executive
Secretary, Agency for International Development, Bureau for
Asia, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies
Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
1193. A letter from the Chief Operating Officer/Executive
Secretary, Agency for International Development, Bureau for
Democracy, Conflict & Humanitarian Assist., transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
1194. A letter from the Chief Operating Officer/Executive
Secretary, Agency for International Development, Bureau for
Democracy, Conflict & Humanitarian Assist., transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
1195. A letter from the Chief Operating Officer/Executive
Secretary, Agency for International Development, Bureau for
Global Health, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
1196. A letter from the Chief Operating Officer/Executive
Secretary, Agency for International Development, Bureau for
Middle East, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
1197. A letter from the Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer,
Department of Energy, transmitting a report pursuant to the
Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
1198. A letter from the Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer,
Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration,
transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies
Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
1199. A letter from the Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer,
Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security
Administration, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
1200. A letter from the Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer,
Department of Energy, Office of Assistant Secretary for
Fossil Energy, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
1201. A letter from the Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer,
Department of Energy, Office of Assistant Secretary for
Fossil Energy, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
1202. A letter from the Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer,
Department of Energy, Office of Assistant Secretary for
Nuclear Energy, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
1203. A letter from the Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer,
Department of Energy, Office of Assistant Secretary for
Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
1204. A letter from the Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer,
Department of Energy, Office of Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management, transmitting a report pursuant to
the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
1205. A letter from the Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer,
Department of Energy, Office of Asst. Secretary for
Congressional & Intergovernmental Affairs, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
1206. A letter from the Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer,
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
1207. A letter from the Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer,
Department of Energy, Office of Minority Economic Impact,
transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies
Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
1208. A letter from the Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer,
Department of Energy, Office of Science, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
1209. A letter from the Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer,
Department of Energy, Under Secretary of Energy, transmitting
a report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of
1998; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
1210. A letter from the Assistant Administrator for Human
Capital Mgt, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies
Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
1211. A letter from the Chief Operating Officer/Executive
Secretary, U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau
for Europe and Eurasia, transmitting a report pursuant to the
Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
1212. A letter from the Chief Operating Officer/Executive
Secretary, U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau
for Europe and Eurasia, transmitting a report pursuant to the
Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
1213. A letter from the Chief Operating Officer/Executive
Secretary, U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau
for Global Health, transmitting a report pursuant to the
Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
1214. A letter from the Chief Operating Officer/Executive
Secretary, U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau
for Legislative and Public Affairs, transmitting a report
pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
1215. A letter from the Chief Operating Officer/Executive
Secretary, U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau
for Legislative and Public Affairs, transmitting a report
pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
1216. A letter from the Chief Operating Officer/Executive
Secretary, U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau
for Middle East, transmitting a report pursuant to the
Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
1217. A letter from the White House Liaison, U.S.
Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary,
transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies
Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
1218. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic
Bluefish Fishery; Quota Transfer [Docket No.: 071212833-8179-
02] (RIN: 0648-XM22) received March 27, 2009, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
1219. A letter from the Acting Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Justice, transmitting the Department's Report
of the Attorney General on the Administration of the Foreign
Agents Registration Act for the six months ending June 30,
2008; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
1220. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF6-80C2
and CF6-80E1 Series Turbofan

[[Page 9806]]

Engines [Docket No.: FAA-2007-28413; Directorate Identifier
2007-NE-25-AD; Amendment 39-15826; AD 2009-05-02] (RIN: 2120-
AA64) received March 27, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
1221. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10,
DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10),
DC-10-40, DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F
Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2008-0735; Directorate Identifier
2008-NM-085-AD; Amendment 39-15803; AD 2009-03-02] (RIN:
2120-AA64) received March 27, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
1222. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Tower, MN [Docket No.:
FAA-2008-1186; Airspace Docket No.: 08-AGL-12] received March
27, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
1223. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Amendment of Class E Airspace; Columbus, OH [Docket No.: FAA-
2008-1185; Airspace Docket No.: 08-AGL-11] received March 27,
2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
1224. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Amendment of Class E Airspace; Medford, WI [Docket No.: FAA-
2008-1211; Airspace Docket No.: 08-AGL-13] received March 27,
2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
1225. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
[Docket No.: 30654 Amdt. No.: 3310] received March 27, 2009,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
1226. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
[Docket No.: 30655 Amdt. No.: 3311] received March 27, 2009,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
1227. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-
2009-0130; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-225-AD; Amendment
39-15817; AD 2009-04-11] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received March 27,
2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
1228. A letter from the Chief, Publications and
Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule -- Gain Recognition Agreements with
Respect to Certain Transfers of Stock or Securities by United
States Persons to Foreign Corporations [TD 9446] (RIN: 1545-
BG09) received March 27, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
1229. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Unit, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- Fringe Benefits Aircraft Valuation Formula
(Rev. Rul. 2009-6) received March 24, 2009, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
1230. A letter from the Under Secretary for Benefits and
Acting Under Secretary of Defense Personnel and Readiness,
Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense
transmitting a report for fiscal year 2008 regarding the
activities and accomplishments of both Departments, pursuant
to 38 U.S.C. 320; jointly to the Committees on Veterans'
Affairs and Armed Services.

____________________

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:

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California: Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct. Report of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct (Rept. 111-74). Referred to the House
Calendar.

____________________

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

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

By Mr. REHBERG:
H.R. 1865. A bill to eliminate the requirement that States
collect Social Security numbers from applicants for
recreational licenses; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PAUL (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Clay, Mr.
Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Hinchey,
Mr. McClintock, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr.
Rohrabacher, Mr. Stark, and Ms. Woolsey):
H.R. 1866. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to
exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marihuana, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
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 Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona (for herself and Mr.
Thompson of Mississippi):
H.R. 1867. A bill to authorize additional resources for the
Department of Homeland Security to enhance security
activities along the international border with Mexico, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security.
By Mr. DEAL of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Bilbray, Mr.
Daniel E. Lungren of California, Mr. Westmoreland,
Mr. Jones, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr.
Gingrey of Georgia, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Broun of
Georgia, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Kingston,
Mr. Heller, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Jordan of Ohio, Mr.
Conaway, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Linder, Mr. Culberson,
Mr. McCotter, Mr. Herger, Mr. Akin, Mr. Gohmert, Mr.
Boozman, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Sam Johnson of
Texas, Mr. Royce, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. Taylor,
Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Mr. Coffman of
Colorado, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Rohrabacher,
Ms. Foxx, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Poe
of Texas, and Mr. Price of Georgia):
H.R. 1868. A bill to amend section 301 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals
born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of
the United States at birth; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. McGOVERN (for himself and Mrs. Emerson):
H.R. 1869. A bill to require the President to call a White
House Conference on Food and Nutrition; to the Committee on
Agriculture.
By Mr. McGOVERN (for himself, Mr. Markey of
Massachusetts, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Sires,
Mr. Nadler of New York, Mr. McMahon, Mr. Abercrombie,
Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Wu, Ms. Bordallo, Mr.
Daniel E. Lungren of California, Mr. Garrett of New
Jersey, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr. Lewis of Georgia):
H.R. 1870. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to provide for relief to surviving spouses and children;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona:
H.R. 1871. A bill to designate certain counties in the
State of Arizona as high-intensity drug trafficking areas; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. SPACE (for himself, Mr. Filner, Mr. Walz, and
Mr. Nye):
H.R. 1872. A bill to require the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to
develop and implement a secure electronic method of
forwarding the Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty (DD Form 214) to the appropriate office of the
Department of Veterans Affairs for the State or other
locality in which a member of the Armed Forces will first
reside after the discharge or release of the member from
active duty; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut (for himself, Ms. Loretta
Sanchez of California, Ms. DeLauro, and Mr. Himes):
H.R. 1873. A bill to amend the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 with respect to juveniles
who have committed offenses, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Education and Labor.
By Ms. SCHAKOWSKY (for herself, Mr. Hare, Mr. Hall of
New York, Mr. Michaud, Ms. Sutton, Mr. Massa, and Ms.
Woolsey):
H.R. 1874. A bill to provide Federal contracting
preferences for, and a reduction in the rate of income tax
imposed on, Patriot corporations, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. DeFAZIO (for himself, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Kaptur,
and Mr. Massa):
H.R. 1875. A bill to establish an Emergency Commission To
End the Trade Deficit; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

[[Page 9807]]

By Ms. BORDALLO (for herself and Mr. Bartlett):
H.R. 1876. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
require the incorporation of Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) principles in military
construction projects carried out in the United States or
overseas, to require a specific goal regarding the use of
renewable energy sources on all military installations, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin (for herself, Mrs. Biggert,
Ms. Waters, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, Mrs. Capito, and Mr. Carson of
Indiana):
H.R. 1877. A bill to amend the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act to reauthorize the Act, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself and Mr. Doyle):
H.R. 1878. A bill to establish a health and education grant
program related to autism spectrum disorders, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado (for himself and Ms.
Bordallo):
H.R. 1879. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
provide for employment and reemployment rights for certain
individuals ordered to full-time National Guard duty; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Ms. BEAN (for herself and Mr. Royce):
H.R. 1880. A bill to establish a system of regulation and
supervision for insurers, insurance agencies, and insurance
producers chartered or licensed under Federal law that
ensures the stability and financial integrity of those
insurers, agencies, and producers and that protects
policyholders and other consumers served by such insurers,
agencies, or producers; to the Committee on Financial
Services, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary,
and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mrs. LOWEY (for herself, Mr. Thompson of
Mississippi, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Carney,
Mr. Pascrell, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr.
Markey of Massachusetts, Mrs. Kirkpatrick of Arizona,
Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan, Mr. Hastings of Florida,
Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of Pennsylvania,
Mr. Kind, Mr. McMahon, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr.
Grijalva, Ms. Norton, and Mr. Filner):
H.R. 1881. A bill to enhance the transportation security
functions of the Department of Homeland Security by providing
for an enhanced personnel system for employees of the
Transportation Security Administration, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in
addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mrs. DAVIS of California (for herself and Mr.
Jones):
H.R. 1882. A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act to
provide safeguards for credit card holders whose accounts
were, or are about to be, terminated for inactivity, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. SCOTT of Virginia (for himself, Ms. Jackson-Lee
of Texas, and Ms. Lee of California):
H.R. 1883. A bill to require the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to carry out a demonstration grants program to
provide for certain patient coordination, outreach, and
assistance services to reduce barriers to receiving health
care and improve health care outcomes; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. GORDON of Tennessee (for himself, Mr. Pitts, Mr.
Boucher, and Mr. Olver):
H.R. 1884. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide for the participation of optometrists in the National
Health Service Corps scholarship and loan repayment programs,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
By Ms. WATERS (for herself, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mrs.
Bachmann, Mr. Clay, Mr. Coble, Mr. Cohen, Mr.
Cuellar, Mr. Cummings, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Franks of
Arizona, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Gordon of Tennessee, Mr.
Heller, Mr. Herger, Mr. Holt, Mr. Issa, Mrs.
Kirkpatrick of Arizona, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Rogers of
Kentucky, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Royce, Mr. Sessions,
Mr. Simpson, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. Smith of
Texas, and Mr. Wamp):
H.R. 1885. A bill to protect private property rights; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. BERMAN (for himself, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Ackerman, Mr.
Royce, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Sherman, and Mr.
Wexler):
H.R. 1886. A bill to authorize democratic, economic, and
social development assistance for Pakistan, to authorize
security assistance for Pakistan, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the
Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Ms. SPEIER (for herself, Mrs. Capps, Ms. Clarke,
Mrs. Dahlkemper, Ms. DeGette, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Ms.
Shea-Porter, Ms. Tsongas, Ms. Edwards of Maryland,
Mrs. Halvorson, Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Kilroy, Ms. Lee of
California, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mrs.
Lowey, Ms. Markey of Colorado, Ms. Waters, Mrs.
Napolitano, Ms. Pingree of Maine, Ms. Richardson, Ms.
Loretta Sanchez of California, Ms. Wasserman Schultz,
Ms. Schwartz, Ms. Titus, Ms. Velazquez, Ms. Woolsey,
and Ms. Eshoo):
H.R. 1887. A bill to establish a Presidential Commission on
Women, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
By Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Cummings,
Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Kagen, and Mr. Perlmutter):
H.R. 1888. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow a credit against income tax to vehicle fleet
operators for purchasing tires made from recycled rubber; to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. BORDALLO (for herself, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mrs.
Christensen, and Mr. Sablan):
H.R. 1889. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to reserve funding for American Samoa, the
Northern Marianas Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands; to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Ms. BORDALLO (for herself, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mrs.
Christensen, and Mr. Sablan):
H.R. 1890. A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to
increase the percentage of State revolving loan funds
reserved for American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. ALEXANDER:
H.R. 1891. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow an above-the-line deduction for half of an
individual's long-term care insurance premiums; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. AUSTRIA:
H.R. 1892. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 102 North Main Street in
Cedarville, Ohio, as the ``William `Brent' Turner Post
Office''; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
By Mr. BACHUS (for himself and Mr. LaTourette):
H.R. 1893. A bill to prohibit any person which sells to or
otherwise disposes of any asset through a public-private
investment program, including the Public-Private Investment
Program for Legacy Assets, from purchasing or otherwise
acquiring any other asset from or through such programs, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Ms. BERKLEY (for herself, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Payne,
Mr. Grijalva, Mr. McGovern, Mrs. Capps, Ms.
Schakowsky, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Olver, Ms.
Baldwin, Mr. Sestak, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Culberson, Mr.
Boswell, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Ms. Kilpatrick of
Michigan, Mr. Paul, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Courtney, Ms.
Sutton, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mrs. Christensen, Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
Thompson of California, Ms. Kilroy, Ms. Hirono, Mr.
McDermott, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Faleomavaega,
Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Engel, Mr. Wexler, Mr.
Tanner, Mr. Farr, Mr. Sherman, Ms. Watson, Ms. Titus,
Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of
California, Ms. Kosmas, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. George
Miller of California, Ms. Speier, Ms. Tsongas, Ms.
DeGette, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Carnahan, Ms. Roybal-
Allard, Mr. Kagen, Ms. Harman, Mr. Serrano, Ms.
Markey of Colorado, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Ms. Shea-
Porter, Mrs. Maloney, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas, Mr. Meeks of New York, Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Lee of
California, Ms. Clarke, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida,
Ms. Edwards of Maryland, and Mr. Pierluisi):
H.R. 1894. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to improve access to, and increase utilization
of, bone mass measurement benefits under the Medicare part B
program; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in
addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. BISHOP of New York (for himself and Mr. Castle):

[[Page 9808]]

H.R. 1895. A bill to provide driver safety grants to States
with graduated driver licensing laws that meet certain
minimum requirements; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. BISHOP of New York (for himself and Mr. Lee of
New York):
H.R. 1896. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to clarify that installment sales treatment shall not
fail to apply to property acquired for conservation purposes
by a State or local government or certain tax-exempt
organizations merely because purchase funds are held in a
sinking or similar fund pursuant to State law; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself and Mrs. Bono Mack):
H.R. 1897. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide a tax credit to employers for the costs of
implementing wellness programs, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Davis
of Kentucky, Mr. Kind, Mr. Tiberi, and Mr. Yarmuth):
H.R. 1898. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to provide for coverage under the Medicare
Program for consultations regarding orders for life
sustaining treatment and to provide grants for the
development and expansion of programs for such orders; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the
Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. BOYD (for himself and Mr. Miller of Florida):
H.R. 1899. A bill to extend Federal recognition to the
Muscogee Nation of Florida; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (for herself and Mr. Poe of
Texas):
H.R. 1900. A bill to provide for emergency deployments of
United States Border Patrol agents and to increase the number
of DEA and ATF agents along the international border of the
United States to increase resources to identify and eliminate
illicit sources of firearms into Mexico for use by violent
drug trafficking organizations and for other lawful
activities and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Homeland Security, 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. BOYD (for himself, Mr. Klein of Florida, Mr.
Crenshaw, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, Ms.
Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Miller of Florida,
Ms. Castor of Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and Mr.
Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida):
H.R. 1901. A bill to provide for a comprehensive study by
the National Research Council of the National Academy of
Sciences to assess the water management, needs, and
conservation of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River
System; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida:
H.R. 1902. A bill to provide veterans with individualized
notice about available benefits, to streamline application
processes for the benefits, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the
Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. CANTOR (for himself, Mr. Lee of New York, Mr.
Dreier, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr.
McCarthy of California, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Campbell,
Mrs. Bono Mack, Mr. Paulsen, and Mr. Boustany):
H.R. 1903. A bill to provide incentives for the residential
housing market; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in
addition to the Committees on Financial Services, and 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 Mrs. CAPITO (for herself, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Marchant,
Mr. Jones, and Mr. Poe of Texas):
H.R. 1904. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow individual taxpayers to designate a portion of
income taxes to fund the improvement of barriers at the
United States border, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee
on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mrs. CAPPS (for herself, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Farr, and
Ms. Matsui):
H.R. 1905. A bill to amend the Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972 to require the Secretary of Commerce to establish a
coastal climate change adaptation planning and response
program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
By Mrs. CAPPS (for herself, Mr. Thompson of California,
Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Farr, Mr.
Waxman, Mr. Berman, Mr. Stark, Mr. Schiff, Ms. Lee of
California, Ms. Harman, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Honda, Ms.
Eshoo, Ms. Matsui, Mrs. Davis of California, Ms.
Roybal-Allard, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Watson, Ms.
Waters, Mr. Becerra, Ms. Richardson, Mr. Filner, Ms.
Speier, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Sherman, Ms. Linda T.
Sanchez of California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of
California, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, and Mr.
McNerney):
H.R. 1906. A bill to permanently prohibit oil and gas
leasing off the coast of the State of California, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. CASTLE (for himself and Ms. Harman):
H.R. 1907. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to use consumer information maintained by
retailers to improve recalls of food, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado (for himself, Mr. Kind, Mr.
Bishop of Utah, Mr. Lamborn, and Ms. Markey of
Colorado):
H.R. 1908. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide a credit for property certified by the
Environmental Protection Agency under the WaterSense program;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. COHEN:
H.R. 1909. A bill to direct the Securities and Exchange
Commission to suspend the application of mark-to-market
accounting; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia:
H.R. 1910. A bill to create the Office of the Chief
Technology Officer within the Executive Office of the
President; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
By Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia:
H.R. 1911. A bill to amend the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 to require funding to help award
recipients defray the costs of data collection requirements
initiated pursuant to such Act, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia (for himself, Mrs. Lummis,
and Mr. Blumenauer):
H.R. 1912. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow a credit against income tax for qualified
conservation contributions which include National Scenic
Trails; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition
to the Committee on 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. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Ackerman, Ms.
Baldwin, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Berman, Mrs. Biggert, Mr.
Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Blumenauer, Mrs. Bono Mack,
Mr. Braley of Iowa, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr.
Cao, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Castle, Ms. Castor of Florida,
Mr. Clay, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Driehaus,
Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Israel, Ms. Kilroy, Mr.
Kirk, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Lance, Mrs. Maloney, Ms.
McCollum, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr.
Moran of Virginia, Mr. Nadler of New York, Mr. Olver,
Mr. Peters, Mr. Polis of Colorado, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen,
Mr. Serrano, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Velazquez, Ms.
Wasserman Schultz, Ms. Watson, and Ms. Woolsey):
H.R. 1913. A bill to provide Federal assistance to States,
local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate
crimes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. DEAL of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Broun of
Georgia, Mr. Linder, and Mr. Westmoreland):
H.R. 1914. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of
1973 to provide for the suspension of each provision of the
Act during periods of drought with respect to Federal and
State agencies that manage Federal river basins that are
located in each region affected by the drought; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
By Ms. DeLAURO (for herself and Mr. Platts):
H.R. 1915. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to provide for expanded coverage of paramedic
intercept services under the Medicare Program; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the
Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. DINGELL (for himself and Mr. Wittman):
H.R. 1916. A bill to amend the Migratory Bird Hunting and
Conservation Stamp Act to

[[Page 9809]]

provide for a revised schedule of price increases for the
Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp, popularly
known as the ``Duck Stamp'', and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. FATTAH:
H.R. 1917. A bill to establish the Centennial Historic
District in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. FLAKE (for himself and Mr. Moran of Kansas):
H.R. 1918. A bill to permit United States companies to
participate in the exploration for and the extraction of
hydrocarbon resources from any portion of a foreign maritime
exclusive economic zone that is contiguous to the exclusive
economic zone of the United States, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Ms. FOXX (for herself, Mr. Paul, Mr. Burton of
Indiana, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Duncan, Mr.
Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. Bartlett, Mrs. Myrick,
Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Pence, Mr. Kingston, and Mr.
Wilson of South Carolina):
H.R. 1919. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to repeal the withholding of income and Social Security
taxes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. Lamborn,
and Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida):
H.R. 1920. A bill to prohibit United States funding for the
2009 United Nations Durban Review Conference (``Durban II
Conference'') or any other activity relating to the planning,
preparation, or implementation of a follow-up meeting to the
2001 United Nations World Conference Against Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (`Durban I
Conference') in Durban, South Africa; to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. GERLACH:
H.R. 1921. A bill to establish an Office of Public Advocate
within the Department of Justice to provide services and
guidance to citizens in dealing with concerns involving the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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. GERLACH:
H.R. 1922. A bill to require the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to hold at least 1 public hearing before issuance
of a permit affecting public or private land use in a
locality; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. GINGREY of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Bartlett,
Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Pence, Mr. Lamborn, Mr.
Gohmert, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Shimkus, Mr.
Issa, Mr. Akin, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mrs.
Blackburn, Mr. Fleming, Ms. Fallin, Mr. Scalise, Mr.
Franks of Arizona, Mr. Paul, Mr. Rogers of Alabama,
Mr. McCotter, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Carter, Mr.
Bishop of Georgia, and Mr. Ross):
H.R. 1923. A bill to require the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to make video recordings of
the examination and testing of firearms and ammunition, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in
addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN (for herself, Mr. Kildee, and
Mr. Grijalva):
H.R. 1924. A bill to amend the Indian Law Enforcement
Reform Act, the Indian Tribal Justice Act, the Indian Tribal
Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000, and the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to improve
the prosecution of, and response to, crimes in Indian
country, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Natural
Resources, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Labor, for
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. HINCHEY (for himself, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Baird,
Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Berman, Mrs. Biggert, Mr.
Blumenauer, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Ms.
Corrine Brown of Florida, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Capuano,
Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Chandler, Mrs.
Christensen, Mr. Clay, Mr. Connolly of Virginia, Mr.
Conyers, Mr. Costello, Mr. Courtney, Mrs. Davis of
California, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. DeLauro,
Mr. Dicks, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Ellison, Ms. Eshoo, Mr.
Farr, Mr. Filner, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr.
Gonzalez, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Hare, Ms.
Harman, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Hill, Ms.
Hirono, Mr. Hodes, Mr. Holt, Mr. Honda, Mr. Inslee,
Mr. Israel, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Johnson of
Illinois, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kildee, Ms. Kilpatrick of
Michigan, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Lance, Mr. Langevin, Ms. Lee
of California, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr.
LoBiondo, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mrs. Lowey,
Mr. Lynch, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Markey of Massachusetts,
Mr. Massa, Ms. McCollum, Mr. McDermott, Mr. McGovern,
Mr. McNerney, Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr. Miller of
North Carolina, Mr. George Miller of California, Ms.
Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Murphy
of Connecticut, Mr. Nadler of New York, Mrs.
Napolitano, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Ms. Norton,
Mr. Olver, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Payne, Mr. Pierluisi, Mr.
Polis of Colorado, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr.
Rangel, Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, Mr. Rush, Ms.
Schakowsky, Mr. Schiff, Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Serrano,
Mr. Sestak, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Sires,
Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Stark, Ms.
Sutton, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Thompson of California,
Mr. Tierney, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Waxman, Mr.
Weiner, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Wu, and Mr. Yarmuth):
H.R. 1925. A bill to designate as wilderness certain
Federal portions of the red rock canyons of the Colorado
Plateau and the Great Basin Deserts in Utah for the benefit
of present and future generations of Americans; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. HONDA (for himself, Mr. Farr, Mr. Blumenauer,
Mr. Grijalva, Mrs. Capps, and Mr. Van Hollen):
H.R. 1926. A bill to authorize the National Science
Foundation to establish a Global Warming Education Program;
to the Committee on Science and Technology.
By Mr. ISRAEL (for himself and Mr. Tiberi):
H.R. 1927. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to provide comprehensive cancer patient
treatment education under the Medicare Program and to provide
for research to improve cancer symptom management; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the
Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. KAGEN (for himself, Mr. Terry, Mr. Boswell, Mrs.
Bono Mack, Ms. Bordallo, and Mr. Yarmuth):
H.R. 1928. A bill to increase home healthcare services,
particularly for underserved and at-risk populations, by
assisting visiting nurse associations and other non-profit
home health agencies to improve training and workforce
development for home healthcare nurses, promoting and
facilitating academic-practice collaborations, and enhancing
recruitment and retention of home healthcare nurses; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Ms. KAPTUR:
H.R. 1929. A bill to establish the Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac Investigative Commission to investigate the policies and
practices engaged in by officers and directors at Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac responsible for making the decisions that led
to the enterprises' financial instability and the subsequent
Federal conservatorship of such enterprises; to the Committee
on Financial Services.
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Simpson, and Mr.
Cummings):
H.R. 1930. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide for a loan repayment program for faculty members at
programs of general dentistry or pediatric dentistry to
alleviate faculty shortages; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Stark, and Ms.
DeLauro):
H.R. 1931. A bill to improve the treatment of juveniles
with mental health or substance abuse disorders by
establishing new grant programs for increased training,
technical assistance, and coordination of service providers,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and
Labor, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and Mr.
Lewis of Georgia):
H.R. 1932. A bill to increase the number of well-trained
mental health service professionals (including those based in
schools) providing clinical mental health care to children
and adolescents, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways
and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. KLEIN of Florida (for himself, Mr. Gohmert, Mr.
Scott of Virginia, Mr. Nadler of New York, Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Wexler, Ms.
Wasserman Schultz,

[[Page 9810]]

Mr. Boozman, Ms. Sutton, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Ms.
Bordallo, Mrs. Myrick, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida,
Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Latham, and Ms.
Norton):
H.R. 1933. A bill to direct the Attorney General to make an
annual grant to the A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery
Center to assist law enforcement agencies in the rapid
recovery of missing children, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. KRATOVIL (for himself, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Stupak,
Mr. Wittman, Mr. Delahunt, and Mr. Garrett of New
Jersey):
H.R. 1934. A bill to apply in fiscal year 2009 the
exemption of returning workers from the numerical limitations
for seasonal nonimmigrant workers in order to provide short-
term immediate relief to small and seasonal businesses; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. LEVIN:
H.R. 1935. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide for the treatment of partnership interests
held by partners providing services; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mrs. LOWEY (for herself, Mr. Hall of New York, and
Mr. Hinchey):
H.R. 1936. A bill to provide certain requirements for the
licensing of commercial nuclear facilities; to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
By Mrs. LOWEY (for herself, Mr. Hall of New York, Mr.
Hinchey, and Mr. Engel):
H.R. 1937. A bill to require the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to retain and redistribute certain amounts
collected as fines; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mrs. LOWEY:
H.R. 1938. A bill to amend the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
and the Public Health Service Act to set standards for
medical diagnostic equipment and to establish a program for
promoting good health, disease prevention, and wellness and
for the prevention of secondary conditions for individuals
with disabilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on
Ways and Means, and Education and Labor, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. LUETKEMEYER:
H.R. 1939. A bill to direct the Attorney General to
establish a system of background checks for employers and
employees of the electronic life safety and security system
installation and monitoring industry, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. MATSUI (for herself, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mrs.
Capps, and Mr. Sarbanes):
H.R. 1940. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
establish a Wellness Trust; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
By Mr. MITCHELL (for himself, Mr. Flake, Mr. Heller,
and Ms. Titus):
H.R. 1941. A bill to allow for additional flights beyond
the perimeter restriction applicable to Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. NADLER of New York (for himself and Mr. Cohen):
H.R. 1942. A bill to amend title 11 and for other purposes;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. NADLER of New York (for himself, Mrs. Lowey, and
Mr. Israel):
H.R. 1943. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide for adjustments in the individual income tax
rates to reflect regional differences in the cost-of-living;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. Tiberi,
Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Herger, Mr. Crowley,
and Mr. Brady of Texas):
H.R. 1944. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to permanently extend the subpart F exemption for active
financing income; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. NUNES (for himself and Mr. Costa):
H.R. 1945. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior
to conduct a study on the feasibility and suitability of
constructing a storage reservoir, outlet works, and a
delivery system for the Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule
River Reservation in the State of California to provide a
water supply for domestic, municipal, industrial, and
agricultural purposes, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. PASCRELL (for himself, Mr. Moran of Kansas, and
Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan):
H.R. 1946. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
address health workforce shortages; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. PASCRELL (for himself, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Cohen,
and Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California):
H.R. 1947. A bill to regulate certain deferred prosecution
agreements and nonprosecution agreements in Federal criminal
cases; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. PASCRELL (for himself, Mr. Davis of Kentucky,
Mr. Paul, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Heller, Mr. Lamborn, Mr.
Simpson, Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan, Mr. Burgess, and
Mr. Souder):
H.R. 1948. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow reimbursement from flexible spending accounts
for certain dental products; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. Miller of Florida):
H.R. 1949. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide a tax credit for elementary and secondary
school teachers; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. Miller of Florida):
H.R. 1950. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide a tax credit for professional school
personnel in prekindergarten, kindergarten, and grades 1
through 12; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. McHenry):
H.R. 1951. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow individuals a credit against income tax for
tuition and related expenses for public and nonpublic
elementary and secondary education; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. Hoekstra):
H.R. 1952. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow a credit against income tax for amounts
contributed to charitable organizations which provide
elementary or secondary school scholarships and for
contributions of, and for, instructional materials and
materials for extracurricular activities; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. Miller of Florida):
H.R. 1953. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow the Hope Scholarship Credit to be used for
elementary and secondary education expenses; to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. Miller of Florida):
H.R. 1954. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to make higher education more affordable by providing a
full tax deduction for higher education expenses and interest
on student loans; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Duncan, and
Mr. McHugh):
H.R. 1955. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to exclude from gross income amounts received on the
sale of animals which are raised and sold as part of an
educational program; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PAULSEN (for himself, Mr. Davis of Alabama, and
Mr. Poe of Texas):
H.R. 1956. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow an offset against income tax refunds to pay for
State judicial debts that are past-due; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. PETERS:
H.R. 1957. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide a higher education tuition credit in place of
existing education tax incentives; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. PIERLUISI (for himself, Mr. Serrano, Mr.
Gutierrez, and Ms. Velazquez):
H.R. 1958. A bill to amend the Military Construction
Authorization Act, 1974 to repeal the limitation on the
authorized uses of the former bombardment area on the island
of Culebra and the prohibition on Federal Government
responsibility for decontamination of the area; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
By Ms. PINGREE of Maine:
H.R. 1959. A bill to direct the Department of Defense to
utilize no-cost economic development conveyances as the
preferred method of disposal of excess property generated
through the base closure process, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. PITTS (for himself, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Broun of
Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Alexander, Mrs.
Blackburn, Mr. Jones, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina,
Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Rooney, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen,
and Mr. Burton of Indiana):
H.R. 1960. A bill to make the repeal of the estate tax
permanent; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. POMEROY (for himself, Mr. Kind, Mr. McDermott,
Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Sestak, Mr.
Altmire, and Mr. Thompson of California):
H.R. 1961. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to expand the availability of the saver's credit, to
make the credit refundable, and to make Federal matching
contributions into the retirement savings of the taxpayer; to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. POSEY (for himself and Ms. Wasserman Schultz):
H.R. 1962. A bill to authorize the Space Shuttle to be
flown from 2010 through 2015, and to authorize appropriations
for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for
this purpose; to the Committee on Science and Technology.

[[Page 9811]]

By Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. Filner, and Ms. Herseth
Sandlin):
H.R. 1963. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
ensure that members of the Armed Forces who are being
separated from active duty receive comprehensive employment
assistance, job training assistance, and other transitional
services, to require that such members receive a
psychological evaluation in addition to the physical
examination they receive as part of their separation from
active duty, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
By Mr. RANGEL:
H.R. 1964. A bill to address HIV/AIDS in the African-
American community, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. RODRIGUEZ:
H.R. 1965. A bill to require the Secretary of
Transportation and the Secretary of Commerce to submit to
Congress reports on the commercial and passenger vehicle
traffic at certain points of entry, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California (for herself, Ms.
Kaptur, Mr. Yarmuth, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mrs. Capps,
Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr.
Grijalva, Mr. Hare, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Clay, Mr.
Sarbanes, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Courtney, and
Mr. Kirk):
H.R. 1966. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code,
with respect to cyberbullying; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. SENSENBRENNER (for himself and Mr. Smith of New
Jersey):
H.R. 1967. A bill to prohibit funding organizations that
support or participate in coercive abortion or involuntary
sterilization; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. SENSENBRENNER:
H.R. 1968. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to increase the limitation on capital losses to $10,500
and to index such limitation to inflation; to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
By Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. Wolf, Ms.
Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Cao, Ms. Loretta
Sanchez of California, Mr. Royce, Mr. Rohrabacher,
and Mr. Pence):
H.R. 1969. A bill to promote freedom and democracy in
Vietnam; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 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. SPACE (for himself, Mrs. Emerson, and Mr.
Berry):
H.R. 1970. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to exempt unsanctioned State-licensed retail
pharmacies from the surety bond requirement under the
Medicare Program for suppliers of durable medical equipment,
prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the
Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. SPRATT:
H.R. 1971. A bill to provide for the elimination of duties
on certain comforter shells; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. STUPAK (for himself and Mr. Paulsen):
H.R. 1972. A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide standards and procedures
to guide State and local law enforcement agencies and law
enforcement officers during internal investigations,
interrogation of law enforcement officers, and administrative
disciplinary hearings, to ensure accountability of law
enforcement officers, to guarantee the due process rights of
law enforcement officers, and to require States to enact law
enforcement discipline, accountability, and due process laws;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. STUPAK:
H.R. 1973. A bill to amend title 39, United States Code, to
require post offices to have running water and sanitation
facilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. THOMPSON of California (for himself, Mr. Heller,
Ms. Berkley, Mr. Davis of Alabama, Mr. Lewis of
Georgia, Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr. Bachus, Mrs. Bono
Mack, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr. Burton of
Indiana, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Courtney, Ms.
Foxx, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mrs. Halvorson, Mr.
Hastings of Washington, Mr. Hill, Ms. Kosmas, Mr.
LoBiondo, Mr. McHenry, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Mica, Mr.
Moore of Kansas, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Perriello, Mr.
Scott of Georgia, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Westmoreland, and
Mr. Crowley):
H.R. 1974. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to make permanent the depreciation classification of
motorsports entertainment complexes; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi:
H.R. 1975. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 100 West Percy Street in
Indianola, Mississippi, as the ``Minnie Cox Post Office
Building''; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
By Ms. WATSON (for herself, Ms. Richardson, Ms.
Slaughter, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr.
Towns, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Fortenberry, Mrs. Bono Mack, Mr.
Schiff, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Costa, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren
of California, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Royce,
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Sherman, and Ms. Eshoo):
H.R. 1976. A bill to authorize grants for nongovernmental
organizations that use independently produced documentary
films to promote better understanding of the United States
abroad and better understanding of global perspectives and
other countries in the United States; to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. WEXLER:
H.R. 1977. A bill to require the Consumer Product Safety
Commission to study drywall imported from China in 2004
through 2007, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Ms. WOOLSEY (for herself, Mr. Gary G. Miller of
California, Mr. Stark, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, and
Mr. Grijalva):
H.R. 1978. A bill to authorize the Attorney General to make
grants to improve the ability of State and local governments
to prevent the abduction of children by family members, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. McGOVERN:
H. Con. Res. 93. Concurrent resolution providing for an
adjournment or recess of the two Houses; considered and
agreed to.
By Mr. CONYERS (for himself and Mr. Davis of Kentucky):
H. Con. Res. 94. Concurrent resolution encouraging the
negotiation of an ``Incidents at Sea Agreement'' between the
United States of America and the Government of Iran; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. CHILDERS:
H. Con. Res. 95. Concurrent resolution recognizing the
importance of the Department of Agriculture Forest Service
Experimental Forests and Ranges; to the Committee on
Agriculture.
By Mr. DOYLE (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, and
Mr. Engel):
H. Con. Res. 96. Concurrent resolution recognizing the
importance of autism awareness, supporting efforts to
increase funding for research into the causes and treatment
of autism and to improve training and support for individuals
with autism and those who care for individuals with autism;
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to
the Committees on Education and Labor, and 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. KENNEDY (for himself, Ms. Lee of California, Mr.
Langevin, Mr. Grijalva, and Ms. Schakowsky):
H. Con. Res. 97. Concurrent resolution calling on the
President to support United Nations Security Council
referrals of situations involving genocide, war crimes, and
crimes against humanity to the International Criminal Court,
to cooperate with investigations and prosecutions conducted
by the International Criminal Court, and participate as an
observer at meetings of the Assembly of States Parties to the
Rome Statute; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Ms. LEE of California (for herself, Ms. Eshoo, Ms.
McCollum, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Butterfield, Mrs. Capps,
Ms. Clarke, Ms. Edwards of Maryland, Ms. Speier, Mr.
Hastings of Florida, Mr. Kucinich, Mrs. Christensen,
Mr. Lewis of Georgia, and Mr. Payne):
H. Con. Res. 98. Concurrent resolution recognizing the
disparate impact of climate change on women and the efforts
of women globally to address climate change; to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
By Mrs. McCARTHY of New York (for herself and Mr.
Platts):
H. Con. Res. 99. Concurrent resolution supporting the goals
and ideals of a National Early Educator Worthy Wage Day; to
the Committee on Education and Labor.
By Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN (for herself, Mr. Wilson of South
Carolina, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Turner, Mr.
Burton of Indiana, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Royce,
Mr. Pence, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Manzullo,
Mr. McCaul, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
Shuster, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. King
of New York, and Mr. Smith of New Jersey):
H. Res. 319. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that the President should take all
necessary steps to expeditiously deploy a missile defense
system in Europe that will help provide such a defense to
United States allies in Europe while enhancing United States
defenses against missile attacks; to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in

[[Page 9812]]

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. WATT (for himself, Mr. Price of North Carolina,
Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Becerra, Mr.
Blumenauer, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr.
Butterfield, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Ms.
Castor of Florida, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Clay, Mr. Cleaver,
Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Coble, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Davis of
Illinois, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. DeLauro, Mr.
Edwards of Texas, Ms. Edwards of Maryland, Mr.
Ellison, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Fattah, Ms. Foxx, Mr.
Frank of Massachusetts, Ms. Fudge, Mr. Al Green of
Texas, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Hoyer, Mr.
Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr.
Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Jones, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Kissell,
Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mrs.
Maloney, Ms. Matsui, Mr. McHenry, Mr. McIntyre, Mr.
Meek of Florida, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Ms.
Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mrs.
Myrick, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Olver, Mr.
Payne, Mr. Perriello, Mr. Pomeroy, Ms. Richardson,
Mr. Ross, Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, Ms. Roybal-
Allard, Mr. Rush, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Scott of Virginia,
Mr. Serrano, Mr. Shuler, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Tierney, Mr.
Towns, Ms. Watson, Mr. Welch, Mr. Wexler, Ms. Herseth
Sandlin, Mr. Barrow, Ms. Norton, Ms. Waters, Mr.
Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Cao, Mrs. Christensen, Mr.
Cohen, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Cummings, Mr.
Davis of Alabama, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Israel, Ms. Eddie
Bernice Johnson of Texas, Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan,
Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi,
Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Rangel, Ms.
Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr. Scott of Georgia,
Mr. Spratt, Mr. Sullivan, and Ms. Velazquez):
H. Res. 320. A resolution honoring the Life and
achievements of Dr. John Hope Franklin; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. BACA:
H. Res. 321. A resolution congratulating the boys'
basketball team at Eisenhower High School in Rialto,
California, for winning the State championship; to the
Committee on Education and Labor.
By Ms. GIFFORDS (for herself, Mr. Cuellar, Mr.
Mitchell, Mrs. Kirkpatrick of Arizona, and Mr. Poe of
Texas):
H. Res. 322. A resolution expressing support for the
designation of July 25, 2009 as ``National Day of the
Cowboy''; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
By Mr. KING of Iowa (for himself, Mr. Bartlett, Mrs.
Blackburn, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Burton of
Indiana, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Gingrey of
Georgia, Mr. Hensarling, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Paul, Mr.
Pitts, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr.
Westmoreland, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, and Mrs.
Bachmann):
H. Res. 323. A resolution amending the Rules of the House
of Representatives to require that rescission bills always be
considered under open rules every year, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Rules.
By Mr. LARSON of Connecticut:
H. Res. 324. A resolution expressing support for
designation of April 2009 as ``Jazz Appreciation Month'' and
April 25, 2009, as ``Willis Conover Day'', and honoring the
global impact of jazz music; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
By Mr. McCLINTOCK:
H. Res. 325. A resolution expressing support for
designation of a ``Free Enterprise Education Week'' to
encourage elementary and secondary schools, institutions of
higher education, and small and large businesses to educate
students about free enterprise; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
By Mr. McMAHON:
H. Res. 326. A resolution expressing support for
designation of the week of April 13, 2009, through April 17,
2009, as ``Protect Your Pharmacy Week'', and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. McMAHON:
H. Res. 327. A resolution honoring the humble service of
Edward Cardinal Egan as Archbishop of the New York
Archdiocese and congratulating Archbishop Timothy Dolan on
his appointment by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to succeed
Cardinal Egan; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
By Mr. ROE of Tennessee:
H. Res. 328. A resolution expressing the sense of Congress
that all Americans should recognize National Military
Appreciation Month with appropriate programs and activities;
to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. SNYDER (for himself, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Berry, Mr.
Ross, Mr. Boozman, and Mr. Davis of Illinois):
H. Res. 329. A resolution recognizing the anniversary of
the tragic accident of the steamboat ship SS Sultana; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. TANNER (for himself, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Davis of
Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr.
Cohen, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Gordon of Tennessee, and Mr.
Wamp):
H. Res. 330. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that the Secretary of the Navy should name
an appropriate Navy ship in honor of Marine Corps General
Clifton B. Cates of Tiptonville, Tennessee; to the Committee
on Armed Services.
By Mrs. TAUSCHER (for herself, Mr. Wolf, and Ms.
Wasserman Schultz):
H. Res. 331. A resolution supporting the goals and ideals
of National Drowning Prevention and Water Safety Month; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. TIAHRT:
H. Res. 332. A resolution providing that the House of
Representatives will focus on removing barriers to a
prosperous economy and therefore renew the dream; to the
Committee on Education and Labor.
By Ms. WOOLSEY (for herself, Ms. Lee of California, Mr.
Conyers, and Mr. Fattah):
H. Res. 333. A resolution recognizing non-proliferation
options for nuclear understanding to keep everyone safe (NO
NUKES); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition
to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

____________________

MEMORIALS

Under clause 3 of rule XII,

14. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the State Senate of
Oklahoma, relative to Senate Resolution No. 5 strongly
opposing the federal Freedom of Choice Act; and directing
distribution; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

____________________

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 3 of rule XII,

Mr. TIBERI introduced a bill (H.R. 1979) for the relief of
Mary Cole, Decontee Cole, Emmanuel Cole, Anna Cole, Yon Deh
Cole, and Emmanuel Cole, Jr; 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. 22: Mr. Rooney, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Meek of Florida, Ms.
Baldwin, Mr. Peters, and Mr. Johnson of Illinois.
H.R. 24: Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Camp, Mr. Lynch, Mr.
Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. Wamp, Mr.
Filner, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Etheridge,
Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Nadler of New
York, Mr. Rooney, Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Latham, Mr. Upton, Mr.
Rogers of Michigan, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Fleming, Ms. Fallin, Mr.
Kissell, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Mr. Roe
of Tennessee, Mr. Coffman of Colorado, Mr. Souder, Mr. Clay,
Mr. McCarthy of California, and Mr. Petri.
H.R. 43: Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Cleaver, Ms. Baldwin, Mr.
Ruppersberger, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Levin, Mr. Turner, Ms. Linda
T. Sanchez of California, Mr. Altmire, Mr. Kind, Mr. Gordon
of Tennessee, and Mr. Davis of Kentucky.
H.R. 82: Ms. Granger, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Rodriguez,
Mr. Rush, and Ms. Schwartz.
H.R. 144: Mr. Meeks of New York.
H.R. 154: Mr. Sires.
H.R. 179: Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 197: Mr. Wittman, Mrs. Lummis, Mr. Westmoreland, and
Mr. Hensarling.
H.R. 207: Mr. Rooney, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Miller of Florida,
Mr. Reyes, and Mr. Jones.
H.R. 211: Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Holden, and Mr. Payne.
H.R. 235: Mr. Minnick, Mr. Connolly of Virginia, Ms.
Waters, Mrs. Myrick, Ms. Fallin, and Mr. Foster.
H.R. 270: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida.
H.R. 275: Mr. Simpson and Mr. Altmire.
H.R. 301: Mr. Thornberry.
H.R. 302: Mr. Klein of Florida.
H.R. 303: Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of Pennsylvania and Mr.
McHugh.
H.R. 333: Mr. Ortiz and Mr. Walz.
H.R. 347: Ms. McCollum, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr.
Baird, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Tierney, Ms. Bean, Mr.
Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Boozman, Mr.
Boren, Mr. Carney, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Cleaver, Mr.
DeFazio, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Dreier, Mr.
Ellison, Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Engel, Mr. Fortenberry, Mr. Frank
of Massachusetts, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Grayson,

[[Page 9813]]

Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Hall of
Texas, Mr. Holden, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Kagen, Mr.
Kanjorski, Mr. Kind, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kirk, Mr.
Klein of Florida, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Larson of
Connecticut, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Loebsack,
Mrs. Lowey, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Meek of Florida,
Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Mollohan, Mr. Nadler of New York,
Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Obey, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Payne,
Mr. Perlmutter, Mr. Perriello, Mr. Peters, Mr. Radanovich,
Mr. Royce, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Sires, Mr. Teague, Mr. Tiahrt,
Ms. Titus, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Walz, Mr. Watt, Mr. Welch, Mr.
Wexler, and Mr. Wilson of Ohio.
H.R. 415: Mr. Young of Alaska and Mr. Wilson of South
Carolina.
H.R. 422: Ms. Clarke, Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Higgins, Ms.
Granger, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Heller, and
Ms. Eshoo.
H.R. 424: Mr. Lance.
H.R. 442: Mr. Hensarling.
H.R. 444: Ms. Herseth Sandlin, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania,
and Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H.R. 468: Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan.
H.R. 498: Mr. Pitts.
H.R. 503: Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Doyle.
H.R. 520: Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Weiner, and Mr. Hall of New
York.
H.R. 556: Mrs. Tauscher and Ms. Hirono.
H.R. 557: Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California,
and Mr. Luetkemeyer.
H.R. 560: Mr. Neugebauer.
H.R. 574: Mr. LoBiondo.
H.R. 616: Mr. Schiff, Ms. Jenkins, and Ms. Velazquez.
H.R. 708: Mr. Ellsworth and Mr. Jones.
H.R. 745: Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Nye, Mr. Stark, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Putnam,
Mr. Dent, Mr. Mica, and Mr. Pallone.
H.R. 764: Mr. Wittman.
H.R. 775: Mr. Salazar, Mr. Ellsworth, and Mr. Davis of
Tennessee.
H.R. 832: Ms. Velazquez.
H.R. 836: Ms. Giffords, Mr. Campbell, Ms. Markey of
Colorado, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Bartlett, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers,
Mr. Petri, Mr. Bonner, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Alexander, Mr.
Shimkus, Mr. Ross, Mrs. Biggert, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Loebsack,
Mr. Maffei, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Walz, and Mr. Costa.
H.R. 848: Ms. Fudge, Mr. George Miller of California, and
Mr. Wamp.
H.R. 855: Ms. Kosmas.
H.R. 874: Mr. Rush and Ms. DeGette.
H.R. 890: Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 896: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
H.R. 900: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
H.R. 904: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 914: Mr. Latta and Mr. Souder.
H.R. 916: Mr. Bishop of New York.
H.R. 930: Mr. Butterfield.
H.R. 948: Mr. Altmire.
H.R. 959: Mr. Fattah.
H.R. 964: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
H.R. 984: Mr. Filner and Mr. Boucher.
H.R. 988: Mr. Ruppersberger and Mr. Souder.
H.R. 1024: Mr. George Miller of California and Mr.
McDermott.
H.R. 1027: Mr. Jones.
H.R. 1033: Mr. Payne.
H.R. 1050: Mr. Boehner.
H.R. 1061: Mr. Cole.
H.R. 1064: Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 1067: Mr. Bishop of New York.
H.R. 1068: Mr. Braley of Iowa and Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 1074: Mr. Hensarling.
H.R. 1077: Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky,
and Mr. DeFazio.
H.R. 1126: Mr. Polis of Colorado, Mr. Israel, Mr. Johnson
of Georgia, Mr. Gerlach, and Mr. Paulsen.
H.R. 1132: Mr. Higgins and Mrs. Miller of Michigan.
H.R. 1158: Mr. Conaway and Mr. Scott of Georgia.
H.R. 1161: Mr. Wilson of Ohio.
H.R. 1178: Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mrs. Miller
of Michigan, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr.
Brown of South Carolina, Mr. Platts, Mr. Carney, Mr. Pastor
of Arizona, Mr. Coble, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Herseth Sandlin,
Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Gordon of Tennessee,
Mr. Upton, and Mr. Castle.
H.R. 1179: Mrs. Maloney.
H.R. 1180: Mr. Lamborn.
H.R. 1185: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Olver, Mr. Boucher, Mr.
McNerney, and Mr. Sarbanes.
H.R. 1189: Mr. Towns, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Dent,
and Mr. Lewis of Georgia.
H.R. 1193: Mrs. Emerson.
H.R. 1203: Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Miller of
Florida, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr. Deal of Georgia,
Mr. Lucas, Mr. McIntyre, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Souder, Mr. McHugh,
and Mr. Bishop of New York.
H.R. 1205: Mr. Rooney, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Cantor,
Mr. Nunes, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, and Mr.
Campbell.
H.R. 1206: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. Westmoreland, and
Mr. Luetkemeyer.
H.R. 1207: Ms. Fallin, Mr. Smith of Texas, and Mr.
Westmoreland.
H.R. 1208: Mr. Bonner, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California,
Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr.
Westmoreland, and Mr. Luetkemeyer.
H.R. 1209: Mr. Bonner, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Ortiz,
Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Burgess, Mr.
LoBiondo, Mr. Culberson, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida,
Mr. Camp, and Mr. Hunter.
H.R. 1210: Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 1230: Mr. Honda.
H.R. 1242: Mr. Stearns and Ms. Matsui.
H.R. 1243: Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Barrett of South
Carolina, Ms. Berkley, Mrs. Blackburn, Mrs. Bono Mack, Mr.
Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Brown of
South Carolina, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Cao, Mrs. Capps, Mr.
Capuano, Mr. Cardoza, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Chaffetz,
Mr. Childers, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Conaway, Mr.
Connolly of Virginia, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Courtney,
Mr. Cummings, Mrs. Dahlkemper, Mr. Davis of Alabama, Mr.
Davis of Illinois, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Deal of
Georgia, Ms. DeGette, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Dent, Mr. Doyle, Mr.
Ehlers, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Engel, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Faleomavaega,
Mr. Foster, Mr. Mack, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Markey of
Massachusetts, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr. Melancon,
Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr.
Neugebauer, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Obey, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Pastor of
Arizona, Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Pierluisi, Mr.
Pomeroy, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Radanovich,
Mr. Rangel, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr.
Scalise, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Snyder, Mr.
Stark, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Towns, Ms. Waters, Mr.
Welch, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Herger,
Ms. Herseth Sandlin, Ms. Fudge, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey,
Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Hall of New York,
Mr. Hare, Ms. Harman, Mr. Higgins, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson
of Texas, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Kilroy, Mr. Kissell,
Mr. Klein of Florida, Mr. Lance, Mr. Lee of New York, Mr.
Daniel E. Lungren of California, Mr. Lynch, Mrs. McCarthy of
New York, Mr. McCarthy of California, Mr. McClintock, Ms.
McCollum, Mr. McDermott, and Mr. McIntyre.
H.R. 1250: Mr. Tiberi, Mr. Sestak, Ms. Slaughter, Mr.
Platts, Mr. Blunt, and Mr. Paulsen.
H.R. 1269: Mr. Marshall.
H.R. 1283: Mr. Doggett.
H.R. 1294: Mr. Heller, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. Smith of
Nebraska, and Mr. Paulsen.
H.R. 1298: Mr. Wolf and Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 1300: Mr. Smith of Nebraska.
H.R. 1305: Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 1308: Mr. Himes, Mr. Young of Florida, Mr. Filner, Mr.
Schiff, Mr. Rodriguez, and Mr. Minnick.
H.R. 1310: Ms. Matsui, Mrs. Lowey, and Mr. Lipinski.
H.R. 1313: Mr. Rehberg.
H.R. 1318: Mr. Berman.
H.R. 1324: Mr. Kind, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Schauer,
Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Sablan, and Ms. Matsui.
H.R. 1335: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Pastor of Arizona, Mr.
Grijalva, Mr. Boccieri, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Adler of New
Jersey, and Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 1349: Mr. Dicks.
H.R. 1350: Mr. Souder.
H.R. 1351: Mr. Pascrell.
H.R. 1352: Mr. Spratt, Mr. Graves, Mr. Bonner, Mr.
Bartlett, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr. Wilson of South
Carolina, and Mr. Terry.
H.R. 1380: Mr. Gordon of Tennessee, Mr. Olver, Ms. Matsui,
and Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H.R. 1386: Ms. Giffords.
H.R. 1389: Mr. Bishop of New York.
H.R. 1392: Mr. Sessions.
H.R. 1398: Mr. McIntyre.
H.R. 1403: Mr. Souder.
H.R. 1414: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida.
H.R. 1433: Mr. Israel.
H.R. 1443: Mr. Stark, Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Polis of Colorado,
Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Ms. Schwartz,
Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Woolsey, and Mr. Lipinski.
H.R. 1449: Mr. Gordon of Tennessee, Mr. Upton, Ms. Kaptur,
and Mr. Ehlers.
H.R. 1454: Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Souder, Mr. Barrett of South
Carolina, Mr. Mack, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, and Mr.
Coble.
H.R. 1458: Mr. Gordon of Tennessee.
H.R. 1470: Mr. Souder and Mr. Latta.
H.R. 1483: Mr. Thompson of California.
H.R. 1499: Mr. Souder.
H.R. 1509: Mr. Latta.
H.R. 1521: Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Rehberg, and Mr.
Latta.
H.R. 1548: Mr. Price of North Carolina.
H.R. 1550: Mr. Clay.
H.R. 1551: Mr. Payne and Mr. Honda.
H.R. 1558: Mr. Kildee and Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H.R. 1584: Mr. Brown of South Carolina and Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 1585: Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Honda.
H.R. 1587: Mr. Schauer, Mr. Sessions, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr.
McKeon, Mr. McCotter, and Mr. Massa.
H.R. 1588: Mr. McCarthy of California.
H.R. 1604: Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Wu, Mr. Ellison,
Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr.

[[Page 9814]]

Peterson, Mr. Berman, and Mr. Rothman of New Jersey.
H.R. 1605: Ms. Moore of Wisconsin and Mr. McMahon.
H.R. 1612: Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Inslee, Ms. Bordallo, and
Mr. Holt.
H.R. 1615: Mr. Chaffetz.
H.R. 1616: Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Sarbanes, and Ms. Waters.
H.R. 1621: Mr. Miller of Florida.
H.R. 1622: Mr. Burgess and Mr. Massa.
H.R. 1646: Ms. Bordallo.
H.R. 1662: Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Davis of Tennessee, Mr.
Carnahan, Mr. Donnelly of Indiana, Mr. Carney, Mr.
Perlmutter, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Shuler, Mrs. McCarthy of New
York, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Miller of
North Carolina, Mr. Israel, Mr. Mollohan, Mr. Holt, Mr.
Hastings of Florida, Mr. Boren, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr.
Baca, and Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
H.R. 1671: Mr. Baird, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Goodlatte, and Mr.
Gene Green of Texas.
H.R. 1673: Mr. Wamp.
H.R. 1677: Ms. Sutton, Ms. Tsongas, Mr. Tonko, and Mr.
Filner.
H.R. 1681: Mr. Courtney and Mr. Filner.
H.R. 1683: Mr. DeFazio.
H.R. 1685: Mr. Payne.
H.R. 1686: Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 1689: Mr. Souder.
H.R. 1690: Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 1701: Mr. Platts.
H.R. 1710: Mr. Connolly of Virginia, Mr. Gordon of
Tennessee, Mr. Carson of Indiana, and Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H.R. 1723: Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan, Mr. Serrano, Mr.
Sablan, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Ms. DeLauro, Ms. Schakowsky,
and Ms. Lee of California.
H.R. 1737: Mr. Meeks of New York.
H.R. 1740: Mr. Wittman, Mr. Visclosky, Mr. McHugh, Mr.
Whitfield, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Bishop of Georgia,
and Mr. Young of Florida.
H.R. 1744: Mr. Boozman, Mr. Reyes, Mrs. Bachmann, Ms. Foxx,
Mr. Wamp, Mr. Blunt, and Mr. Coble.
H.R. 1749: Ms. Eshoo.
H.R. 1762: Ms. Giffords and Mr. Franks of Arizona.
H.R. 1764: Ms. Clarke.
H.R. 1778: Mr. Connolly of Virginia and Ms. DeGette.
H.R. 1799: Mr. Westmoreland and Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 1800: Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 1802: Mr. Heller and Mr. Burton of Indiana.
H.R. 1805: Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, Mr. Marchant, Mr.
Bartlett, and Mr. Burton of Indiana.
H.R. 1814: Mr. Gingrey of Georgia and Mr. Marchant.
H.R. 1815: Ms. Foxx, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr.
Rogers of Kentucky, and Mrs. Bono Mack.
H.R. 1829: Ms. Roybal-Allard.
H.R. 1831: Mr. Nunes, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Tanner,
Mr. Simpson, and Mr. Welch.
H.R. 1836: Mr. Nye.
H.R. 1844: Mr. Wolf.
H.R. 1846: Mr. Minnick.
H.R. 1864: Mr. McKeon, Mr. Bishop of Utah, and Mr. Coffman
of Colorado.
H.J. Res. 41: Mr. Hoekstra and Mr. Marchant.
H. Con. Res. 29: Mr. Gerlach.
H. Con. Res. 48: Mr. Welch, Mr. Kind, Mrs. Davis of
California, and Mrs. Dahlkemper.
H. Con. Res. 49: Mr. Heller, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Stearns, Mr.
Ruppersberger, Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Space, Ms. Fallin, Mr.
Chandler, Mr. Andrews, and Mr. Lamborn.
H. Con. Res. 92: Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H. Res. 20: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
H. Res. 42: Mr. Young of Alaska.
H. Res. 65: Mr. Cohen.
H. Res. 111: Mr. Foster.
H. Res. 130: Mr. Payne, Mr. Costa, and Mr. Pascrell.
H. Res. 159: Ms. Moore of Wisconsin and Ms. DeLauro.
H. Res. 191: Mr. Campbell.
H. Res. 204: Mr. Gordon of Tennessee, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, Mr. Souder, Mr. Young of Alaska, and Mr.
Jones.
H. Res. 208: Mr. McHenry.
H. Res. 244: Mr. Souder.
H. Res. 245: Mr. Moore of Kansas and Mr. Terry.
H. Res. 248: Mrs. Capito.
H. Res. 252: Mr. Roskam, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Frelinghuysen,
Mr. Cleaver, and Ms. Roybal-Allard.
H. Res. 260: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania.
H. Res. 274: Mr. Kagen, Mr. Conyers, and Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts.
H. Res. 283: Mr. Lamborn.
H. Res. 293: Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, Mr.
Payne, Mr. Sires, Mr. Lance, and Mr. Rothman of New Jersey.
H. Res. 299: Mr. Farr, Mr. Filner, Ms. Kilpatrick of
Michigan, Mr. Clay, and Ms. Norton.
H. Res. 300: Mr. Rangel and Mr. Welch.
H. Res. 301: Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr.
Grijalva, and Mr. Boren.
H. Res. 309: Mr. Sires and Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
H. Res. 311: Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Ross, and Mr. Ellison.

____________________

DELETIONS OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

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

H.R. 265: Mr. Bishop of Utah.

____________________

PETITIONS, ETC.

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

23. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the Township of
Irvington, New Jersey, relative to Resolution MC 09-0210-8 In
Support of and Recommending for Consideration Certain
Legislative Initiatives To Be Included Within the Pending
Federal Economic Stimulus Plan; to the Committee on Education
and Labor.
24. Also, a petition of the Legislature of Rockland County,
New York, relative to Resolution No. 87 of 2009 Requesting
That The United States House of Representatives and Senate
Create, Introduce And Pass Legislation That Would Direct the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) To Amend 10 CFR Part 54
of The Commission's Regulations (Requirements For Renewal of
Operating Licenses For Nuclear Power Plants) To Include The
Criteria Used In Licensing A Power Plant; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
25. Also, a petition of the City of North Miami Beach,
Florida, relative to Resolution No. R2009-14 Expressing
Opposition to and Strong Concerns Regarding Senate Bill 630
and Similar Legislation That Would Impose a Moratorium on the
Collection of Impact Fees By Local Governments; jointly to
the Committees on the Judiciary and Energy and Commerce.

[[Page 9815]]

SENATE--Thursday, April 2, 2009

The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Mark L. Pryor, a Senator from the State of Arkansas.
______

prayer

The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Eternal Spirit, whose inward presence means cleansing, forgiveness,
peace, and power, dissolve the barriers that keep our souls from You.
Remove from our lawmakers the self-sufficiency that ignores their need
of You and make their hearts receptive to Your plans. Lord, bestow upon
them special gifts of wisdom and understanding that they may uphold
what is right and follow what is true. Increase their faith, strengthen
their judgment, and quicken their zeal for integrity and honor. Spirit
of the living God, fall afresh on them. Radiate Your hope through their
labors, as they expect to see Your best for our Nation and world.
We pray in Your sacred Name. Amen.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

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

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

____________________

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

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

U.S. Senate,

President pro tempore,

Washington, DC, April 2, 2009.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Mark L. Pryor, a Senator from the State of Arkansas, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.

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

____________________

RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

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

____________________

SCHEDULE

Mr. REID. Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will
resume consideration of the budget resolution. Of the statutory time
allotted to the budget resolution, 1\1/2\ hours remains. Upon the use
or yielding back of that time, the Senate will proceed to a series of
votes in relation to the pending amendments and any other amendments
offered to the budget resolution. We expect those votes will occur
around 11:30 a.m., give or take a few minutes.
Under an agreement reached last night, there will be 2 minutes for
debate equally divided prior to each vote. Each vote after the first
vote will be 10 minutes in duration. Senators should expect rollcall
votes throughout the day and maybe even into the evening. Once we
start, we have to finish this budget resolution. I encourage Senators
to stay here. The first vote will be 15 minutes. After that, there will
be 10-minute votes, and we are going to enforce that time. If Members
are not here, they will not be counted. The clerks are going to be
instructed to turn the votes in very quickly.

____________________

JOHN McCAIN

Mr. REID. Mr. President, let me take a minute to say something
because of my friend, John McCain. Every day I come and open the
Senate, we give the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. We do that
because of the country and what that flag stands for. But I was struck
today having John McCain in the Chamber. Really, he is representative
of what that flag is all about--someone who not only comes from a
lineage of people who have served our country, but this good man has
served our country in so many different ways.
We came to Washington together in 1982. We came to the Senate
together in 1986. I can remember while I was still in the House of
Representatives I attended a prayer breakfast, and Senator McCain was
the presenter. I cannot do justice and I will not even try to describe
the presentation he made about a Christmas celebration they had when he
was a prisoner of war. He spent so much time in solitary confinement.
He could have left the prison much earlier. He would not do that
because his comrades were still there.
We take a lot of things for granted. Even though John McCain and I
have disagreed on occasion on things political, one thing that will
always be in my mind and my heart is people such as John McCain who
represent what our country is all about.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER

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

____________________

JOHN McCAIN

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the majority leader said it well. No
one has done more for his country than John McCain. We are all
privileged to be able to serve with him in the Senate.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank both leaders. I thank my friend
from Nevada. He and I came to the House of Representatives together
many years ago. I thank him for his leadership. As he mentioned, we
have strong disagreements from time to time, but we have always made a
strong effort--and I think successfully--to remain respectful of each
other's views. I appreciate his kind words today and that of the
Republican leader. I thank them.

____________________

THE BUDGET

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, anyone who turned on C-SPAN2 over the
past 2 weeks could be excused for wondering what has been going on here
in the Capitol. Most people outside Washington do not know much about
reconciliation instructions or points of order. But behind the
legislative lingo, an extremely important debate has been taking place
on the Senate floor. It is a debate about the future of our country.
And in the course of that debate, two very different philosophies have
emerged. On one side are those who think American lives will improve in
direct proportion to the size of the Federal Government; that the
answer to all the challenges we face as a nation is to just simply
follow Europe, where people look to the government for almost
everything from the cradle to the grave. On the other side are those
who think Government has an important role to play in keeping people
safe and creating the conditions in which Americans can succeed and
that Government can also play a role in helping people weather
temporary or permanent troubles and even to provide temporary help to
private institutions if the failure of those institutions imperils the
well-being of the whole.
But in all these areas, the role of Government is limited. Liberty
and freedom are primary. The first group defends the administration's
budget proposal which we first saw a couple of months ago and which
outlines the administration's vision for America over

[[Page 9816]]

the next several years. The second group has warned about the
consequences of the budget, which calls for a dramatic and potentially
irreversible shift of our Nation to the left in the areas of health
care, education, and private enterprise, and which in order to get
there imposes the biggest tax hike in history, massive spending, and a
titanic amount of debt our children and grandchildren will have to pay
back.
This is a debate that has been worth tuning in to because its outcome
affects absolutely everyone. So I would like to highlight just a couple
of things we have seen over the course of this debate that everyone
should know.
The first thing people should know is the one thing that many already
do know: The administration's budget simply taxes too much, spends too
much, and borrows too much at a moment, interestingly enough, when we
can least afford it. There is good reason to believe the American
people agree. Several of the amendments Republicans have proposed
adding to the budget as a way of protecting American businesses and
families have been approved by wide, bipartisan margins.
The American people cannot afford new taxes, and that is why Senators
approved the Johanns amendment yesterday, an amendment which forces an
open debate on the budget's proposal for a massive new national energy
tax that would hit every American family by up to $3,100 a year. As the
senior Senator from Missouri put it on Tuesday, ``Families are
struggling to make ends meet, unable to pay their mortgage, bills or
debts . . . We should oppose an energy tax.''
The junior Senator from Nevada also knows Americans cannot afford
having their taxes raised, especially in a recession. That is why he
offered an amendment yesterday that would make it harder to raise taxes
on middle-class couples. As he put it, ``Americans are struggling to
pay for life's essentials . . . What we should be discussing is
extending tax relief,'' not raising taxes. This is common sense. His
amendment passed.
The junior Senator from Texas knows that business owners cannot
afford a tax hike. That is why he offered an amendment that would make
it harder for Democrats to raise taxes on small businesses. This is
also common sense. His amendment also was adopted overwhelmingly.
Americans know the trouble they get into when they spend money they
do not have, and they do not want Government to spend money it does not
have. That is why the junior Senator from Alabama came to the floor
Monday and lamented the lack of fiscal responsibility in this budget.
The American people are worried about the size of the national debt,
and they are worried about a budget that doubles that debt in 5 years
and triples it in 10--a budget that adds more debt in 5 years than the
entire debt accumulated under every President from George Washington
through George W. Bush. The senior Senator from Tennessee is worried
about the size of the debt too, and that is why he offered an amendment
to keep the growth of that debt relative to the GDP in check. As he put
it on the Senate floor on Tuesday:

This is not a matter of not letting the horse get out of
the barn. This recognizes that the horse is already out of
the barn and we're trying to put a fence around him before he
gets into the next country.

Democrats rejected that amendment too.
Throughout this debate, Americans have started to focus a lot on the
national debt, and they have heard some troubling things.
If they were listening Tuesday, they would have heard a very
illuminating discussion on the topic between the senior Senator from
Tennessee and the senior Senator from New Hampshire. The senior Senator
from New Hampshire said that at the end of this budget, every American
household will have an obligation relative to the Federal debt of
$133,000--$133,000 per household. The senior Senator from Tennessee
asked who holds that debt. The answer, of course, is that China is the
primary holder of that debt, along with Russia and oil-producing
nations in the Middle East.
Americans are worried about more Government spending, higher taxes,
and higher debt that we may never be able to repay, and a lot of groups
that represent these Americans are amassing against these things.
Groups opposed to this budget include the National Association of
Manufacturers, the Tax Relief Coalition, the American Conservative
Union, Americans for Prosperity, Citizens Against Government Waste, the
Club for Growth, the Council on National Policy, Associated Builders
and Contractors, Independent Electric Contractors, International
Foodservice Distributors Administration, and the National Association
of Wholesaler-Distributors. These groups represent millions of small
business owners, independent contractors, and millions of ordinary
Americans who do not want to see their dreams fade away because of
someone else's vision of what Government should do for them.
Americans want the freedom to do for themselves, and they worry
freedom may slip away if this budget passes in its current form. They
cannot afford a new national energy tax that could cost every American
household up to $3,100 a year. They do not want to have to pay for
250,000 bureaucrats who will be needed just to spend the money this
budget wants to spend. And they do not want their children literally
buried in debt. What Americans want is for Republicans and Democrats to
work together to craft a budget that let's them keep their hard-earned
wages, spends their tax dollars wisely, and does not saddle their
children and grandchildren with debt. That is what they have not seen
this week.
What they also will not see are the backdoor negotiations where the
chairman of the Budget Committee, the senior Senator from North Dakota,
has said he will strip out many of these good amendments we have
adopted this week and where some budget writers intend to fast track a
massive new energy tax even though we passed an amendment to keep that
from happening. Americans oppose this energy tax. And if the senior
Senator from North Dakota has as much influence over the outcome of the
budget as I hope he does, then he will make sure that the will of the
Senate and the American people is reflected in the final product. I
hope he will make sure that a new national energy tax costing American
households up to $3,100 a year is not rushed through Congress on a
party-line vote.
So the drama that has unfolded in the Senate put two very different
philosophies on display. It showed Republicans fighting to keep our
Nation from an irreversible drift to the left, and it showed some
Democrats agreeing to some of our proposals. But the proof of their
commitment is in the final product--what finally comes out of
conference.
This debate isn't over with the passage of this budget today, and
Republicans are not finished fighting on behalf of the priorities of
the American people--not even close.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.

____________________

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

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

____________________

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR
2010

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 13, which the clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels
for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2011.

Pending:

Ensign amendment No. 805, to require certain higher income
beneficiaries enrolled in the Medicare prescription drug
benefit to pay higher premiums, as is currently required for
physicians' services and outpatient services, and as proposed
in the

[[Page 9817]]

budget of the U.S. Government most recently submitted by the
President.
McCain amendment No. 882, in the nature of a substitute.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there is
90 minutes of debate remaining on the resolution, of which 40 minutes
is for the debate of amendment No. 882, offered by the Senator from
Arizona, Mr. McCain.
The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am going to respond briefly to the
Republican leader and then we will go to the McCain amendment.
First of all, I have just listened to remarks that are an attempt to
rewrite history. Trying to put this deficit and this debt at the door
of our new President is simply misplaced. He inherited a debt that was
doubled over the last 8 years, and most of my friends on the other side
were silent sentinels as that debt grew and grew and grew. Most of them
said nothing; worse, they supported the policies that created that
doubling of the debt. Beyond that, they tripled foreign holdings of
U.S. debt and left the country in the worst recession since the Great
Depression. This President inherited a crisis in the financial markets,
a crisis in housing, a fiscal crisis, and two wars.
The budget that is before us is not as described by the Republican
leader. The budget before us reduces the deficit by two-thirds over the
5 years of its term. In fact, as a share of GDP--which most economists
say ought to be the measuring point because it excludes inflation--we
reduce the deficit by three-quarters, all while maintaining the
President's key priorities of reducing our dependence on foreign
energy. That is not just a Presidential priority, that is an American
priority. If we are going to be strong in the future, we have to
dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign energy.
On education, there is a focus on excellence in education. If we are
not the best educated, we are not going to be the strongest country in
the world very long.
The prospect of major health care reform, which is provided for in
this budget, is the 800-pound gorilla. We are now spending $1 of every
$6 in this country on health care. If we stay on the current trend, we
will spend more than $1 of every $3 in this country on health care.
That is utterly unsustainable.
They describe the budget of the President as having all these tax
increases. I would remind my colleagues that when the Congressional
Budget Office scores the President's budget, they say there is $2.2
trillion in tax cuts. If they look at the budget I have offered, which
is a 5-year budget instead of a 10-year budget, it has $825 billion in
tax cuts on a net basis. As I say, all while cutting the deficit in
half, which was the President's goal. In the President's budget and the
budget I have offered, we cut it by two-thirds.
Now, on spending. Well, on spending, the hard fact is, the budget I
have offered reduces deficits and debt by $608 billion compared to the
President's budget, on a 5-year comparison to a 5-year comparison. We
reduce it by $608 billion in the budget that is before us. And on
spending, we increase domestic spending, on average, by 2\1/2\ percent
a year. Believe me, I have heard lots of criticism from the left with
respect to the fact that is not enough. But when you lose $2.3 trillion
in revenue because of the new CBO forecast, we felt it was necessary to
make adjustments in the President's budget while maintaining his
priorities.
Now, in terms of middle-class tax relief, which is contained in this
budget, let me be clear that all the provisions from 2001 and 2003 are
included in this budget. The 10-percent bracket, the child tax credit,
the marriage penalty relief, the education incentives--all of it--is in
this budget and an extension for the full 5 years.
In addition, the President's Make Work Pay provision was previously
provided for in the stimulus package for 2 years, and we provide the
ability to extend that, if there are offsets. In addition, we have
provided for alternative minimum tax reform, fully funded for 3 years.
No other budgets in the last 5 years have done it for that long. It has
always been a year-by-year fix.
On estate tax reform, we take the provisions from 2009 and extend
them for 2010--a $3.5 million exemption per person, $7 million per
family. Instead of going back to $1 million in 2011, we continue that
$3.5 million exclusion per person, $7 million per couple, adjusted for
inflation.
We also provide for the business tax provisions and the extenders
fully paid for. That is a total of almost a trillion dollars of tax
relief, offset by certain loophole closers to go after these abusive
tax shelters--these offshore tax havens. We have the spectacle now of
companies buying European sewer systems, not because they are in the
sewer business but in order to depreciate them on their books for U.S.
tax purposes. That is outrageous--United States companies buying
European sewer systems so they can write them off on their books here,
and then they lease them back to the European cities that built them in
the first place.
The guys who came up with these scams didn't limit themselves to
sewer systems. They are doing the same thing with public buildings and
city halls. We have companies that have bought city halls in Europe in
order to depreciate them on their books in the United States and then
lease the city halls back to the European countries that built them in
the first place. Is that acceptable? I don't think so. The President in
his budget and we in our budget say: Enough of that. Let's shut down
these abusive tax shelters. Let's shut down these offshore tax havens,
which our Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations tells us is costing
us $100 billion a year.
If anybody wonders about it, read the Stanford saga. Mr. Stanford was
running these offshore tax havens; running billions of dollars through
these offshore tax havens. Why? Why are they sending their money down
to the Cayman Islands? Is it because they think the banks down there
are more secure? Oh, no. They are sending their money down there to
dodge the tax liability in the United States. That is the basis upon
which Mr. Stanford sold his services.
On a net basis, our budget has $825 billion in tax cuts. Again, on
spending, domestic spending increased at an average rate of 2\1/2\
percent a year. That is pretty tough.
In our proposal, in the budget before the body, there is no energy
tax. There is none contained here. This reference to a national sales
tax on energy, it is not in this budget proposal. It is not there. We
have a reserve fund that permits the committees of jurisdiction to come
up with a way of reducing our dependence on foreign energy. We have the
ability for the committees of jurisdiction to write climate change
legislation. But there is no endorsement of any specific plan in this
budget around climate change that has been posited by others.
I wish to make clear that this budget is responsible, it controls
spending, it reduces the deficit by two-thirds, it extends the middle-
class tax cuts, and it adopts the President's priorities of reducing
our dependence on foreign energy, putting a focus on excellence in
education and providing the possibility of major health care reform.
Those are the priorities of the American people, and they are contained
in our budget.
Our budget has made significant adjustments from the President's.
Again, over 5 years, we have reduced the deficit and debt in the
President's proposal by $608 billion.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is
recognized.

Amendment No. 882, as Modified

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the McCain
substitute amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the chairman
in allowing me to do this modification. I am aware it could have been
objected to, and I would like to say that the sense-of-the-Senate
provision is removed because I believe that sense-of-

[[Page 9818]]

the-Senate resolutions are not done this year in the budget resolution.
There was a formula glitch that affected some of the funding levels. We
have corrected the problem in the modification. We have corrected
budget authority and spending levels.
I thank my friend for allowing me to make this modification.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment has been modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2010.

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

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Social Security.
Sec. 103. Major functional categories.

TITLE II--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 201. Deficit-reducing reserve funds for entitlement commissions--
Social Security and Medicare & Medicaid.
Sec. 202. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for comprehensive healthcare
reform.
Sec. 203. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for America's veterans and
wounded servicemembers.
Sec. 204. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for energy security.
Sec. 205. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for tax code modernization.
Sec. 206. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for defense acquisition and
contracting reform.
Sec. 207. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for a bipartisan, comprehensive
investigation into the current financial crisis.

TITLE III--BUDGET PROCESS

Subtitle A--Budget Enforcement

Sec. 301. Discretionary spending limits, program integrity initiatives,
and other adjustments.
Sec. 302. Point of order against advance appropriations.
Sec. 303. Emergency legislation.
Sec. 304. Point of order against legislation increasing short-term
deficit.

Subtitle B--Other Provisions

Sec. 311. Oversight of government performance.
Sec. 312. Budgetary treatment of certain discretionary administrative
Expenses.
Sec. 313. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.
Sec. 314. Adjustments to reflect changes in concepts and definitions.
Sec. 315. Exercise of rulemaking powers.
Sec. 316. Cost estimates for conference reports and other measures.
Sec. 317. Limitation on long-term spending proposals
Sec. 318. Revenues collected from closing the tax gap are used only for
debt reduction.
Sec. 319. Point of order to save Social Security first.
Sec. 320. Point of order against a budget resolution containing a debt-
held-by-the-Public-to-GDP ratio that exceeds 65%.
Sec. 321. Point of order against a budget resolution containing deficit
levels exceeding 8% of GDP.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2009 through 2014:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $2,186,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2010: $2,332,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2011: $2,651,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2012: $2,858,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2013: $3,025,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2014: $3,166,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2015: $3,329,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2016: $3,470,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2017: $3,625,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2018: $3,771,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2019: $3,923,000,000,000
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $0
Fiscal year 2010: -$3,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2011: -$132,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2012: -$228,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2013: -$257,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2014: -$269,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2015: -$280,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2016: -$291,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2017: -$302,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2018: -$313,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2019: -$325,000,000,000
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $3,672,991,000,000
Fiscal year 2010: $2,843,271,000,000
Fiscal year 2011: $2,733,991,000,000
Fiscal year 2012: $2,700,845,000,000
Fiscal year 2013: $2,828,619,000,000
Fiscal year 2014: $2,951,763,000,000
Fiscal year 2015: $3,044,960,000,000
Fiscal year 2016: $3,167,613,000,000
Fiscal year 2017: $3,238,948,000,000
Fiscal year 2018: $3,319,833,000,000
Fiscal year 2019: $3,472,009,000,000
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $3,360,034,000,000
Fiscal year 2010: $2,971,983,000,000
Fiscal year 2011: $2,875,771,000,000
Fiscal year 2012: $2,752,996,000,000
Fiscal year 2013: $2,846,991,000,000
Fiscal year 2014: $2,943,836,000,000
Fiscal year 2015: $3,027,078,000,000
Fiscal year 2016: $3,150,051,000,000
Fiscal year 2017: $3,214,230,000,000
Fiscal year 2018: $3,289,783,000,000
Fiscal year 2019: $3,445,611,000,000
(4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this
resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: -$1,693,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2010: -$1,190,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2011: -$798,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2012: -$502,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2013: -$477,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2014: -$484,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2015: -$459,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2016: -$503,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2017: -$481,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2018: -$484,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2019: -$448,000,000,000
(5) Public debt.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate levels of
the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $11,836,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2010: $13,255,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2011: $14,321,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2012: $15,194,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2013: $16,074,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2014: $16,943,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2015: $17,774,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2016: $18,630,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2017: $19,470,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2018: $20,318,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2019: $21,093,000,000,000
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $7,496,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2010: $8,686,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2011: $9,484,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2012: $9,986,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2013: $10,464,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2014: $10,948,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2015: $11,407,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2016: $11,910,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2017: $12,391,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2018: $12,875,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2019: $13,323,000,000,000

SEC. 102. SOCIAL SECURITY.

(a) Social Security Revenues.--For purposes of Senate
enforcement under sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of revenues of the Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal
Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $654,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2010: $682,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2011: $719,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2012: $756,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2013: $803,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2014: $842,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2015: $879,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2016: $925,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2017: $962,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2018: $1,004,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2019: $1,048,000,000,000
(b) Social Security Outlays.--For purposes of Senate
enforcement under sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of outlays of the Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal
Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:
Fiscal year 2009: $662,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2010: $695,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2011: $721,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2012: $749,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2013: $790,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2014: $839,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2015: $891,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2016: $948,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2017: $1,008,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2018: $1,072,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2019: $1,141,000,000,000

SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2009 through 2019 for each major functional category are:
(1) National defense (050):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $689,926,000,000
(B) Outlays, $666,842,000,000
Fiscal year 2010:

[[Page 9819]]

(A) New budget authority, $686,128,000,000
(B) Outlays, $689,963,000,000
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $614,923,000,000
(B) Outlays, $657,207,000,000
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $623,612,000,000
(B) Outlays, $637,011,000,000
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $634,421,000,000
(B) Outlays, $636,332,000,000
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $648,249,000,000
(B) Outlays, $641,632,000,000
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $663,159,000,000
(B) Outlays, $653,234,000,000
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $678,149,000,000
(B) Outlays, $671,890,000,000
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $694,153,000,000
(B) Outlays, $683,256,000,000
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $709,147,000,000
(B) Outlays, $693,789,000,000
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $726,167,000,000
(B) Outlays, $714,089,000,000
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $57,114,000,000
(B) Outlays, $41,514,000,000
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $42,847,000,000
(B) Outlays, $43,622,000,000
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $43,167,000,000
(B) Outlays, $43,897,000,000
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $43,473,000,000
(B) Outlays, $43,985,000,000
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $43,759,000,000
(B) Outlays, $43,911,000,000
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $44,214,000,000
(B) Outlays, $43,866,000,000
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $44,847,000,000
(B) Outlays, $44,257,000,000
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $45,621,000,000
(B) Outlays, $44,870,000,000
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $46,430,000,000
(B) Outlays, $45,575,000,000
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $47,211,000,000
(B) Outlays, $46,301,000,000
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $48,084,000,000
(B) Outlays, $47,105,000,000
(3) General science, space, and technology (250):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $35,264,000,000
(B) Outlays, $30,855,000,000
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $29,780,000,000
(B) Outlays, $31,707,000,000
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $30,007,000,000
(B) Outlays, $31,161,000,000
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $30,231,000,000
(B) Outlays, $30,214,000,000
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $30,432,000,000
(B) Outlays, $30,312,000,000
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $30,758,000,000
(B) Outlays, $30,584,000,000
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $30,703,000,000
(B) Outlays, $30,417,000,000
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $31,748,000,000
(B) Outlays, $31,359,000,000
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $32,319,000,000
(B) Outlays, $31,984,000,000
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $32,872,000,000
(B) Outlays, $32,446,000,000
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $33,484,000,000
(B) Outlays, $33,028,000,000
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $44,998,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,350,000,000
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $5,568,000,000
(B) Outlays, $8,974,000,000
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $5,582,000,000
(B) Outlays, $11,303,000,000
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $5,459,000,000
(B) Outlays, $11,999,000,000
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $5,319,000,000
(B) Outlays, $7,091,000,000
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $5,175,000,000
(B) Outlays, $2,082,000,000
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $5,212,000,000
(B) Outlays, $3,214,000,000
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $5,325,000,000
(B) Outlays, $3,512,000,000
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $5,478,000,000
(B) Outlays, $3,765,000,000
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $5,567,000,000
(B) Outlays, $3,905,000,000
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $5,595,000,000
(B) Outlays, $4,502,000,000
(5) Natural resources and environment (300):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $54,596,000,000
(B) Outlays, $36,252,000,000
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $35,085,000,000
(B) Outlays, $38,866,000,000
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $35,772,000,000
(B) Outlays, $37,713,000,000
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $35,952,000,000
(B) Outlays, $36,983,000,000
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $36,160,000,000
(B) Outlays, $36,478,000,000
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $36,465,000,000
(B) Outlays, $36,631,000,000
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $36,714,000,000
(B) Outlays, $36,712,000,000
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $37,002,000,000
(B) Outlays, $36,845,000,000
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $37,312,000,000
(B) Outlays, $36,917,000,000
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $37,602,000,000
(B) Outlays, $36,923,000,000
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $37,952,000,000
(B) Outlays, $37,215,000,000
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $6,349,000,000
(B) Outlays, $6,111,000,000
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $6,131,000,000
(B) Outlays, $6,217,000,000
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $6,150,000,000
(B) Outlays, $6,133,000,000
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $6,205,000,000
(B) Outlays, $6,159,000,000
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $6,261,000,000
(B) Outlays, $6,207,000,000
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $6,319,000,000
(B) Outlays, $6,261,000,000
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $6,359,000,000
(B) Outlays, $6,275,000,000
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $6,402,000,000
(B) Outlays, $6,312,000,000
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $6,455,000,000
(B) Outlays, $6,345,000,000
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $6,507,000,000
(B) Outlays, $6,401,000,000
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $6,601,000,000
(B) Outlays, $6,532,000,000
(7) Commerce and housing credit (370):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $13,216,000,000
(B) Outlays, $6,253,000,000
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $6,197,000,000
(B) Outlays, $8,977,000,000
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $6,055,000,000
(B) Outlays, $6,847,000,000
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $6,097,000,000
(B) Outlays, $7,436,000,000
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $5,982,000,000
(B) Outlays, $7,180,000,000
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $5,909,000,000
(B) Outlays, $6,250,000,000
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $5,860,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,915,000,000
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $5,855,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,748,000,000
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $5,839,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,730,000,000
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $5,814,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,701,000,000
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $5,793,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,675,000,000
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $79,061,000,000
(B) Outlays, $85,668,000,000
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $30,312,000,000
(B) Outlays, $92,847,000,000
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $30,717,000,000
(B) Outlays, $93,051,000,000
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $31,140,000,000
(B) Outlays, $92,082,000,000
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $31,544,000,000
(B) Outlays, $92,110,000,000
Fiscal year 2014:

[[Page 9820]]

(A) New budget authority, $32,105,000,000
(B) Outlays, $92,296,000,000
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $32,806,000,000
(B) Outlays, $91,863,000,000
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $33,656,000,000
(B) Outlays, $90,792,000,000
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $34,545,000,000
(B) Outlays, $90,908,000,000
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $35,432,000,000
(B) Outlays, $92,372,000,000
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $36,385,000,000
(B) Outlays, $93,932,000,000
(9) Community and regional development (450):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $23,006,000,000
(B) Outlays, $26,252,000,000
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $14,959,000,000
(B) Outlays, $26,337,000,000
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $15,070,000,000
(B) Outlays, $24,669,000,000
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $15,179,000,000
(B) Outlays, $21,493,000,000
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $15,277,000,000
(B) Outlays, $18,981,000,000
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $15,435,000,000
(B) Outlays, $17,445,000,000
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $15,662,000,000
(B) Outlays, $16,156,000,000
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $15,932,000,000
(B) Outlays, $15,504,000,000
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $16,215,000,000
(B) Outlays, $15,664,000,000
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $16,481,000,000
(B) Outlays, $15,911,000,000
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $16,787,000,000
(B) Outlays, $16,153,000,000
(10) Education, training, employment, and social services
(500):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $188,508,000,000
(B) Outlays, $94,814,000,000
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $89,417,000,000
(B) Outlays, $138,899,000,000
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $90,007,000,000
(B) Outlays, $127,810,000,000
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $90,588,000,000
(B) Outlays, $98,331,000,000
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $91,092,000,000
(B) Outlays, $94,666,000,000
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $91,948,000,000
(B) Outlays, $94,142,000,000
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $93,164,000,000
(B) Outlays, $95,075,000,000
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $94,657,000,000
(B) Outlays, $96,402,000,000
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $96,235,000,000
(B) Outlays, $97,938,000,000
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $97,739,000,000
(B) Outlays, $99,507,000,000
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $99,415,000,000
(B) Outlays, $101,130,000,000
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $75,483,000,000
(B) Outlays, $57,635,000,000
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $56,948,000,000
(B) Outlays, $64,243,000,000
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $57,413,000,000
(B) Outlays, $62,603,000,000
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $57,881,000,000
(B) Outlays, $59,451,000,000
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $58,305,000,000
(B) Outlays, $57,913,000,000
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $58,971,000,000
(B) Outlays, $58,176,000,000
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $59,879,000,000
(B) Outlays, $58,713,000,000
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $60,974,000,000
(B) Outlays, $59,583,000,000
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $62,124,000,000
(B) Outlays, $60,662,000,000
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $63,242,000,000
(B) Outlays, $61,727,000,000
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $64,465,000,000
(B) Outlays, $62,697,000,000
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $5,390,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,255,000,000
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $5,595,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,566,000,000
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $5,819,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,781,000,000
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $5,852,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,828,000,000
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $5,893,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,855,000,000
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $5,927,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,920,000,000
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $5,967,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,935,000,000
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $6,004,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,955,000,000
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $6,035,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,962,000,000
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $6,065,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,975,000,000
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $6,085,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,992,000,000
(13) Income security (600):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $74,067,000,000
(B) Outlays, $64,056,000,000
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $62,365,000,000
(B) Outlays, $67,580,000,000
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $62,275,000,000
(B) Outlays, $67,880,000,000
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $62,540,000,000
(B) Outlays, $66,271,000,000
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $62,803,000,000
(B) Outlays, $65,341,000,000
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $63,328,000,000
(B) Outlays, $64,169,000,000
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $64,221,000,000
(B) Outlays, $64,804,000,000
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $65,362,000,000
(B) Outlays, $65,660,000,000
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $66,561,000,000
(B) Outlays, $66,690,000,000
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $67,716,000,000
(B) Outlays, $67,735,000,000
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $68,976,000,000
(B) Outlays, $68,840,000,000
(14) Social security (650):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $6,386,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,479,000,000
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $5,460,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,549,000,000
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $5,545,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,655,000,000
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $5,630,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,763,000,000
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $5,716,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,849,000,000
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $5,830,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,809,000,000
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $5,969,000,000
(B) Outlays, $5,942,000,000
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $6,135,000,000
(B) Outlays, $6,103,000,000
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $6,306,000,000
(B) Outlays, $6,271,000,000
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $6,479,000,000
(B) Outlays, $6,443,000,000
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $6,665,000,000
(B) Outlays, $6,627,000,000
(15) Veterans benefits and services (700):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $49,394,000,000
(B) Outlays, $46,757,000,000
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $53,263,000,000
(B) Outlays, $52,474,000,000
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $54,417,000,000
(B) Outlays, $53,972,000,000
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $55,855,000,000
(B) Outlays, $55,487,000,000
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $57,384,000,000
(B) Outlays, $56,932,000,000
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $58,969,000,000
(B) Outlays, $58,519,000,000
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $60,971,000,000
(B) Outlays, $59,265,000,000
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $62,494,000,000
(B) Outlays, $61,978,000,000
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $64,367,000,000
(B) Outlays, $63,067,000,000
Fiscal year 2018:

[[Page 9821]]

(A) New budget authority, $65,404,000,000
(B) Outlays, $65,012,000,000
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $67,415,000,000
(B) Outlays, $65,345,000,000
(16) Administration of justice (750):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $54,099,000,000
(B) Outlays, $48,018,000,000
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $48,763,000,000
(B) Outlays, $49,470,000,000
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $50,595,000,000
(B) Outlays, $51,525,000,000
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $50,506,000,000
(B) Outlays, $51,416,000,000
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $50,389,000,000
(B) Outlays, $51,428,000,000
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $50,263,000,000
(B) Outlays, $50,466,000,000
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $50,156,000,000
(B) Outlays, $49,725,000,000
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $50,012,000,000
(B) Outlays, $49,250,000,000
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $50,023,000,000
(B) Outlays, $49,366,000,000
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $50,015,000,000
(B) Outlays, $49,501,000,000
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $50,247,000,000
(B) Outlays, $46,565,000,000
(17) General government (800):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $24,562,000,000
(B) Outlays, $18,861,000,000
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $18,976,000,000
(B) Outlays, $19,896,000,000
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $19,286,000,000
(B) Outlays, $20,181,000,000
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $19,598,000,000
(B) Outlays, $20,541,000,000
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $19,915,000,000
(B) Outlays, $20,781,000,000
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $20,320,000,000
(B) Outlays, $20,662,000,000
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $20,828,000,000
(B) Outlays, $20,951,000,000
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $21,426,000,000
(B) Outlays, $21,366,000,000
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $22,039,000,000
(B) Outlays, $21,854,000,000
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $22,668,000,000
(B) Outlays, $22,427,000,000
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $23,330,000,000
(B) Outlays, $22,873,000,000
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $0
(B) Outlays, $0

TITLE II--RESERVE FUNDS

SEC. 201. DEFICIT-REDUCING RESERVE FUNDS FOR ENTITLEMENT
COMMISSIONS--SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE &
MEDICAID.

(a) The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this
resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, motions, or conference reports that would provide
for a BRAC-like commission to review the current and long-
term solvency of Social Security and a BRAC-like commission
to review the current and long-term solvency of Medicare and
Medicaid, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2009 through 2019.
(b) These commissions will provide recommendations to
reduce mandatory spending by at least four percent over the
next five years, and seven percent over the next ten years.
(c) For the purposes of this Resolution, for individuals 55
or older, Medicare will not be changed (other than means
testing for high-income beneficiaries under the prescription
drug benefit under Part D).

SEC. 202. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR COMPREHENSIVE
HEALTHCARE REFORM.

SEC. 203. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR AMERICA'S VETERANS
AND WOUNDED SERVICEMEMBERS.

[[Page 9822]]

SEC. 204. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ENERGY SECURITY.

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this
resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, motions, or conference reports that promote
energy security activities including, but not limited to,
increasing funding for waste storage alternatives, advanced
technology assessment and deployment for clean coal and
carbon capture and storage, and clean energy deployment
including increasing the use of nuclear power and
refurbishing the transmission grid, and allowing loans under
the Department of Energy's Innovative Technology Loan
Guarantee Program of up to $50,000,000,000 for the purposes
of constructing nuclear power generating units, by the
amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2019.

SEC. 205. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TAX CODE
MODERNIZATION.

SEC 206. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION
AND CONTRACTING REFORM

by the amounts provided in such legislation for those
purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase
the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal
years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal
years 2009 through 2019.

SEC. 207. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR A BIPARTISAN,
COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION INTO THE CURRENT
FINANCIAL CRISIS.

TITLE III--BUDGETARY PROCESS

Subtitle A--Budget Enforcement

SEC. 301. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS, PROGRAM INTEGRITY
INITIATIVES, AND OTHER ADJUSTMENTS.

(a) Senate Point of Order.--
(1) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider
any bill or joint resolution (or amendment, motion, or
conference report on that bill or joint resolution) that
would cause the discretionary spending limits in this section
to be exceeded.
(2) Supermajority Waiver and Appeals.--
(A) WAIVER.--This subsection may be waived or suspended in
the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of
the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(B) APPEALS.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of
the Chair relating to any provision of this subsection shall
be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or
joint resolution. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under this subsection.
(b) Senate Discretionary Spending Limits.--In the Senate
and as used in this section, the term ``discretionary
spending limit'' means--
(1) with respect to fiscal year 2009--
(A) for the defense category $689,926,000,000 in new budget
authority and $666,842,000,000 in outlays;
(B) for the Veterans Affairs (VA) category $49,394,000,000
in new budget authority and $46,757,000,000 ; in outlays; and
(C) for the nondefense/non-VA category $742,099,000,000 in
new budget authority and $532,373,000,000 in outlays.
(2) with respect to fiscal year 2010--
(A) for the defense category $686,128,000,000 in new budget
authority and $689,963,000,000 in outlays, as adjusted in
conformance with the adjustment procedures in subsection (c);
(B) for the Veterans Affairs (VA) category $53,263,000,000
in new budget authority and $52,274,000,000 ; in outlays; as
adjusted in conformance with the adjustment procedures in
subsection (c); and
(C) for the nondefense category $458,515,000,000 in new
budget authority and $608,750,000,000 in outlays, as adjusted
in conformance with the adjustment procedures in subsection
(c).
(3) with respect to fiscal year 2011 --
(A) for the defense category $614,293,000,000 in new budget
authority and $657,207,000,000 in outlays;
(B) for the Veterans Affairs (VA) category $54,417,000,000
in new budget authority and $53,972,000,000 ; in outlays; and
(C) for the nondefense/non-VA category $463,460,000,000 in
new budget authority and $596,209,000,000 in outlays.
(4) with respect to fiscal year 2012--
(A) for the defense category $614,293,000,000 in new budget
authority and $657,207,000,000 in outlays;
(B) for the Veterans Affairs (VA) category $54,417,000,000
in new budget authority and $53,972,000,000 ; in outlays; and
(C) for the nondefense/non-VA category $463,460,000,000 in
new budget authority and $596,209,000,000 in outlays.
(5) with respect to fiscal year 2013--
(A) for the defense category $634,421,000,000 in new budget
authority and $636,332,000,000 in outlays;
(B) for the Veterans Affairs (VA) category $57,384,000,000
in new budget authority and $56,932,000,000 ; in outlays; and
(C) for the nondefense/non-VA category $468,849,000,000 in
new budget authority and $544,103,000,000 in outlays.
(6) with respect to fiscal year 2014--
(A) for the defense category $648,249,000,000 in new budget
authority and $641,632,000,000 in outlays;
(B) for the Veterans Affairs (VA) category $58,969,000,000
in new budget authority and $58,515,000,000 in outlays; and
(C) for the nondefense/non-VA category $472,964,000,000 in
new budget authority and $534,759,000,000 in outlays.
(7) with respect to fiscal year 2015--
(A) for the defense category $663,159,000,000 in new budget
authority and $6653,234,000,000 in outlays;
(B) for the Veterans Affairs (VA) category $60,971,000,000
in new budget authority and $59,265,000,000 in outlays; and
(C) for the nondefense/non-VA category $478,347,000,000 in
new budget authority and $535,954,000,000 in outlays.
(8) with respect to fiscal year 2016--
(A) for the defense category $678,149,000,000 in new budget
authority and $671,890,000,000 in outlays;
(B) for the Veterans Affairs (VA) category $62,494,000,000
in new budget authority and $61,978,000,000 in outlays; and
(C) for the nondefense/non-VA category $486,111,000,000 in
new budget authority and $539,261,000,000 in outlays.
(9) with respect to fiscal year 2017--
(A) for the defense category $694,153,000,000 in new budget
authority and $683,256,000,000 in outlays;
(B) for the Veterans Affairs (VA) category $64,367,000,000
in new budget authority and $63,067,000,000; in outlays; and
(C) for the nondefense/non-VA category $493,916,000,000 in
new budget authority and $545,501,000,000 in outlays.
(10) with respect to fiscal year 2018--
(A) for the defense category $709,147,000,000 in new budget
authority and $693,789,000,000 in outlays;
(B) for the Veterans Affairs (VA) category $65,404,000,000
in new budget authority and $65,012,000,000 in outlays; and
(C) for the nondefense/non-VA category $501,500,000,000 in
new budget authority and $553,275,000,000 in outlays.
(11) with respect to fiscal year 2019--
(A) for the defense category $726,167,000,000 in new budget
authority and $714,089,000,000 in outlays;
(B) for the Veterans Affairs (VA) category $67,415,000,000
in new budget authority and $65,345,000,000 in outlays; and
(C) for the nondefense/non-VA category $509,864,000,000 in
new budget authority and $558,866,000,000 in outlays.
(c) Adjustments in the Senate.--
(1) In general.--After the reporting of a bill or joint
resolution relating to any matter described in paragraph (2),
or the offering of an amendment thereto or the submission of
a conference report thereon--
(A) the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
adjust the discretionary

[[Page 9823]]

spending limits, budgetary aggregates, and allocations
pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, by the amount of new budget authority in that measure
for that purpose and the outlays flowing therefrom; and
(B) following any adjustment under subparagraph (A), the
Senate Committee on Appropriations may report appropriately
revised suballocations pursuant to section 302(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this
subsection.
(2) Adjustments to support ongoing overseas contingency
operations.--The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the
Budget may adjust the discretionary spending limits,
allocations to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and
aggregates for one or more--
(A) bills reported by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations or passed by the House of Representatives;
(B) joint resolutions or amendments reported by the Senate
Committee on Appropriations;
(C) amendments between the Houses received from the House
of Representatives or Senate amendments offered by the
authority of the Senate Committee on Appropriations; or
(D) conference reports; making appropriations for fiscal
year 2010 for overseas contingency operations by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes (and so
designated pursuant to this paragraph), up to
$130,000,000,000 in budget authority for fiscal year 2010 and
the new outlays flowing therefrom.
(3) Revised appropriations for fiscal year 2010.--
(A) In general.--If after adoption of this resolution by
the Congress, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) re-
estimates the President's request for discretionary spending
in fiscal year 2010 at an aggregate level different from the
CBO preliminary estimate dated March 20, 2009, the Chairman
of the Senate Committee on the Budget may adjust the
discretionary spending limits, budgetary aggregates, and
allocations pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 by the amount of budget authority and
outlays flowing therefrom, to reflect the difference between
such re-estimate and the CBO preliminary estimate dated March
20, 2009.
(B) Suballocations.--Following any adjustment under
subparagraph (A), the Senate Committee on Appropriations may
report appropriately revised suballocations pursuant to
section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to
carry out this paragraph.
(d) Inapplicability.--In the Senate, subsections (a), (b),
(c), and (d) of section 312 of S. Con. Res. 70 (110th
Congress) shall no longer apply.

SEC. 302. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In general.--
(1) Point of order.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill,
joint resolution, motion, amendment, or conference report
that would provide an advance appropriation.
(2) Definition.--In this section, the term advance
appropriation'' means any new budget authority provided in a
bill or joint resolution making appropriations for fiscal
year 2010 that first becomes available for any fiscal year
after 2010, or any new budget authority provided in a bill or
joint resolution making general appropriations or continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2011, that first becomes
available for any fiscal year after 2011.
(b) Exceptions.--Advance appropriations may be provided for
fiscal years 2011 and 2012 for programs, projects,
activities, or accounts identified in the joint explanatory
statement of managers accompanying this resolution under the
heading Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in
an aggregate amount not to exceed $28,852,000,000 in new
budget authority in each year.
(c) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--
(1) Waiver.--In the Senate, subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under subsection (a).
(d) Form of Point of Order.--A point of order under
subsection (a) may be raised by a Senator as provided in
section 313(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(e) Conference Reports.--When the Senate is considering a
conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in
relation to, a bill, upon a point of order being made by any
Senator pursuant to this section, and such point of order
being sustained, such material contained in such conference
report shall be deemed stricken, and the Senate shall proceed
to consider the question of whether the Senate shall recede
from its amendment and concur with a further amendment, or
concur in the House amendment with a further amendment, as
the case may be, which further amendment shall consist of
only that portion of the conference report or House
amendment, as the case may be, not so stricken. Any such
motion in the Senate shall be debatable. In any case in which
such point of order is sustained against a conference report
(or Senate amendment derived from such conference report by
operation of this subsection), no further amendment shall be
in order.
(f) Inapplicability.--In the Senate, section 313 of S. Con.
Res. 70 (110th Congress) shall no longer apply.

SEC. 303. EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

(a) Authority to Designate.--In the Senate, with respect to
a provision of direct spending or receipts legislation or
appropriations for discretionary accounts that Congress
designates as an emergency requirement in such measure, the
amounts of new budget authority, outlays, and receipts in all
fiscal years resulting from that provision shall be treated
as an emergency requirement for the purpose of this section.
(b) Exemption of Emergency Provisions.--Any new budget
authority, outlays, and receipts resulting from any provision
designated as an emergency requirement, pursuant to this
section, in any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report shall not count for purposes of sections
302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section
201 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress) (relating to pay-as-
you-go), section 311 of S. Con. Res. 70 (110th Congress)
(relating to long-term deficits), and sections 301 and 304 of
this resolution (relating to discretionary spending and
short-term deficits). Designated emergency provisions shall
not count for the purpose of revising allocations,
aggregates, or other levels pursuant to procedures
established under section 301(b)(7) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 for deficit-neutral reserve funds and
revising discretionary spending limits set pursuant to
section 301 of this resolution.
(c) Designations.--If a provision of legislation is
designated as an emergency requirement under this section,
the committee report and any statement of managers
accompanying that legislation shall include an explanation of
the manner in which the provision meets the criteria in
subsection (f).
(d) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``direct
spending'', ``receipts'', and ``appropriations for
discretionary accounts'' mean any provision of a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that
affects direct spending, receipts, or appropriations as those
terms have been defined and interpreted for purposes of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(e) Point of Order.--
(1) In general.--When the Senate is considering a bill,
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report, if a
point of order is made by a Senator against an emergency
designation in that measure, that provision making such a
designation shall be stricken from the measure and may not be
offered as an amendment from the floor.
(2) Supermajority waiver and appeals.--
(A) Waiver.--Paragraph (1) may be waived or suspended in
the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(B) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of
the Chair relating to any provision of this subsection shall
be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or
joint resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative vote of
three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and
sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling
of the Chair on a point of order raised under this
subsection.
(3) Definition of an emergency designation.--For purposes
of paragraph (1), a provision shall be considered an
emergency designation if it designates any item as an
emergency requirement pursuant to this subsection.
(4) Form of the point of order.--A point of order under
paragraph (1) may be raised by a Senator as provided in
section 313(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(5) Conference reports.--When the Senate is considering a
conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in
relation to, a bill, upon a point of order being made by any
Senator pursuant to this section, and such point of order
being sustained, such material contained in such conference
report shall be deemed stricken, and the Senate shall proceed
to consider the question of whether the Senate shall recede
from its amendment and concur with a further amendment, or
concur in the House amendment with a further amendment, as
the case may be, which further amendment shall consist of
only that portion of the conference report or House
amendment, as the case may be, not so stricken. Any such
motion in the Senate shall be debatable. In any case in which
such point of order is sustained against a conference report
(or Senate amendment derived from such conference report by
operation of this subsection), no further amendment shall be
in order.
(f) Criteria.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, any
provision is an emergency requirement if the situation
addressed by such provision is--
(A) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely useful or
beneficial);
(B) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up
over time;

[[Page 9824]]

(C) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring
immediate action;
(D) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen, unpredictable,
and unanticipated; and
(E) not permanent, temporary in nature.
(2) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an aggregate
level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally
estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.
(g) Inapplicability.--In the Senate, section 204(a) of S.
Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress), the concurrent resolution on
the budget for fiscal year 2008, shall no longer apply.

SEC. 304. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION INCREASING
SHORT-TERM DEFICIT.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report (except measures within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Appropriations) that would cause a net
increase in the deficit in excess of $10,000,000,000 in any
fiscal year provided for in the most recently adopted
concurrent resolution on the budget unless it is fully offset
over the period of all fiscal years provided for in the most
recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
(b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal in the Senate.--
(1) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended only
by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly
chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain
an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order
raised under this section.
(c) Determinations of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this
section, the levels shall be determined on the basis of
estimates provided by the Senate Committee on the Budget.
(d) Sunset.--This section shall expire on September 30,
2018.
(e) Inapplicability.--In the Senate, section 315 of S. Con.
Res. 70 (110th Congress), the concurrent resolution in the
budget for fiscal year 2009, shall no longer apply.

Subtitle B--Other Provisions

SEC. 311. OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE.

In the Senate, all committees are directed to review
programs within their jurisdiction to root out waste, fraud,
and abuse in program spending, giving particular scrutiny to
issues raised by Government Accountability Office reports.
Based on these oversight efforts and committee performance
reviews of programs within their jurisdiction, committees are
directed to include recommendations for improved governmental
performance in their annual views and estimates reports
required under section 301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 to the Committees on the Budget.

SEC. 312. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DISCRETIONARY
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

In the Senate, notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 13301 of the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990, and section 2009a of title 39,
United States Code, the joint explanatory statement
accompanying the conference report on any concurrent
resolution on the budget shall include in its allocations
under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
to the Committees on Appropriations amounts for the
discretionary administrative expenses of the Social Security
Administration and of the Postal Service.

SEC. 313. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.

SEC. 314. ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN CONCEPTS AND
DEFINITIONS.

Upon the enactment of a bill or joint resolution providing
for a change in concepts or definitions, the Chairman of the
Senate Committee on the Budget may make adjustments to the
levels and allocations in this resolution in accordance with
section 251(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (as in effect prior to September 30,
2002).

SEC. 315. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

Congress adopts the provisions of this title--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate,
and as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of
the Senate and such rules shall supersede other rules only to
the extent that they are inconsistent with such other rules;
and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
the Senate to change those rules at any time, in the same
manner, and to the same extent as is the case of any other
rule of the Senate.

SEC. 316. COST ESTIMATES FOR CONFERENCE REPORTS AND OTHER
MEASURES.

It shall not be in order to consider a conference report,
bill, or joint resolution unless an estimate of costs has
been printed in the Congressional Record at least one day
before its consideration.

SEC. 317. LIMITATION ON LONG-TERM SPENDING PROPOSALS

It shall not be in order to consider any bill or joint
resolution reported from a committee if such bill or
resolution is not accompanied by a cost estimate prepared by
the Congressional Budget Office on whether or not the measure
would cause a net increase in direct spending in excess of $5
billion in any of the four next five-year periods.

SEC. 318. REVENUES COLLECTED FROM CLOSING THE TAX GAP ARE
USED ONLY FOR DEBT REDUCTION.

(a) Special Scorekeeping Rule in the Senate.--
(1) Report to budget committee.--When a bill is cleared for
the President, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO),
pursuant to section 202 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, and the Joint Committee on Taxation shall inform the
Chairman of the Committee on the Budget if that measure
contains provisions that increase revenues from closing the
tax gap. The report shall include the amount of revenue
raised each year including the current year, the budget year,
and for each of the 10 years following the current year.
(2) Exclusion from pay-as-you-go scorecard.--Any revenue
raised from provisions to close the tax gap (as detailed in
the report described in (a)(1)) shall not count as offsets
for purposes of section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the FY 2008
Budget Resolution.
(b) Criteria and Definitions.--
(1) The tax gap is the difference between the revenue that
is owed to the federal government in accordance with existing
tax law and the revenue that is collected by the federal
government.
(2) The tax gap is a combination of inadvertent errors and
deliberate evasion.
(3) Revenues raised from changes to withholding or payment
reporting requirements are examples of efforts to close the
tax gap.
(4) The tax gap is not about clarifying existing law in
order to close loopholes, broadening the tax base, raising
tax rates, or any other action that would change existing tax
law.

SEC. 319. POINT OF ORDER TO SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY FIRST.

(a) Point of Order in the Senate.--It shall not be in order
in the Senate to consider any direct spending legislation
that would increase the on-budget deficit above the amounts
provided for in this resolution in any fiscal year until the
President submits legislation to Congress and Congress enacts
legislation which would restore 75-year solvency to the Old-
Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Funds as
certified by the Social Security Administration actuaries.
(b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be
waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote
of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An
affirmative vote of three-fifths 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 this section.

SEC. 320. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST A BUDGET RESOLUTION
CONTAINING A DEBT HELD BY THE PUBLIC-TO-GDP
RATIO THAT EXCEEDS 65%.

(a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to
consider a concurrent resolution on the budget for the budget
year or any amendment, amendment between Houses, motion, or
conference report thereon that contains a ratio of debt held
by the public-to-Gross Domestic Product which exceeds 65% in
any year covered by the budget resolution.
(b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal in the Senate.--
(1) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the
Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths 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 this section.
(c) Determination of Debt Levels.--For purposes of this
section, the debt level shall be determined by the Chairman
of the Senate Committee on the Budget on the basis of
estimates provided by the Congressional Budget Office.

SEC. 321. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST A BUDGET RESOLUTION
CONTAINING DEFICIT LEVELS EXCEEDING 8% OF GDP.

(a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to
consider a concurrent resolution on the budget for the budget
year or any

[[Page 9825]]

amendment, amendment between Houses, motion, or conference
report thereon that contains deficits as a percentage of the
Gross Domestic Product in excess of 8% in any year covered by
the budget resolution.
(b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal in the Senate.--
(1) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the
Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths 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 this section.
(c) Determination of Deficit Levels.--For purposes of this
section, the deficit as a percentage of Gross Domestic
Product shall be determined by the Chairman of the Senate
Committee on the Budget on the basis of estimates provided by
the Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Republican time be allocated as follows, between now and the time of
the vote: that Senator Hutchison be allowed 5 minutes on the substitute
amendment, Senator Graham 5 minutes, Senator Coburn 5 minutes, myself 5
minutes, Senator Gregg 10 minutes, Senator Inhofe 3 minutes, Senator
Sessions 5 minutes, Senator Chambliss 2 minutes, and Senator Wicker 2
minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Texas, Mrs. Hutchison.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is
recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I, first, wish to thank Senator McCain
for leading this effort to present an alternative because we all know,
after looking at the Democratic budget and the Obama administration
budget which produced the Democratic budget, that the debt is
unsustainable. This is a budget that would double our debt in 5 years,
and if it goes out to 10, it would triple our debt. As a matter of
fact, it spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much.
We have to start putting some common sense in this budget process or
we are going to go into an abyss. We must take the reins of this budget
and hold it back. Today, our debt-to-gross domestic product is 57
percent. That is pretty high. The average over the last 50 years has
been about 40 percent. This underlying budget today would take our
debt-to-gross domestic product ratio to 80 percent. That is simply
unsustainable on a long-term basis. During the Great Depression, during
World War II, we saw numbers such as that, but you cannot sustain it
over a long period of time. It was brought back down after World War II
so that it was in the 30-percent range. Forty percent is optimum. We
are at 57. We would go to 80 if we don't do something.
That is why Senator McCain and those of us who are cosponsoring his
substitute are trying to do the right thing. We are trying to produce
an alternative that is responsible and takes care of the needs of our
country at the same time.
The key points of this substitute are that we would cap discretionary
spending at baseline levels plus inflation, except for defense and
veterans. That means every program we have can grow with inflation. You
are not cutting anything from today, but you are allowing it to just
grow by inflation, which will cap it--except for defense, which does
increase, and our veterans, which does increase. We have increased our
veterans, we have increased defense, we continue to do so because we
know our duty to those who are serving our country and protecting our
freedom.
This substitute also extends the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. That means
marriage penalty relief will be extended. It means we will not put a
shock into the stock market by increasing the capital gains and
dividends rates at a time when we want to shore up our stock market.
The worst thing we can do is send a signal that those taxes are going
to go up in 2 years when our economy is already flailing. It will lower
everyone's tax burden--everyone's. It will keep that 10-percent rate
instead of moving it up. It will keep everyone's tax burden lower.
Marriage penalty relief is something I am going to offer an amendment
on if this substitute does not pass because we need to make it
permanent. The marriage penalty in this country, if we go back to the
way it used to be, is over $1,000 a couple. Is this a country that
wants to dissuade people from getting married? That is the core of our
family support in this country. Our substitute will extend the tax
cuts, including marriage penalty, including every bracket, and
including capital gains and dividends, to encourage savings and shore
up our stock market.
It also takes the bigger picture view. This is a 10-year substitute,
so it ensures that revenues collected from closing the tax gap would
only be used for debt reduction. This is planning for the future. This
is saying we are going to bring down that debt burden that is in the
underlying bill before us. It will not be used to increase Federal
spending because we are going to cap that at the baseline plus
inflation. We are not going to hurt anyone. We are not going to also
add to our debt. In fact, we would cut $4 trillion from the budget that
is before us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The time of the Senator has
expired.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I hope my colleagues will look at this responsible
alternative.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, the thing many of my colleagues don't
know is, before I was a physician I was an accountant, and the thing
about numbers is you can make them show anything you want. That,
historically, is what Republicans and Democrats have done with budgets.
They play games. The only year that counts is the next year, this next
2010 fiscal year. That is the only thing that counts in terms of what
they are going to do.
The important thing before us ought to be the following: At the end
of the budget that is offered by both President Obama and the majority,
the deficit will be higher than it has ever been any time prior to this
year, and it will not go down. It will never go down, in light of that,
in terms of a sustainable level.
The second point I want to make on this budget is this budget is a
real budget that says to every American except our fighting men and
women and our seniors and our veterans: Everybody has to sacrifice for
us to get out of the mess we are in. The sacrifice will not necessarily
be hard because of the tremendous amount of waste that is in the
Federal Government right now. At a conservative minimum, 10 percent of
everything we spend is pure waste or fraud. We will not do anything
about it. One of the things with the McCain budget, the Republican
budget, is that it will force us to do something about it.
We take some of that $380 billion a year that is now defrauded of the
Federal Government, or pure waste, and we will recapture that to do
something positive. But the underlying point is, as Americans, if we
are going to get out of the problems we are in, we cannot spend our way
into prosperity, and we can't borrow our way out of debt. That is what
this budget does. It attempts to grow Federal Government.
The claim is that it only grows it 2 percent over 5 years. But when
you look at the numbers in this budget, it grows at 7 percent in the
next year, in terms of discretionary spending. Then all the pain is
after that. We all know the reality of the Senate. There will not be
any pain. It will be 7 percent the year after that. You watch what
comes from the appropriators.
The House budget has a 12-percent increase in it. The President's had
an 11-percent increase. We can hear all these statements on the floor,
but the No. 1 fact is, everybody in this country is going to have to
sacrifice except those who have already sacrificed. If we do anything
less than that, then what we are doing is sacrificing the future of our
kids and our grandkids.
In this budget we have a proposal that will pick up the 11 million
Americans who are eligible for Medicaid who are not even getting health
care now and, at the same time, save the States

[[Page 9826]]

$88 billion a year and save the Federal Government $40 billion a year
and improve the health care of everybody on Medicaid today. That is
$1.3 trillion of efficiency in health care that we will save. The
States will love the plan.
Does it fit into the overall plan of what we have now? Is it the only
way we can do it? No. But the fact is, 40 percent of the doctors and
caregivers in our country today will not even see a Medicaid patient.
We are up to almost 20 percent not seeing a Medicare patient. We have
to do something about that. But we don't need more money in health
care; what we need is a more efficient market and common sense in the
way we spend the money so we get great quality care at a fair price,
which is not happening today.
I hope my colleagues will consider the McCain budget because of the
significant truth that underlies it, that everybody is going to have to
sacrifice some. Everybody has to sacrifice if we are to get out of the
mess we are in. You can be critical of it, but the fact is, there is no
program, in terms of total dollars, that is going to see a marked
decrease in terms of spending without getting exactly the same or
better results.
Our President said he wants a line-by-line review of every program,
that he wants competitive bidding, he wants metrics. That is what we
do. We actually do what the average American would do. We apply common
sense to the way the Government spends money, and we look at it and say
we cannot continue on the path we are on without bankrupting our kids.
The very real possibility that out of the budget that is being
presented today we will have a fiat currency or a currency that is
inflated, which will devalue the assets of everybody in this country,
is absolutely real and recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. COBURN. I thank the Senator from Arizona for the time to speak on
his budget, and I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, how much time is remaining on both
sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 35 minutes and the
Republicans also have 35 minutes.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask to be notified after 4 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so advise the Senator. The
Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the Chair. I appreciate the
comments that have been made. I agree first with Senator Coburn's
comments about our distinguished chairman's pride in spending less
money than the Obama proposal called for for discretionary spending
over 5 years. He said he saved $600 billion--and it should save some.
However, President Obama's budget was an 11-percent increase.
Senator Conrad came in with a 7-percent increase, which is huge in
light of the money we are spending on top of that with the stimulus
package we just passed; and at 7 percent, Government spending would
double in 10 years. But the House is at 12 percent. So when the bill
goes to conference, it is not going to be at 7, it is going to be at
10, 11, maybe 12 percent.
No. 2, his savings are projected in years 2, 3, 4 and 5, and as
Senator Coburn said, when we come back next year, this body, if the
same Members are here, is going to have another 7 percent or 10
percent. The only one that counts is this year. So I do not believe we
have a real change in this budget. I believe Mr. Orszag is correct--the
President's budget manager--that this is 98 percent of what he asked
for and he asked for a budget over 10 years that doubles the debt in 5
years and triples it in 10. It triples the debt in 10. It is admitted
by the President's own budget. It is in the numbers he sent to us. We
are not making this up. That is No. 1.
I have several amendments I will be calling to my colleagues'
attention. One is the Comprehensive Outer Continental Shelf Study. We
have no idea today how much oil and gas may be off our coasts, our
Atlantic coast and Pacific coast. Particularly, the Atlantic States are
eager to know what is out there and to consider whether they want to
produce out there. I think it has great potential for America.
Every barrel of oil and energy we can produce in the United States
off our shores so we do not have to transfer our wealth to Saudi Arabia
or Venezuela or places around the world but keep it here creating jobs
and revenue is progress for America in a significant way. That is an
amendment on which I hope we will have bipartisan support.
Missile defense, I am working with Senator Lieberman on that. I am
concerned there might be some belief that we can ease off the
completion of missile defense. Our missile defense system now has 26
launchers already built or contracted for; we want to do 44. After
years and years of science and technology and investment, we are about
to be able to complete a missile defense system that will make us all
proud and can protect us from such things as a North Korean launch. If
we don't get this system up like we need it, we will not be able to do
that.
I believe today our technology would knock down that missile if it
reached the United States. We need to complete that program. If we slow
it down, it will just drive up the cost even more. That is important.
I am concerned about the history of this Congress when it deals with
border security. We have voted repeatedly--the last big vote was 80 to
19--to complete 700 miles of fencing and barriers on our border. The
money often does not get appropriated, however. We vote and say we are
for it, but when the chips are down the money doesn't get funded. This
would call on us to complete the funding for that project. I think all
of us would want to complete what we have started.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I want to say it is not impossible for
us at least to move substantially toward a balanced budget. In the
immediate years ahead it is going to be hard to get to a balanced
budget. But the President's budget does not attempt to do so. In fact,
in years 7 and 10 of his budget, his deficits are not going down. This
is his own document he submitted to us--they are surging upward. In his
10th year, the Congressional Budget Office says his deficit will be, in
1 year, $1.2 trillion. That will be almost three times the highest
deficit this country has ever had in its history.
I thank Senator McCain and others who are working on it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam 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. CONRAD. 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. CONRAD. Madam President, how much time remains under my control?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 25 minutes remaining.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, how much time is under the control of
Senator McCain?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 10 minutes remaining on the McCain
amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that the debate on the McCain
amendment appear all as one piece in the Record. I think that will be
better for those reading this at some point in the future, if someone
does care to read it in the future. It will be better if we keep the
McCain debate all together as one.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. First, I thank and congratulate the Senator from Arizona
for producing a budget and a budget alternative. That was not done on
their side until he did it, and I commend him for it.
I also commend him for producing a budget that in its overall totals
is very close to the budget resolution I have advanced through the
Budget Committee.

[[Page 9827]]

In fact, if you compare Senator McCain's 5-year totals with my 5-year
totals, compare his revenue to my revenue, his spending to my spending,
they are 98 percent alike. In addition, the size of the deficit in 2014
is virtually the same. Mine is 2.9 percent of GDP, his is 2.8. And the
debt, mine is 98.7, his is 98.3, virtually identical in 2014.
So there is some commonality here, and that is something perhaps we
can build on. Of course, there are differences, and differences do
matter. Largely they appear in two places. The Senator from Arizona
appears to reduce mandatory spending by $350 billion over 5 years.
But where does he do it? Does he show savings in Medicare? No. Does
he show savings in Medicaid and the health care accounts? No. Does he
show savings in Social Security? No. Does he show savings in
agriculture? No. He does not do it in any of those places that are the
major pots of money for mandatory spending. Instead, he takes all of
the $350 billion in savings in Function 920. That is the general
overhead function for all of those categories.
So, in effect, what he has is an across-the-board cut in Medicare,
Medicaid, Social Security, agriculture, and that is how this budget
would work. I do not know if that is the intention, but that is what
would happen.
In fact, excluding debt service, 85 percent of the claimed savings
are from function 920, no specific savings at all. Where are the
remaining 15 percent of the savings? Largely, they are in the
international affairs budget. Relative to the budget resolution before
us, and that is before we adopted the Kerry amendment yesterday, he
reduces spending on international accounts by $44 billion over the 5
years. The Senator from Arizona assumes an increase of 1.3 percent in
2010 and less than 1 percent over the remaining 5 years. That runs
counter to what the Secretary of Defense has asked of us because he has
asked that we plus-up the international accounts so that things that
really ought to be done in the international accounts, instead of the
Defense Department accounts, be shown there.
Disturbingly, next year, when we will still be recovering from the
worst recession since the Great Depression, the budget advanced by the
Senator from Arizona would cut nondefense discretionary spending,
compared to the resolution before us, by $23 billion. Those cuts would
affect virtually every discretionary function, although not defense and
not veterans. I commend him for holding them harmless, but that means
everything else has to be cut more. That means education, the health
care accounts--all of those would have to be cut.
In terms of looking at a budget in a fair and balanced way, while I
commend the Senator for producing a budget, it is a budget without
detail, a budget without specificity, a budget that is almost ``paint
your own picture.'' Because he has this $350 billion of savings in
function 920, because he doesn't specify, that would have to be done
across the board. That means all of these other functions--Medicare,
Social Security, agriculture, all of the other mandatory accounts--
would have to take significant across-the-board cuts.
I commend the Senator from Arizona for offering an alternative, but I
think the difference between his plan and my plan in overall numbers is
very small, but the differences that do exist matter a great deal.
One other point I want to make: As with many of my GOP colleagues'
amendments, the McCain amendment would create 60-vote points of order
against future budget resolutions, threatening the ability to maintain
the disciplines that come through the budget process. Caps on
discretionary spending, allocations to committees, the supermajority
points of order against excessive spending--all of that would be put at
risk in the name of preventing the growth of deficits and debt. While I
share the basic idea and the basic value of trying to control deficits
and debt, as an unintended consequence, the cure here is worse than the
disease. When the answer is to make it harder to do a budget
resolution, you actually lose the disciplines we could employ in order
to reduce the growth of deficits and debt.
It is a curious thing, if one thinks about it. The way to prevent the
growth of debt is not to do a budget or make it harder to do a budget.
Unfortunately, around here one of the few things we have to discipline
spending is a budget. That is where all the points of order lie when we
go to the appropriations process. If it were successful, if you were
able to prevent doing a budget resolution, you would then immediately
go to appropriations bills and you would have no points of order, no
60-vote hurdles against excessive spending. We want to think carefully
whether that is the answer.
My own view is, we would be much better off doing some kind of
special process where all of the major players are at the table,
everything is on the table, and we have a special process to get
whatever plan they develop to the floor for an actual vote. My own
belief is, after 22 years of this, the only real hope for changing the
underlying policies, for disciplining entitlements, for fundamental tax
reform, the only way to do that is some sort of special bipartisan
process where everybody is at the table, everything is on the table,
and the work of that group comes to the floor for a guaranteed vote.
That is the best hope we have.
With that, I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield myself a couple of minutes.
First, the fundamental difference between the proposal before us and
my proposal is that the budget as proposed has a growth in 2010 for
nondefense spending of 8 percent, with about 1 percent growth in each
of the following years from 2011 to 2014. That is an old gimmick. The
budget proposal before us caps discretionary funding in 2010, which
front-loads all the higher costs in the first year. Without caps in the
outyears, we will find ourselves right back here next year listening to
why the administration can't possibly live with an increase in 2011 of
less than 1 percent as recommended in the budget.
Mandatory spending is more than Social Security and Medicare. It is
general sciences, space, energy, natural resources. Every estimate we
have is that we could cut 10 percent immediately in unnecessary and
wasteful spending and fraud across the board, including Medicare,
including all of these other programs. We are asking Americans who are
tightening their belts, we are asking every State legislature in
America to make tough decisions, and we are not making those tough
decisions. We are just going on as if it were business as usual. An 8-
percent increase in spending for 2010? Tell me one State legislature in
America or any family in America that can afford an 8-percent increase
in their budget. Only we can because we print money.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arizona
yield 2 minutes to me to speak on the budget.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is allotted 2 minutes.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, as everyone knows, the chairman of
the Budget Committee happens to be a dear friend of mine, a guy with
whom I work on any number of issues on a regular basis. I empathize
with him for having to take what I think has been generally recognized
as a freewheeling spending budget coming from the White House and try
to evolve that into something that is meaningful and much more
responsible. Unfortunately, that is a difficult task. I don't think it
has been done. I thought for a minute, in listening to the chairman of
the committee speak about the McCain alternative, that perhaps he was
going to support it. But I understand why he can't.
There is one other major difference the Budget Committee chairman
fails to point out between the President's budget and the Democratic
budget we will be voting on, and it is a fundamental difference. The
President's

[[Page 9828]]

budget and the Democratic budget focus on where we are going to spend
money, versus the McCain budget which seeks to reduce Federal spending
for the short term and the long term. The reason that is a fundamental
difference is that when you look at the President's budget and you look
at the Democratic budget, in the year 2019, for example, the amount of
money that will be owed as interest on the debt will exceed the amount
of money we are going to spend on discretionary defense. That is
outrageous.
I have four grandchildren. Two of them are brand new. They are the
ones who will be charged with repaying this debt. By passing the
Democratic budget and the President's budget, there is simply no way
the grandchildren of all of us are ever going to be able to pay the
money back.
I urge support for the McCain alternative.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield myself 30 seconds.
I didn't mention at the beginning of my response, but I wish to
express my appreciation for the way the chairman, Senator Conrad, and
Senator Gregg have handled this debate. People have had a good
opportunity to express their views. The worst part, obviously, is
coming up in about 20 minutes. Both the distinguished chairman and
ranking member of the committee have handled the debate in a fashion
better than I have ever seen in the past. I congratulate both of them
for allowing virtually every Member of the Senate to express their
views on this important issue.
I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I inquire if the Senator from Arizona
wishes to go on his amendment. Do we still have Senator Graham?
Mr. McCAIN. I think he is on his way.
Mr. CONRAD. Could I say, I was told a number of years ago that one of
our colleagues called in and said he was on his way, that he was at the
airport, and then it turned out he was at the Philadelphia airport.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the chairman.
I wish to remind my colleagues where we are. We have a national debt
of $10.7 trillion. The budget that was proposed by the President was
$3.6 trillion. What we are looking at is a debt of $10.7 trillion. The
Fed just pumped $1.2 trillion into the economy. The TARP, Troubled
Asset Relief Program, was $700 billion. We passed an omnibus bill of
$410 billion. Prior to that, we passed a $1.1 trillion stimulus
package. And to cap it all off, the Chinese own $2 trillion of our
paper, of our debt.
This is an unprecedented expenditure of the taxpayers' dollars, and
with no way of paying for it. So these are extraordinary times, and we
need to do extraordinary things. But let's try not to ignore what we
are doing to future generations of Americans. Especially this time of
year, I see lots of our citizens around the halls of Congress wearing
badges and buttons and carrying signs and advocating for the causes and
efforts they believe in. Generally speaking, those causes and efforts,
in their view, require more of our tax dollars. I understand that. I
appreciate it. And it is wonderful to see people exercising their right
to petition Congress, which is guaranteed by the Constitution.
But I do not see anybody who is in the halls of Congress for my kids
and my grandkids and your kids and your grandkids. We are laying an
astronomical debt on them, which they will have to pay for sooner or
later. One of the ways to pay for it is to debase the currency and
print money. The result of that is hyperinflation, which is the
greatest enemy of the middle class, and we have seen that before in the
1970s.
So, yes, this is a tough budget I am talking about. Yes, these are
caps on discretionary spending. Tell me of a family in America--
hardly--that is not having to put a cap on their spending. Tell me of a
State legislature in America that is not having to put a cap on their
spending because of enormous debts. My home State of Arizona is looking
at a billion-dollar deficit. That is small compared to what is
happening in California.
Madam President, I ask for 2 additional minutes from Senator Gregg's
time.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I yield the Senator 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. So my point here is--by the way, one of the areas I agree
with both Senator Gregg and Senator Conrad is, we have to have a
commission that meets and makes tough decisions on entitlements. We
know entitlements cannot be sustained at their present level. And, of
course, the first area we ought to look at is the $60 billion the
inspector general has said is wasted in Medicare and Medicaid every
year. But tough decisions have to be made.
This is a tough budget proposal here. This is tough. It caps
discretionary spending, except for defense and veterans. It increases
defense spending. We are in two wars. We are in two wars, and I wish to
give a little straight talk. In Afghanistan it is going to get worse
before it gets better, and it is going to cost more of American blood
and treasure.
It reduces the deficit and debt more than the proposals offered by
the Senate Budget Committee or the President, and I would point out
that 10 years is what we have to plan for rather than 5. It addresses
the critical problem of Social Security and Medicare solvency by the
establishment--according to the proposal both by the chairman and
ranking member--of BRAC-like commissions that would provide
recommendations to reduce mandatory spending by at least 4 percent over
the next 5 years.
It addresses our critical energy goals, and it also extends the tax
cuts. This is the wrong time to increase anyone's taxes. History shows
us if we raise people's taxes in tough economic times, it exacerbates
the economic problems.
I do not pretend this is easy. I do not pretend this does not affect
many Americans and their lives. But if we lay these multitrillion-
dollar debts on future generations of Americans, we have contradicted
and betrayed the commitment this Nation has kept throughout our
history; that is, that the next generation of Americans inherit a
better Nation than the one we did.
Madam President, I urge a vote for this amendment and this alternate
budget proposal.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, could the Chair inform us of the time
remaining on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 9 minutes.
The Senator from New Hampshire has 7\1/2\ minutes. The Senator from
Oklahoma has 3 minutes. The Senator from South Carolina has 5 minutes.
The Senator from Mississippi has 2 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I think I will take a bit of my time,
then, as we await these other Senators. Perhaps the cloakroom could
check on the availability of Senators who have time so we can use the
time effectively and efficiently.
With respect to Senator McCain's amendment, his substitute, I want to
again indicate there is virtually no difference between the debt at the
end of the 5 years under his amendment and the amendment that has come
through the Senate Budget Committee. The debt as a share of GDP on the
budget that is on the floor is 98.7 percent of GDP in 2014. In the
substitute amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, it is 98.3
percent. There is virtually no difference in the debt levels under the
McCain amendment and the budget I have offered our colleagues.
With respect to deficits, in 2014, the deficit as a share of GDP in
the budget that is before us is 2.9 percent. Under the McCain
amendment, it is 2.8 percent.
So I say to my colleagues, if you rack up, if you look at his revenue
compared to my revenue: 98 percent the same.

[[Page 9829]]

His spending versus my spending: 98 percent the same. Where have we
heard that figure before?
I think the point that needs to be made, though, is that there are
differences, and the differences do matter. The big difference here is
the Senator from Arizona saves $350 billion out of the mandatory
accounts, but he does not say where. He does not say where. He does not
say it is out of Medicare. He does not say it is out of Social
Security. He does not say it is out of agriculture. He does not say it
is out of the other mandatory accounts. He puts all $350 billion in
section 920, which is an across-the-board cut in all of them--$350
billion.
Colleagues, if you want to be voting for cuts that could be $350
billion in Medicare and Social Security, vote for the McCain
alternative. If you do not think that is a real good idea, stick with
the budget that is before us. Because we have been specific about where
the revenues are, about where the spending is, and we have tried to be
disciplined about getting down to virtually the same levels on deficits
and debt that are in the McCain amendment.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAHAM. 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. GRAHAM. Madam President, if it is all right with the bill
managers, I would ask for 7 minutes to speak in support of the McCain
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes under the order.
Mr. GRAHAM. Five minutes. OK, thank you, Madam President.
I stand today in support of an alternative budget that is being
proposed by Senator McCain and others. This country is trying to write
a budget for the American people. That should not be unknown to the
American people. They are doing it every day. Every business is writing
a budget. Every family is trying to plan a budget. The one thing
families and businesses are doing is they are tightening their belts.
Well, we are not. We are buying a bigger belt. We are buying a bigger
suit.
We are trying to mask the fact that we are grossly overburdened. The
budget before us is better than President Obama's budget. But Peter
Orszag of OMB says it is 98 percent the same. So we are tying to find a
different path. You can evaluate the people running your country as to
how they want to spend your money and how much.
What we are proposing in this budget is to basically freeze domestic
spending, except for defense and veterans--to do what you are doing,
basically; that is, control your spending, to get by on the same amount
of money, with allowing some growth in some needed areas, but to rein
in what will be a dramatic increase over time of domestic spending. I
think we can do that.
We are spending trillions of dollars. We have trillions of dollars
available to us. I know we could get by for another year or two on that
same amount of money, allowing growth in certain key areas if we wanted
to. But we don't have to. It is a choice we make. You don't have that
choice. You can't go and print money. If you write a bad check, you go
to jail; we call it good government. So you have choices. You have to
make choices. We seem not to be bound by any choices.
If you are going to build a budget from a Federal level, what is the
most important thing? At home and in your business, you build a budget
around the essentials of what your family needs and what your business
needs. I think we should be building a budget around securing the
Nation. Under the budget of President Obama, defense spending goes from
4.7 percent of GDP--we are in Iraq and Afghanistan; there are all kinds
of threats from Iran, North Korea, you name it; the world is a very
dangerous place--and over 10 years, his defense budget takes spending
down to 3 percent of GDP. I don't know what he is listening to in terms
of intelligence reports, but I don't think this world is safe right
now, and now is not the time to cut defense. The budget I am
supporting, Senator McCain's alternative, does away with tax increases
on the job creators. If you make over $250,000 a year, your taxes are
going to go up by about 25 percent. At a time when we are trying to get
people to expand their business--and I can tell my colleagues one
thing, and John Kennedy understood this--if you raise taxes, people do
less business. If you raise the capital gains rates from 15 to 20,
people do less capital gains transactions because there is a penalty to
engage in business activity. So now is not the time to raise taxes on
anyone.
We have to compete with China and India. When you pass on the cost of
doing business--and that is what will happen--the American consumer
suffers and the American business community is going to suffer because
they are competing with people in a global economy who do not have all
these tax burdens.
The biggest problem this country faces in terms of long-term debt is
Social Security and Medicare. These are entitlement programs. When you
get retirement eligible under Social Security, you get a check based on
your contributions. Nobody wants to allow that system to go bankrupt,
but it is headed toward bankruptcy. Why? Because the amount of money
coming in and the amount of money obligated do not match.
When I was born in 1955, there were 15 workers for every retiree.
Today there are three and in 20 years there will be two. People will
not be able--two workers will not be able to meet the obligations that
are owed through the Social Security system unless we act now. This
budget puts aside a reserve program to deal with saving Social
Security. Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid are a very large
part of our budget, and they are on autopilot. I commend the President
for wanting to do something in health care, but in his budget, he adds
$1.6 trillion as a downpayment on health care reform.
We already spend more money than any country in the world on health
care. Rather than adding another $1 trillion into the system, let's see
if we can better manage the money we have today. This budget puts a new
earmark system in place so Senators and Congressmen cannot, in the
middle of the night----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. GRAHAM. This is an alternative that makes sense. This is an
alternative that has to make the same choices you are making in the
private sector. I hope the Congress will adopt this proposal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.

Amendment No. 875

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up
amendment No. 875.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes an
amendment numbered 875.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam 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 require information from the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System about the use of emergency economic assistance)

On page 48, line 24, insert ``including the identity of
each entity to which the Board has provided such assistance,
the value or amount of that financial assistance, and what
that entity is doing with such financial assistance,'' after
``2008,''.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, the American people are outraged by the
greed, the recklessness, and the illegal behavior they have seen from
the masters of the universe on Wall Street, who, through their
outrageous behavior, these financial tycoons, many of whom have earned
hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars in their
career, have plunged our country and much of the world into a deep
recession which has cost our people millions of jobs, which has cost
people

[[Page 9830]]

their homes, which has cost people their savings, and which has led
millions of Americans to wonder what kind of future their kids are
going to have.
All of this is not the result of an act of nature, it is the result
of very definitive actions by a small number of people on Wall Street
who have shown outrageous greed in their behavior. It goes without
saying that we need a major investigation to understand how we got into
this disaster, and what we are going to do to get out of it, and whom
we are going to hold accountable.
It goes without saying that we need to begin the process of
reregulating Wall Street, bringing back Glass-Steagall, and making sure
our taxpayers will never again be put in this position of having to
bail out the greed on Wall Street. It goes without saying that we have
got to address the issue of too big to fail, in my view--and I have
said this many times--if an institution is too big to fail, it is too
big to exist, and we begin should begin right now in starting the
breakup of these mammoth financial institutions whose failure would
cause systemic damage to our entire economy.
It goes without saying that we have got to do more than worry about
Wall Street, we have got to start worrying about Main Street and the
middle class of this country. We need to pass strong mortgage reform
legislation, as well as legislation to protect the American people, who
are paying outrageously high interest rates on their credit cards.
In that regard, I have introduced legislation, and hope to get it to
the floor of the Senate before too long, which would put a cap of 15
percent on the interest rates any credit card holder in this country
would be charged.
But those issues dealing with Wall Street and many more will have to
wait for another day. Today, I am offering, along with Senators
Feingold and Webb, a very simple, what I believe is a noncontroversial
amendment, which I hope will have the support of every Member of this
body.
As you well know, the Congress voted to provide $700 billion in so-
called TARP funds to help bail out some of the major financial
institutions in our country. I happen to have voted against that
bailout. But what is very clear is that every penny of that TARP
bailout money is now public.
As part of that bailout legislation, what was mandated is that every
financial institution that received 1 penny of the taxpayers' money
would be listed on the Treasury Department Web site. And if any
American wants to know where that $700 billion went, they can account
for every nickel of that. That is the way it should be.
On the other hand, what many people do not know is that the TARP
funds, that $700 billion, were only one part of the bailout. What many
people do not know is that the Federal Reserve has lent out over $2
trillion to a number of financial institutions. But if you were to ask
me or any Member of the Senate, any Member of Congress, any American,
who received that money, what they will tell you is: We do not know.
Over $2 trillion of taxpayer money has been placed at risk, but the
American people do not know who received those funds, and what the
exact contractual arrangements were.
Anybody who believes in the concept of good government, anybody who
believes in transparency, understands that is wrong, that is
unacceptable, and that has got to change.
Earlier this month, I had an opportunity to ask Ben Bernanke, who is
the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, about this issue when he testified
before the Budget Committee, of which I am a member.
At that hearing, Chairman Bernanke told the Budget Committee that
since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed has provided loans to
``hundreds and hundreds of banks.'' But Mr. Bernanke declined to name
any of those banks, how much assistance they were provided, or what, in
fact, those banks are doing with the money that taxpayers gave them.
What the Federal Reserve needs to understand is that this money does
not belong to them, it belongs to the American people, and the American
people have a right to know who the Fed is lending taxpayer money to,
how much they are getting, and what the Fed is asking in return for
this money. I cannot imagine anything that is more obvious, more common
sense. How can you put $2.2 trillion of taxpayer money at risk and not
know who is receiving that money? I think back now to the financial
forms that Members of Congress have to fill out. People want to know,
are we in a conflict of interest. We fill out those forms, they are
made public. Our staff members fill out those forms. In many instances,
when people are applying for Federal aid, they are forced to make
public what they are asking for and how much. Some years ago, small
farmers in the State of Vermont received some help from the Federal
Government as part of the MILC program, if I recall correctly there. It
was right in the newspaper, every nickel the struggling farmers were
getting. Some of these farmers make $20,000, $25,000 a year. Some of
them are on food stamps. It was, $8,399 goes to this farmer and that
farmer. They were not happy about it. That is what the process was.
So it seems to me that if small farmers in Vermont are going to see
what they get from the Federal Government and hope to keep small farms
alive in this country, I think that multibillion dollar financial
institutions should also be asked to have what they received made
public as well.
The amendment I am offering today is a pretty simple one. It amends
an amendment I offered. It was submitted in the Budget Committee.
Specifically this amendment calls for increased transparency, including
names, which institutions received assistance from the Fed, how much
money they received, and what they are doing with this assistance.
I sincerely believe that is not an issue of left versus right. In
fact, some of the strongest supporters of this concept are very
conservative people such as Ron Paul, a colleague of mine in the
House--a former colleague--who supports this type of approach. A number
of Republicans have spoken for increased transparency, as well as
progressives.
That is the issue. It is as simple and as clear as it can possibly
be, that if taxpayers are going to be placed at risk by providing
trillions of dollars in loans to large financial institutions, the
American people have a right to know who is receiving that money, and
what the terms are.
This amendment, once again, is supported by Senator Feingold and
Senator Webb. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Louisiana to discuss her amendment, not to call it up but to discuss
her amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana.

Amendment No. 931

Ms. LANDRIEU. I rise to speak about amendment No. 931 which is at the
desk, as modified. I will ask the chairman at a later time for it to be
voted on and in order.
I wanted to speak about an issue in the budget as we discuss the
importance of laying out a framework for how we may allocate future
revenues that come into our general fund from offshore oil and gas
drilling.
A couple of years ago, in 2006, Senator Domenici and I led a
bipartisan effort to establish what I believe is a breakthrough process
as we seek to build a system or a method of energy security for our
Nation which would, as the debate is going on in the Congress, include
more domestic oil and gas drilling and an expansion of our nuclear
capability for the production of electricity. I am very hopeful about
alternative energy--wind and solar. We also have some interesting
experiments underway with geothermal and energy created by our tides.
There are also exciting opportunities for new hydro projects. It is
going to take all of the above to help our country maximize domestic
energy sources.

[[Page 9831]]

Representing the State of Louisiana, I am offering this amendment
with the Senator from Alaska as well, Mr. Begich, who also represents a
State that has contributed a great deal to conventional oil and gas
production. It is important that the revenue streams associated with
this production are shared equitably and fairly, not only with the
Federal Treasury but with States that serve as platforms for this
industry and with counties and, in the case of Louisiana, parishes that
serve as platforms for this great industry.
More than ever, people in businesses and residences, individuals and
families are focused on the cost of energy and electricity, both on the
electricity side and the transportation side. While we are not there
yet, we are pushing forward with the President's new initiatives and
agenda to find a way to make America more energy secure.
In large measure, this debate has actually been led by the chairman
of the Budget Committee, who is doing an outstanding job on the budget,
but has also been flexing his muscle and lending his voice, and we are
so grateful and appreciative, to pushing our country to energy
security.
I offer this amendment as a basis to establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund that will continue the precedent and practice that was set
by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, which will set aside 50
percent of future funds to be allocated in a budget-neutral fashion for
revenue sharing for States and local governments, along with
contributions out of that fund made to the Land and Water Conservation
Fund and to investments in energy innovation--those three allocations
of funding, whether it is for revenue sharing to establish a
partnership with State and local governments, as we consider where else
in America we can drill.
This amendment does not say where we are going to drill. It does not
authorize drilling. It says when those decisions are made that the
revenues should be shared with State and local governments
appropriately, to enter into strong, reliable partnerships and mutually
beneficial partnerships for increased drilling domestically. I think
this is a very smart way to proceed, and it has been voted for by over
72 Members of this Senate, both Republicans and Democrats.
In addition, we understand that a part of this money could be
dedicated to conservation, land and water. It could also go to energy
innovation, research, and development. So, again, it does not tie our
hands to the specifics. It does not authorize any drilling that is not
already authorized under the law. But it does establish a deficit
reserve fund for us to act in the future.
I understand my time has come to an end. I thank the chairman for his
consideration. We will call this amendment up, No. 931, at the
appropriate time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Louisiana for her leadership on these issues and for the good working
relationship we have enjoyed. One thing I have learned about the
Senator from Louisiana: She is persistent with a capital ``P.'' And I
will tell you, if I wanted somebody to represent me here in this
Capitol to get a result, I would pick her because never have I seen
someone more indefatigable in defense of their State than the Senator
from Louisiana, and I mean that with the highest praise.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. How much time is still pending for the various parties?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 5\1/2\
minutes, the Senator from New Hampshire has a total of 10 minutes, the
Senator from Oklahoma has 3 minutes, and the Senator from Mississippi
has 2 minutes.
Mr. GREGG. I see the Senator from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up amendment No. 742.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Would the Senator restate
the number.
Mr. INHOFE. No. 742.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report----
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I object. We have a queue here. We have
a unanimous consent agreement. It would be out of order to call up an
amendment at this point.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me withdraw that unanimous consent
request and let me comment about what this amendment is about. There
was a misunderstanding. I thought this was going to be voice voted at
some point, or accepted.
It has been accepted on both sides. My cosponsor is Senator Akaka,
who I think is down here now. I will briefly describe what it is and,
hopefully, we will be able to get it in before the day is over.
There is a little bit of a problem we have in health care for our
veterans, in that quite often--in fact, 19 out of the last 22 years--
Congress has been unsuccessful in passing annual funding for veterans
health care in time. Over the past 7 years, the VA has received its
final budget at an average of 3 months after the beginning of the new
year.
There is a solution to this--this discontinuation of health care for
our veterans--that doesn't cost anything, and that is what this bill is
all about. It would allow us to have advanced appropriations for
veterans health care. This is not unprecedented; it happens in other
areas too.
In October 2008, during his campaign, then-Senator Obama said:

The way our Nation provides funding for VA health care must
be reformed . . . My administration will recommend passage of
advance appropriations legislation for the fiscal year 2010
appropriations cycle.

So this is a recommendation that actually came from the
administration. I am joined by several others, including Senator Akaka,
who is, of course, the head of the Veterans' Committee.
At the appropriate time, I wish to go ahead and get this through, and
I will leave it up to the managers of the bill as to when that
appropriate time will be.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I will yield myself a few minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. 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. GREGG. 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. GREGG. Madam President, we had represented to our colleagues that
we would begin voting at 11:30. We have an inordinate number of votes
already in the queue. I hope people will appreciate the fact that the
number of amendments pending right now is going to take us well into
the evening tonight, headed toward midnight. I recognize everybody
wants to get their amendment up, and that is their right, but I would
simply counsel that if we are going to complete this bill--which
probably I should not counsel for since I am not for it, but as a
practical matter, if we are going to complete this bill, we need to be
a little bit judicious as we ask for votes on amendments; otherwise, we
will be here well into Friday, if not into Saturday at this rate.
At this point, in order to recognize the fact that we are already
behind schedule a little bit, I would suggest to the chairman that we
yield back all time, even though I had a brilliant statement in
opposition to the bill.
Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I wasn't able
to speak on my amendment last night. I wonder if I could have the
remaining time until 11:45 to speak on the amendment.
Mr. GREGG. I do have 10 minutes left, so I will yield the Senator 5
minutes.

[[Page 9832]]

I, first, wish to take a minute, however, to say I appreciate Senator
McCain's full substitute. I think it is a very positive substitute. It
does what the American people need to have done. It controls spending
in the outyears.
The essence of the problem with the budget that has been brought
forward by the President and by the Senator from North Dakota is that
in the outyears, the debt explodes and it explodes as a result of an
explosion in spending. Senator McCain has taken an aggressive effort to
try to change that course of action so our kids have an affordable
Government. I congratulate him for it.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, if the Senator from Nevada will withhold
for 1 minute--and this time will not come out of his time--I think it
is very important Senators understand that we have done a 5-year budget
here. That is what we have done 30 of the 34 times Congress has done a
budget under the Budget Act, including the last 5 years and including 2
when the ranking member was the chairman. Now, why have we done 5-year
budgets? It is because the projections beyond 5 years are notoriously
unreliable. The ranking member himself has said that second 5 years is
a guess. My own belief is the fact that President Obama came forward
with a 10-year budget is a useful thing. We have that scored. We know
what that does. We know what it does in the second 5 years. But
Congress has almost always done 5-year budgets. Thirty of the thirty-
four times a budget has been written in Congress, it has been done on a
5-year basis because the outyears are so notoriously unreliable.
One other point I wish to make to colleagues. We now have over 100
amendments pending. If everyone insists on their amendment, we can do
three an hour, we will be here for 33 hours. It is in the hands of our
colleagues. If everybody is going to insist on their amendment and a
vote on their amendment, you can do the math. We can do three votes an
hour, and we will be here for 33 hours. I hope my colleagues think
carefully about that.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, 33\1/2\ hours.
Mr. CONRAD. So 33\1/2\ hours. I stand corrected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

Amendment No. 805

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, my amendment which I have offered in the
past, is a means testing of Medicare Part D, the prescription drug
benefit.
This Congress, under the leadership of President George W. Bush,
offered seniors a brand new benefit: Prescription drug coverage. The
problem with what this Congress did is that in this brand new benefit,
we didn't take into account wealthier seniors who were getting a
benefit from a system they never paid into. People pay taxes for
Medicare Part A: Hospital coverage. That is what Part A is for. We
currently means test and require seniors that have more means to pay
part of the Part B premium, which covers doctors. Well, Part D is to
cover prescription drugs. So what we are doing with this amendment is
saying to seniors, that instead of a schoolteacher, firefighter or
police officer, the middle-income folks out there having to pay higher
taxes in order to pay for your prescription drugs, if you have the
means, then you should pay for them.
That is all this amendment does. The savings are contributed to
deficit reduction.
We are talking about the massive amount of debt this budget puts onto
our children and our grandchildren. The Chinese, who are a big buyer of
our debt, are questioning whether they want to continue to buy our
debt. If that ever happens, if the Japanese, the Chinese, other
sovereigns around the world, or if our own citizens quit buying our
Treasury bills this country is in trouble. We should be looking at ways
to lower our debt, to lower the amount of money we are borrowing from
our children and grandchildren.
This amendment saves about $3 billion. I realize it is small change,
but that used to be a lot of money around here. In these tough economic
times we should save money whenever we can. This means-testing of
Medicare Part D is absolutely a place where we should start saving.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ENSIGN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. GREGG. I know the Senator mentioned this, but I wish to reinforce
it. This was a proposal that came from President Obama's administration
and it was in his budget; is that correct?
Mr. ENSIGN. The Senator is correct, that the President of the United
States did include means testing as a part of his budget, means testing
for Part D. He did put that toward health care. There are many of us
who believe we spend plenty of money on health care in this country; we
just don't spend it in the right way. We have a sick care system that
pays people, doctors, and hospitals once people get sick, but we don't
do pay for better behavior in this country, such as not smoking.
Safeway was in here talking to us about the program they implemented,
and they actually give financial incentives for healthier living. They
have actually been able to lower costs, compared to the rest of the
United States, by 40 percent over the last 4 years. The United States
does not need to spend more money on health care. We need to better
allocate the money we are spending. That is why putting the savings
from Medicare Part D toward deficit reduction is the responsible way to
go.
Let's take the $3 billion in savings, considered a pittance around
here, and put it toward deficit reduction so we do not continue to put
a huge burden on our children and our grandchildren.
Lastly, when the President says: Let's means test Part D, I think we
should do just that. When our children and our grandchildren are
saying: Let's not have any more debt, let's not be burdened with huge
taxes in the future, we should listen to them as well. We have a
responsibility to do that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Montana is
recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this amendment sounds good on the
surface, but, frankly, it will make health care reform more difficult.
It is difficult enough as it is. This amendment will make it much more
difficult.
Some suggest that wealthier Americans should be ``means tested;''
that is, they should not get the same benefit under the Part D drug
benefit as others. That is a policy that needs to be debated. I
personally think that is something we should consider. After all, as
the Senator from Nevada said, it is in the President's budget to means
test Part D drug benefits.
But that is not the point here. The point here is, do we want to help
make health care reform easier or more difficult? The effect of the
amendment is to reduce the Finance Committee's allocation in health
care reform. That is going to make the Finance Committee's effort to
get meaningful health care reform more difficult.
I suggest we take up that issue--whether to means test Medicare or
not--in the context of health care reform. Then the savings that would
be achieved by means testing--if we enacted it--would go toward health
care reform.
The effect of the Senator's amendment is twofold. One is to suggest
means testing Medicare Part D, which is in the President's budget, but
the President doesn't want to use means testing to reduce spending on
health care. He doesn't want that. So it would accomplish both
purposes; that is, to be sure we meaningfully address means testing but
in a way that doesn't hurt the efforts of health care reform.
It makes much more sense to not adopt this amendment but take up the
question of means testing in the context of health care reform, where
it is part of many other components of health care reform, where the
pieces will fit together in a way that makes more sense.
I respectfully say this is not the place to consider means testing.
It should be done in the context of health care reform. If we don't
approve this amendment, then we can deal with this issue on health care
reform.

[[Page 9833]]

There are a lot of arguments for and against this. I take no firm
position as chairman of the Finance Committee, but I believe the
Senator's concept has merit. After all, it is in the President's
budget, but it should not be done here, which has the effect of taking
it out of the Finance Committee's allocation, which makes it more
difficult for the Finance Committee to do its work on health care
reform.
I respectfully urge Senators to not support this amendment so we can
make it easier to take up health care reform in a way that we can
consider this policy as one of the many we take up on health care
reform.
Again, I urge that the amendment not be adopted so we can do our job.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, momentarily, we will go to a vote on the
Ensign amendment.
Before we do that, I ask unanimous consent that upon the use of all
time remaining for debate on the budget resolution, the Senate then
proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order
listed; that each amendment be reported by number prior to the time for
debate with respect to the amendment; that the previous order remaining
debate time and vote time remain in effect; provided further, that if a
budget point of order is raised against any amendment, then a motion to
waive the applicable point of order be considered made, with the vote
occurring on the motion to waive.
The list of amendments is as follows: Ensign, No. 805; McCain, No.
882, as modified; Dodd-Shelby, No. 913; Sanders, No. 875; Johanns,
motion to recommit; Bennett, No. 759; Bennet, No. 799; Democratic side-
by-side amendment to the Vitter amendment; Vitter No. 787; Coburn, No.
892; Casey, No. 755; Coburn, No. 893; Brown, No. 808; Graham, No. 910;
Landrieu, No. 931, as modified, with the changes at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I wish to speak in support of the Ensign
amendment. It should have been done long ago. There is no reason that
people who are working in a restaurant or at Wal-Mart in New Hampshire
should have to subsidize Warren Buffett's drugs, which is what happens
under present law. There is no requirement that people who are wealthy
have to pay anything on Part D premiums.
I certainly hope we will approve the Ensign amendment.
At this point, I suggest that we yield back all time.
Mr. CONRAD. I am prepared to yield back all time.
Mr. GREGG. We yield back all time, and we will go to the vote on the
Ensign amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
805, offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant 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 Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 58, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 128 Leg.]

YEAS--39

Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Specter
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich

NAYS--58

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

NOT VOTING--2

Kennedy
Murkowski

The amendment (No. 805) was rejected.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, Senator Feinstein wishes to be
recognized for the purpose of changing her vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.

Change of Vote

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I want to change my vote on rollcall
No. 128. It was my intention to vote ``yes'' and I voted ``no.'' Since
it will not change the outcome of the vote, I ask unanimous consent
that my vote be changed to reflect a ``yea'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
Mr. REID. Madam President, I announced this morning, though only
Senator McConnell and I were on the floor, that today we are going to
enforce the rule. This vote was turned in at 20 minutes. The 10-minute
votes are going to be enforced. You have a 5-minute leeway. If you are
not here exactly on time, the vote will be turned in. The clerks have
been instructed of that fact.
Senator McConnell and I believe we have to move this show along
today. There is no reason to leave the Chamber. There is something to
drink in the cloakroom and a sandwich if someone wants one, but let's
cooperate and get this done today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, now that colleagues are in the Chamber,
we will give you a status update. We now have over 100 amendments
pending. We can do three an hour. If we hold on that, and everybody
insists on a vote on their amendment, we will be here for at least 33
hours.
I implore colleagues on both sides, if you can take a voice vote on
your amendment, please be willing to do that. So I ask colleagues, if
you can take a voice vote on your amendment or if you can hold off to
another day, please do so; otherwise, we will be here clear through
tomorrow.
Mr. GREGG. The next amendment is Senator McCain, I believe.

Amendment No. 882, as Modified

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. 882, as modified, offered by the Senator from Arizona,
Mr. McCain.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, this proposal caps discretionary funding
at a baseline level plus inflation, a dramatic difference between this
proposal and the Senate budget committee proposal. The proposal by
Senator Conrad increases domestic spending by 8 percent for 2010 and
then 1 percent in the years following.
We all know that is unrealistic. And we all know we will be back here
next year with another 8 percent increase in domestic spending. It is
time for some tough love. This is what this budget proposal is.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the chairman's mark that was referenced
increases discretionary spending not by 8 percent but by 5.3 percent.
That is all domestic discretionary spending is increased--by 5.3
percent. It averages nondefense discretionary spending at a 2\1/2\-
percent increase over the 5 years.

[[Page 9834]]

The McCain offer and the chairman's mark are almost identical with
respect to deficit levels and debt levels. In 2014, the debt is 98.3
percent of GDP under the McCain amendment; 98.7 percent under the
Chairman's mark--virtually no difference.
But there are differences. He takes $350 billion in savings out of
mandatory programs and doesn't specify whether it comes out of Social
Security or Medicare or agriculture--$350 billion. Where does it land?
If you want to risk cutting Social Security and Medicare by $350
billion, vote for the McCain substitute. If not, vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. GREGG. 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 on agreeing to amendment No. 882, as modified.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 60, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 129 Leg.]

YEAS--38

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

NAYS--60

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

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The amendment (No. 882), as modified, was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.

Amendment No. 913

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, next in order is the Dodd-Shelby
amendment, No. 913.
Senator Dodd?
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself
and Senator Shelby. This amendment calls for increased transparency and
disclosure at the Federal Reserve Bank in order to understand better
the risks the Fed is taking onto its balance sheets. It also calls for
a further evaluation of the costs of the existing Federal Reserve Bank
system, which has not been done before.
Our colleagues from Vermont and Kentucky will offer an amendment
after our amendment is offered. There is a distinction between these
two. The amendment offered by the Senators from Vermont and Kentucky
goes one step further than ours. Presently--and it has been the case
for years and years--you do not reveal the names of the companies that
show up at the discount window. There is a reason for that. The reason
is obviously to avoid potential runs on those institutions. Our
amendment does not require the disclosure of those companies names. We
call for transparency, disclosure of the items I mentioned, the
collateral that the Fed is taking, but we stop short of insisting upon
naming the people who show up at the discount window. That is a
fundamental distinction which our colleagues will have to decide on
which course to follow.
We think there is some danger in going the route our colleagues from
Vermont and Kentucky are proposing. If we end up naming those names,
you could well trigger runs on those institutions, and that could end
up costing the taxpayer a lot more. The Dodd-Shelby amendment improves
disclosure and transparency at the Federal Reserve but does not risk
the problems associated with the other amendment. We urge our
colleagues to support our amendment.
I call up the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself and
Mr. Shelby, proposes an amendment numbered 913.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for enhanced oversight of the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System concerning the use of emergency economic
assistance)

On page 48, line 21, strike ``banks'' and all that follows
through ``purposes,'' on line 25 and insert the following
``banks, to include (1) an evaluation of the appropriate
number and the associated costs of Federal reserve banks; (2)
publication on its website, with respect to all lending and
financial assistance facilities created by the Board to
address the financial crisis, of (A) the nature and amounts
of the collateral that the central bank is accepting on
behalf of American taxpayers in the various lending programs,
on no less than a monthly basis; (B) the extent to which
changes in valuation of credit extensions to various special
purpose vehicles, such as Maiden Lane I, Maiden Lane II, and
Maiden Lane III, are a result of losses on collateral which
will not be recovered; (C) the number of borrowers that
participate in each of the lending programs and details of
the credit extended, including the extent to which the credit
is concentrated in one or more institutions; and (D)
information on the extent to which the central bank is
contracting for services of private sector firms for the
design, pricing, management, and accounting for the various
lending programs and the terms and nature of such contracts
and bidding processes,''.

Mr. DODD. I do not see Senator Shelby in the Chamber.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who
yields time in opposition?
Mr. CONRAD. Senator Sanders will have the time in opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. SANDERS. The Dodd-Shelby amendment is a very good step forward in
terms of long-overdue transparency of the Fed. I compliment both
Senators for their effort, and I support their amendment.
Unfortunately, this amendment, as Senator Dodd has just told us, does
not go far enough. The bottom line is that the Fed has lent out some
$2.2 trillion, and the American people and the Members of Congress do
not know which financial institutions have received that money or what
the exact terms of those transactions are. I think it is basically
absurd that $2.2 trillion is at risk without us knowing who has
received that money.
I support the Dodd-Shelby amendment, and in a moment I will ask for
support for the Sanders-Feingold-Webb amendment as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 913.
Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
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 necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 2, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 130 Leg.]

YEAS--96

Akaka
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin

[[Page 9835]]

Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
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--2

Alexander
Gregg

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The amendment (No. 913) was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 875

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote on amendment No.
875, offered by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Bunning be added as a cosponsor. I will yield 30 seconds to him and 10
seconds to Senator Webb, who is a very quick speaker.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. The taxpayers of this country, through the Fed, have
lent $2.2 trillion to a number of financial institutions. We do not
know who these institutions are or what they received. This is totally
absurd. We need to name the names. That is what this amendment is
about.
I yield to Senator Bunning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, this is a transparency amendment that
allows the Fed, forces them, to reveal what banks have received over $2
trillion in assistance. That is what the amendment says. That is what
it does.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WEBB. I ask my colleagues to consider 10 words: The American
people deserve to know where their money went.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I share Senator Sander's concern
regarding the transparency of these programs. We all do. We just voted
on the Dodd-Shelby amendment--96 to 2, it passed, I believe.
As Senator Dodd has pointed out, however, disclosing the names of the
companies may create financial instability by unnecessarily raising
concerns about institutions that accessed these facilities, something
we should try to avoid. I believe the Senate has already spoken, and we
certainly do not need this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
875.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). Are there any other
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 39, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 131 Leg.]

YEAS--59

Akaka
Begich
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Casey
Coburn
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Kerry
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
McCain
McCaskill
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Sessions
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--39

Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennet
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Carper
Chambliss
Cochran
Corker
Dodd
Enzi
Gillibrand
Gregg
Hatch
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Lieberman
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Menendez
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Udall (CO)
Voinovich
Warner
Wicker

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The amendment (No. 875) was agreed to.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the reason this vote took a little longer is
because people, even though it is a 10-minute vote, waited until the
last minute to come and vote or to change their vote. It is making it
extremely difficult for the people at the desk to do this. There was a
mistake made because people were switching votes, so it took a lot
longer.
If everyone would stay as close as they can to get the votes out of
the way and not wait until the last minute--the Republican cloakroom,
we have sent pages back to try to find Members, and to the Democratic
cloakroom as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.

Senator Grassley's 10,000th Vote

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, our good friend from Iowa, Senator
Grassley, has cast his 10,000th vote. Senator Grassley has been a
distinguished Member of this body for 29 years and, in my view, the
Nation is always a lot better off when people are paying very close
attention to Chuck Grassley.
Over the course of the past two centuries, nearly 2,000 men and women
have served in the Senate. Fewer than 30 have cast more votes than
Chuck Grassley. Only one other Senator from Iowa has served longer.
This year Senator Grassley will mark 50 years of public service to the
people of the Hawkeye State. While some Members of Congress have a
tendency to lose touch with their constituents, Senator Grassley has
always worked hard to make sure he never did. He has made it his
business to stay connected to the folks back home by holding at least
one townhall meeting a year in all of Iowa's 99 counties and by
responding to every letter, postcard, e-mail, and phone call his office
receives from Iowans.
He also stays close to the land by working his family farm, even
while he keeps up with his duties in Washington. Chuck Grassley may be
a U.S. Senator, but he has always preferred to be known as ``a farmer
from Butler County.'' Visitors to the Grassley farm say it is not
uncommon to see Senator Grassley pulling a cell phone out from under
his baseball cap while riding on his tractor. Remind me never to borrow
Senator Grassley's cell phone.
A 1955 graduate of the University of Northern Iowa, Senator Grassley
ran for the Iowa House at the age of 23 and lost. But this is a man,
the Des Moines Register once wrote, for whom the word ``dogged'' was
invented. Three years later, at age 25, he won that seat in the House,
and Iowa voters have been reelecting him ever since, including five
terms in the Senate.
Over the years, Senator Grassley has distinguished himself for his
tenacity and his commitment to the public interest. Whistleblower
amendments that he has sponsored have recovered $18 billion to the U.S.
Treasury. He has kept a watchful eye on spending at the

[[Page 9836]]

Pentagon and, as the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, he
has been an equal opportunity foe of loopholes, closing them to
corporations and individuals alike. He has also done the hard work of
following up on these and other accountability measures he has authored
over the years.
Senator Grassley has a lot to be proud of in his career. He and
Barbara are also rightly proud of their 54 years of marriage, their
five children, and nine grandchildren. Chuck couldn't have foreseen
such an eventful life when he and Barbara met, and Barbara probably
certainly didn't expect that 30 years of marriage would pass before she
finally got her diamond engagement ring. We all know it is probably
because Chuck didn't want to spend that money.
Senator Grassley has been a farmer, a father, a government watchdog,
a steward of the Nation's finances; in short, he is a real statesman.
The Senate would not be the same without him, and the Nation, I firmly
believe, would be a lot worse off without the remarkable service of
Chuck Grassley. Senator, congratulations.
(Applause, Members rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I join the Republican leader in
congratulating Chuck Grassley, our friend, on casting his 10,000th
vote. Chuck was born in the city of New Hartford--but not Connecticut--
Iowa, where he and his wife Barbara raised their five children. They
reside there today. After graduating Iowa State Teachers College, he
earned a doctorate from the University of Iowa.
I have referred to Senator Grassley on a number of occasions as
Chuck, Senator, Hey You, but now Dr. Grassley. Everyone should
understand that.
Chuck, in addition to his education excellence, worked as an assembly
line laborer before he was elected to the Iowa House of Representatives
and later to the United States Congress. He has been in the Senate
since 1980. Chuck quickly became known as a friend to taxpayers and a
foe to government waste.
As former chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, on which I served
under him, Senator Grassley worked to expose the neglectful practices
of many of America's nursing homes, and certainly Senator Grassley was
a catalyst for change. To ensure that government workers feel free to
shine a light on corruption and misappropriation of public funds, Chuck
Grassley coauthored the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989.
As former chairman and now ranking member of the Finance Committee,
Senator Grassley has worked with Members of both sides of the aisle to
find bipartisan solutions to put taxpayers first.
He is a man of his word, and once he tells you what he has agreed to
do, he goes to the wall. I have found that on a number of different
issues working with him.
Senator Grassley is a leader on health care issues. Senator Grassley
reached across the aisle to coauthor legislation with Senator Kennedy
12 years ago that provides middle-class families with the opportunity
to buy into Medicare for children with special needs.
I particularly appreciate Senator Grassley's longstanding commitment
to developing clean, homegrown renewable energy.
In addition to his leadership on a broad spectrum of national issues,
Iowans depend on Chuck Grassley for his responsiveness to constituent
services. He has accomplished the remarkable feat of visiting each one
of Iowa's 99 counties--that is so hard for me to comprehend. The State
of Nevada, as big as it is, only has 17 counties. Iowa has 99 counties,
and he has visited those counties every year at least once since he was
first elected to the Senate.
Chuck and Barbara, as Senator McConnell has mentioned, are the
parents of five children: Lee, Wendy, Robin, Michele, and Jay.
An accomplishment for sure--10,000 votes cast in the U.S. Senate. It
is a remarkable accomplishment. But as I look at his record, I think
one of his greatest accomplishments is the fact that the Senator from
Iowa will achieve, this year, his 55th wedding anniversary with
Barbara.
Congratulations, Chuck.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I join with the entire Senate family in
congratulating my colleague, my good friend, and the senior Senator
from Iowa, on casting his 10,000th vote in the Senate. This is a truly
remarkable milestone, but even more remarkable is the fact that Senator
Grassley has cast nearly 6,000 votes without missing a vote. It has
been 16 years since Senator Grassley has missed a vote. The last time
he missed a vote, he had to be in Iowa during that terrible flooding we
had in 1993. So he has not missed a vote since. It has been 16 years
that Senator Grassley has not missed a vote.
I note for the record that Cal Ripken, the great shortstop and third
baseman for the Baltimore Orioles, went 16 years without missing a
game, and they called him the Iron Man. So now Senator Grassley has
gone 16 years without missing a vote, so I guess now we can call him
the Iron Man of the U.S. Senate.
But the measure of a Senator is not just how many votes he or she
casts, it also includes what he or she accomplishes off the floor of
the Senate. That is also where Senator Grassley has truly distinguished
himself in this body over the last 28 years.
Count me as one of those who believes the executive branch of this
Government has gotten too powerful, has arrogated too much power to
themselves in relation to the legislative branch.
Mr. BYRD. Yes, yes.
Mr. HARKIN. And it is a power they flaunt. I do not care whether it
is a Democratic administration or a Republican administration. I
daresay no Senator is more dedicated to providing rigourous, relentless
oversight of executive branch agencies--whether during Republican
administrations or Democratic administrations--than Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley's dedication to the oversight function has been
exemplary, a model every Senator ought to strive to emulate.
Chuck Grassley and I have served together in the Congress since we
were both elected the same year in 1974. We took our oaths of office on
the same day in the House in 1975. Of course, he preceded me to the
Senate. He came to the Senate in 1981. I followed him here in 1985.
Well, we belong to different parties, but I like to think we share a
down-to-earth, commonsense Iowa way of looking at the world. I value
his friendship and his counsel. I have the highest respect for his work
here in the Senate and his work in Iowa on behalf of all Iowans.
So, again, I join my colleagues in congratulating my colleague, my
friend, and the senior Senator from Iowa on this remarkable milestone.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have lined up to speak. So many of us
want to congratulate the esteemed Senator from Iowa. I congratulate him
on his 10,000th vote.
Many of you know Chuck and I get together once a week. We started
this practice at least 8 or 9 years ago, and sometimes he is chairman,
sometimes I am chairman; chairman or ranking member, vice versa, back
and forth. We meet every Tuesday at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, and we
have done this for 8 years. Maybe we have missed five or six or seven
times, but constantly, consistently we get together to go over matters,
minimize misunderstandings, and so forth. Lately, the last couple, 3
years, the meetings have been in my office. I have a little bit bigger
conference room. That is not the real reason, though. The real reason
is, as Chuck always reminds me, in my office the coffee is free, so it
is much better to meet in my office.
All of you who know Chuck know he passes the airport test; that is,
if you are ever stranded in an airport for 10 or 12 hours and you are
sitting next to

[[Page 9837]]

somebody, you get to like the person or you do not get to like the
person. Chuck more than passes the airport test. The more you get to
know Chuck Grassley, the more you will like him. It is his decency, his
honesty. He is unpretentious. It is his basic Iowa grassroots
personality. It means so much to me, in spending so much time with him.
The only time our meetings are cut short, I might say, is when Chuck
has to dash out and get on the radio and talk to people back home in
Iowa; otherwise, Chuck stays throughout the meeting. The people in Iowa
mean so much to him.
I might also say that we know how much he protects taxpayers'
interests. It has been mentioned--whistleblower legislation, which he
promotes so aggressively. He is also downright parsimonious himself. He
turns the balance of his office budget back to the taxpayers. Every
year, he returns a good portion back to the taxpayers. He also, I might
say, promotes ethanol for several reasons. One, it is good for Iowa.
But he also contributes to the reduction of fossil fuel consumption.
When he comes back home from plowing his field, he is on his tractor,
and he coasts downhill the last mile to save a few pennies of diesel
fuel. He does. I checked that out a short while ago. Yes, he does that
just to save a few pennies of diesel fuel.
Anyway, I want to tell you how much I appreciate him. He is one of my
very best friends.
I think the measure of a Senator really is whether he or she is
popular in two different areas, with two different audiences. First is
the people back home--how popular is a Senator back home? The second
is, how popular is he or she with his or her colleagues? There are two
separate audiences. There are two separate criteria. Clearly, Chuck is
popular in both areas. He is very popular in Iowa. The people of Iowa
love him. The people, Members of the Senate love him. He is one heck of
a guy, and I just feel so honored to be able to serve with Chuck on the
Finance Committee, but also, more importantly, he is a very good friend
here in the Senate.
So I congratulate you, Chuck.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, do you know what, so many of you stayed
around. I do not know how many times I have heard of other Senators
having voted 10,000 or 12,000 times and I probably did not stay around,
and I probably have not earned what you have said about me because I
did not pay that much attention to the rest of you who have gone
before. So let me apologize for that, and I will bet next time I will
stay around.
So I am not flying under false colors, I would like to say a couple
things. One person spoke about my being a farmer, and that is
absolutely right. I am. But I can tell you this, that when you get a
25-year-old grandson, grandfathers are not as important in the farming
operation as you would like to be. So I consider myself now more of a
hired man for Robin Grassley and Pat Grassley than I am a family
farmer. But I still am a crop sharer with my son, and I market my own
crops, and I am there to help put the crop in when they need me--and
wish they needed me more--and help get the crop out, and wish they
needed me more. So I do appreciate that.
As much as I would like to be called Dr. Grassley--you can get that
impression maybe because I did do 2 years of graduate work beyond my
master's degree, but I did not quite finish it because I was elected to
the State legislature and I never went back to the University of Iowa
to finish it, and I kind of regret that. But I did not get back.
Mr. REID. Will my friend yield?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, I will yield.
Mr. REID. I am sorry. That was something that was prepared for me.
You always reminded me of having a Ph.D.
Anyway, here is the story. Somebody like you or me is going to go
give a speech--and they give us these speeches, and we walk out and
give them--and he is about halfway through his speech, and he comes to
a page that is blank, and he says: You are on your own, you SOB. So
that is kind of like this. I will check with my staff to make sure they
do not make a mistake like that again.
(Laughter.)
Mr. GRASSLEY. Well, it is one of these cases where I passed the
French test, and I was ready to write a dissertation, and I never quite
got around to it.
One other thing I would like to say is, obviously, thank you for the
recognition. I enjoy my job in the Senate very much. I guess if you
vote 10,000 times, you are just doing what we are paid to do.
It is a wonderful experience serving here in the Senate. And I think
I can say--as Senator Baucus has inferred, I hope I am liked by
everybody. I like every one of you. I do not know any of you who
consider me an enemy. And if you do, I do not want to know who you are.
(Laughter.)
If you wonder why there is some emphasis upon voting, people in this
country are very cynical about those of us in elected office. I think:
What can you do to reduce cynicism? And I thought a long time ago,
sitting in a restaurant one time--and probably nobody at that time knew
who I was. I overheard them saying something like: Well, it must be
election time; the politicians are in town.
I heard that 30 years ago, and I made up my mind that at least one
way I was going to try to overcome that for politicians generally was
to make sure the process of representive government works. So when I
was elected to the Senate, it was not something I promised the people
of Iowa, it was just something I promised myself: that I am going to go
to every county every year to hold at least one town meeting so that
person who was griping about only seeing a politician at election time
could not say that about Chuck Grassley, and I hope in the process it
has raised the respect people have for those of us who are elected.
The other thing about voting as often as I do here in the Senate, it
is an opportunity to let people know when you are in session, you are
here working. And when we are not in session, I am back in Iowa with my
people. It is an opportunity to kind of quantify what our job is all
about and to get over this business of people who, I think, think we
are only here in Washington sitting around with our feet up on our desk
waiting to take a phone call from somebody--that we are actually doing
something. This is one way--maybe a very elementary way, but sometimes
that is the way you have to explain government to the American people--
that we are on the job, doing our job, and when we are not here, we are
at home making the process of representative government work.
So I very much appreciate the kind words that have been said. And I
did not record them, but if I did, I would play them back during
election time.
Thank you very much for the honor.
I would yield to the Senator--oh, the Senator from Illinois said
something nice about me one time, and I did use it in my literature.
And some people of his party got on him: Why are you doing that?
Well, I think he said: It was true.
And he came to me one time and he said: Will you say something nice
about me? I could put it in my literature.
And I gave him a slip of paper that said: He is not as bad as you
think he is.
I yield the floor.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

Motion To Recommit

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I have at the desk a motion, and I would
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Johanns] moves to recommit
S. Con. Res. 13 to the Committee on the Budget with
instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days
making the following changes:

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the motion be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 9838]]

The motion is as follows:

(1) Amend levels in the resolution as to report back a
resolution with an aggregate level of budget authority (and
associated outlays) for nondefense, nonveterans discretionary
accounts for fiscal year 2010 at the level enacted for fiscal
year 2009 level, increased by the rate of inflation for 2010
as projected by the Congressional Budget Office.
(2) Amend spending levels in the resolution so as to report
back a resolution with aggregate spending levels for
discretionary nondefense, nonveterans spending for each
subsequent fiscal year in the budget window so as not to
exceed the immediately previous fiscal year spending level
for discretionary nondefense, nonveterans spending, increased
by the rate of inflation for the applicable year as projected
by the Congressional Budget Office.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided on the
motion.
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, the budget before us increases nondefense
discretionary spending by $42 billion over last year's levels.
Here is what my motion does. It would limit the overall increase in
the budget to CBO's projected rate of inflation for nondefense,
nonveterans spending. This motion will save $36 billion in 2010 and
$194 billion over the 5-year budget window.
My motion only affects aggregate spending so it allows some programs
to be larger than the rate of inflation; thus, any claim that it is
unfair to one particular group would be inaccurate. The motion allows
the committee to take a scalpel to the budget, which is exactly what
the President called for. If not, our country continues to be in a dire
situation. This helps deal with the spending piece of this.
This motion will allow us to take a step back from bloated spending
and step forward to fiscal responsibility.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. JOHANNS. I urge my colleagues to vote yes and I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, in more normal times, this is an amendment
I might well support, but these are not normal times. We are faced with
the steepest economic decline since the Great Depression. The
underlying budget mark already cuts nondefense discretionary spending
by more than $160 billion. This would cut another $120 billion, much of
it front end loaded, at the worst possible time for economic recovery.
One other point I would make. We have more than 200 amendments
pending now--more than 200. If the Senator's amendment were to pass--
this is a motion to recommit the budget resolution to the committee. If
anybody wants to repeat the entire exercise of this week, the week we
get back, I recommend you vote for the Senator's amendment. If you
prefer to end this today, I recommend you vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The
yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 55, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 132 Leg.]

YEAS--43

Alexander
Barrasso
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker

NAYS--55

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

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The motion was rejected.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to inform colleagues that when I
said earlier we had 100 amendments pending, I was half right. That was
last night. As of now, we have over 230 amendments pending. If you
divide 230 by 3, that is almost 80 hours--about 76, 77 hours. That
would mean we would be here all day today, tomorrow, and all day
Saturday. If everybody sticks to their amendment, that is what is going
to happen.
I hope people in the calmness of the moment will think about other
options. No. 1, if you will accept a voice vote--Senator Gregg and I
are trying to work things out on amendments that could be accepted. If
not, if you would withhold until there is another vehicle--and there
will be a lot of vehicles this year. Really, we have been doing this
for a lot of years. Amendments have sprouted here. I hope people will
think: Do we want to do this for 3 days straight?

Amendments Nos. 759, 799, 949, 755, and 808

We have an agreement to take several amendments here by unanimous
consent. They are: Bennett No. 759; Bennet No. 799; Democratic side-by-
side to Vitter; Casey No. 755, and Brown No. 808. I ask unanimous
consent that these amendments be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 759

(Purpose: To prohibit changing current tax laws for charitable
contribution tax deductions to pay for modernizing the health care
system)

On page 31, line 9, after ``purposes,'' insert ``provided
that such legislation would not result in diminishing a
taxpayers' ability to deduct charitable contributions as an
offset to pay for such purposes, and'',

amendment no. 799

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to address the
systemic inequities of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement that lead to
access problems in rural areas, including access to primary care and
outpatient services, hospitals, and an adequate supply of providers in
the workforce)

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ADDRESS THE SYSTEMIC
INEQUITIES OF MEDICARE AND MEDICAID
REIMBURSEMENT THAT LEAD TO ACCESS PROBLEMS IN
RURAL AREAS.

amendment no. 755

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide for
accelerated carbon capture and storage and advanced clean coal power
generation research, development, demonstration, and deployment)

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

[[Page 9839]]

SEC. 2__. DEFICIT NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PROVIDE FOR
ACCELERATED CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE AND
ADVANCED CLEAN COAL POWER GENERATION RESEARCH,
DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND DEPLOYMENT.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Chairman of
the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other levels and limits in this
resolution by the amounts provided by a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that
would accelerate the research, development, demonstration,
and deployment of advanced technologies to capture and store
carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants and
other industrial emission sources and to use coal in an
environmentally acceptable manner.
(b) Deficit Neutrality.--Subsection (a) applies only if the
legislation described in subsection (a) would not increase
the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2019.

amendment no. 808

(Purpose: To provide for legislation that removes Social Security
numbers from Medicare cards and to pay for such legislation by reducing
waste, fraud, and abuse in other federal programs)

On page 20, line 24, increase the amount by $5,000,000.
On page 20, line 25, increase the amount by $5,000,000.
On page 21, line 3, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 21, line 4, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 21, line 7, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 21, line 8, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $5,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $5,000,000.
On page 28, line 2, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 28, line 6, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to make it clear that the side by
side to the Vitter amendment we approved by voice vote is No. 949.
With that, the next amendment up is the Vitter--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. CONRAD. 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. CONRAD. Mr. President, on the Bennett amendment No. 759, Senator
Bennett of Utah wishes to be recognized for a brief statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I understand from the distinguished
Budget Committee chairman that they have accepted this amendment by
unanimous consent. Therefore, I congratulate them on their wisdom and
thank them.
This is a serious amendment, which I hope will survive conference. I
am glad to have it accepted. It deals with the tax treatment of
charitable contributions. I am happy to have it accepted by the other
side so that the Senate is on record saying they want the President's
budget not to change the tax treatment of charitable contributions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Bennett amendment would express the
importance of taxpayers' ability to take deductions for contributions
to charity. It is also important to recognize that this amendment is
not inconsistent with either current law or the President's budget.
This amendment is also consistent with the votes that we took last
week when we affirmed our support for charitable contributions.
I urge the Senate to adopt the amendment.

Amendment No. 949

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on an amendment that we just adopted by
voice vote, the Reed amendment No. 949, there is a misunderstanding.
There was not unanimous consent. So I think in fairness we ought to go
back to that amendment and have Senator Reed offer it.
I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the adoption of the Reed amendment
No. 949.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. That would be the pending amendment, No. 949, and Senator
Reed would be recognized to offer the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, my amendment would focus on the issue I
think we are all concerned about, and it would be a counterpoint to
Senator Vitter's amendment, and that would be the administration of the
Troubled Asset Relieve Program. My amendment would create a reserve
fund, which would focus the remaining resources in the TARP fund on
supporting small businesses, saving homeowners from foreclosure,
helping the bond market, and making credit more widely available. It
would also strengthen the oversight entities, the Special Inspector
General, the Congressional Oversight Panel, and the Government
Accountability Office.
Senator Vitter's amendment purports to take back the money by
striking certain functions, such as function 370. But that function
also has the funding for the FHA, the Rural Housing Program, and the
Small Business Administration. In effect, we will not be taking away
the TARP money, we will be challenging these other programs to find
funds.
I urge adoption of my amendment and the rejection of Senator Vitter's
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Has the Senator offered the amendment?
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I offer it at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) proposes an
amendment numbered 949.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for the expenditure of the remaining Troubled
Asset Relief Program funds for the benefit of consumers)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. EXPENDITURE OF REMAINING TARP FUNDS.

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this
resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, motions, or conference reports that reaffirm that
the remaining Troubled Asset Relief Program funds shall be
used to save homes, save small businesses, help the municipal
bond market, make credit more widely available, and provide
additional resources for the Special Inspector General for
the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Congressional
Oversight Panel, and the Government Accountability Office for
vigorous audit and evaluation of all expenditures and
commitments made under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, by
the amounts provided in that legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2019.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, next after this amendment is my amendment.
It would return TARP funds not already out the door, except for the
$100 billion set aside for buying toxic assets, which is exactly what
TARP was supposed to be about. But it ends everything else and invites
the Obama administration to come back to us regarding other programs.
The Reed amendment reaffirms TARP as it has been executed. So if you
like everything that has been done under TARP and how it has been done,
that model and program changing every other week, vote for the Reed
amendment and reaffirm TARP as it is. If you think a change and focus
needs to be brought to TARP, vote for the Vitter amendment, which is
next.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 949.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page 9840]]

There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 133 Leg.]

YEAS---56

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

NAYS--42

Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Thune
Vitter
Wicker

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The amendment (No. 949) was agreed to.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request that I
wish to propound on the next group of amendments before we go to the
Vitter amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that the following group of amendments be the
next to be considered; that the provisions of the previous order
regarding debate time, vote time, and budget points of order remain in
effect for the duration of consideration of amendments to the budget
resolution; and that the amendments be considered in the order listed.
This is the order proposed: Senator Hutchison amendment No. 866;
Menendez amendment No. 921; Coburn amendment No. 895; Brownback
amendment No. 841; Graham amendment No. 898; Boxer amendment No. 953;
Reid amendment No. 730; Hutchison amendment No. 868; Snowe amendment
No. 773; Senators Murray and Bond amendment No. 880; Thune amendment
No. 803; Barrasso-Wyden--I do not have a number on that amendment; a
Democratic side by side to Bennett of Utah on spending stimulus;
Bennett of Utah amendment No. 954; a Democratic side by side to the
Enzi trigger; Enzi No. 824; Conrad or his designee side by side on AMT;
and Grassley on AMT.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, we do not have copies of
the side by sides. I suggest we hold those four that are involved until
we get a copy of the side by sides. That would be the Democratic side
by side to Bennett, the Bennett, the Democratic side by side to Enzi,
and the Enzi.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I alter the unanimous consent request so
that the last four amendments in that request not be included. I also
want to clarify that Brownback is No. 840.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Is there objection?
Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, the wrong number was
announced on Brownback. The number is 840.
Mr. CONRAD. That is what I just did.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.

Amendment No. 787

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I now present the Vitter amendment. It is
very simple. It says that the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, will
actually be about troubled asset relief. It returns the other money not
reserved for troubled asset relief to the Treasury for debt reduction,
$136 billion of debt reduction.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Has the Senator offered the amendment?
Mr. VITTER. I offer the amendment at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an
amendment numbered 787.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To end $272 billion in spending on bailouts under TARP and
reduce record deficits and levels of debt)

On page 4, line 13, decrease the amount by
$116,626,400,000.
On page 4, line 14, decrease the amount by $23,103,200,000.
On page 4, line 15, decrease the amount by $4,939,200,000.
On page 4, line 16, decrease the amount by $7,053,600,000.
On page 4, line 17, decrease the amount by $9,575,200,000.
On page 4, line 18 decrease the amount by $12,156,800,000.
On page 4, line 22, decrease the amount by
$116,626,400,000.
On page 4, line 23, decrease the amount by $23,103,200,000.
On page 4, line 24, decrease the amount by $4,939,200,000.
On page 4, line 25 decrease the amount by $7,053,600,000.
On page 5, line 1, decrease the amount by $9,575,200,000.
On page 5, line 2, decrease the amount by $12,156,800,000.
On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $116,626,400,000.
On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $23,103,200,000.
On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $4,939,200,000.
On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $7,053,600,000.
On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $9,575,200,000.
On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $12,156,800,000.
On page 5, line 16, decrease the amount by
$116,626,400,000.
On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by
$139,729,600,000.
On page 5, line 18, decrease the amount by
$144,668,800,000.
On page 5, line 19, decrease the amount by
$151,722,400,000.
On page 5, line 20, decrease the amount by
$161,297,600,000.
On page 5, line 21, decrease the amount by
$173,454,400,000.
On page 5, line 24, decrease the amount by
$116,626,400,000.
On page 5, line 25, decrease the amount by
$139,729,600,000.
On page 6, line 1, decrease the amount by $144,668,800,000.
On page 6, line 2, decrease the amount by $151,722,400,000.
On page 6, line 3, decrease the amount by $161,297,600,000.
On page 6, line 4, decrease the amount by $173,454,400,000.
On page 15, line 17, decrease the amount by
$116,000,000,000
On page 15, line 18, decrease the amount by
$116,000,000,000.
On page 15, line 21, decrease the amount by
$20,000,0000,000.
On page 15, line 22, decrease the amount by
$20,000,000,000.
On page 26, line 20, decrease the amount by $626,400,000.
On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $626,400,000.
On page 26, line 24, decrease the amount by $3,103,200,000.
On page 26, line 25, decrease the amount by $3,103,200,000.
On page 27, line 3, decrease the amount by $4,939,200,000.
On page 27, line 4, decrease the amount by $4,939,200,000.
On page 27, line 7, decrease the amount by $7,053,600,000.
On page 27, line 8, decrease the amount by $7,053,600,000.
On page 27, line 11, decrease the amount by $9,575,200,000.
On page 25, line 12, decrease the amount by $9,575,200,000.
On page 27, line 15, decrease the amount by
$12,156,800,000.
On page 27, line 16, decrease the amount by
$12,156,800,000.

Mr. VITTER. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield time in opposition to Senator Reed
of Rhode Island.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Rhode Island is
recognized.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Reed amendment, which we just adopted,
focuses the remaining TARP funds on

[[Page 9841]]

functions that are critical to the economic progress of the country--
keeping people in homes, providing help for small business, supporting
the traditional bond market, making credit more widely available. The
restriction of these funds proposed by Senator Vitter will undercut
these objectives. In addition, the Reed amendment has strengthened the
oversight responsibilities.
Secretary Geithner has just announced a program that will focus on
these toxic assets. Keeping these TARP funds, I believe, will give the
Treasury the flexibility to make that program work more effectively,
and I oppose the Vitter amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has 35 seconds.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, the program which Secretary Geithner has
actually announced about toxic assets is protected even under my
amendment. What my amendment says is that we are not any longer going
to allow the Treasury to do other things on an ad hoc basis, making it
up as they go along every week.
In the process, we would reduce the debt of this country by at least
$136 billion under this amendment. I urge support for the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. GREGG. 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 on agreeing to amendment No. 787.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 28, nays 70, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 134 Leg.]

YEAS--28

Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Coburn
Collins
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Grassley
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johanns
McCain
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Sessions
Shelby
Specter
Thune
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--70

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Conrad
Corker
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Graham
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The amendment (No. 787) was rejected.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The senior Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. I call up amendment No. 910.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator allow us to do a unanimous consent?
Mr. GRAHAM. I will.

Amendments Nos. 892 and 893

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Coburn
amendment No. 892 and Coburn amendment No. 893 be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CONRAD. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (No. 892 and No. 893) were agreed to, as follows:

amendment no. 892

(Purpose: To end bogus bonuses awarded to contractors and government
executives responsible for over budget projects and programs that fail
to meet basic performance requirements)

On page 49, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

SEC. 216. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR PROHIBITING
UNDESERVED CONTRACTING PERFORMANCE BONUSES.

amendment no. 893

(Purpose: To support President Obama in his effort to go line by line
through the Federal Budget in order to help him eliminate wasteful,
inefficient, and duplicative programs)

On page 49, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

SEC. __. DEFICIT-REDUCTION RESERVE FUND TO ENSURE THE PLEDGE
OF PRESIDENT OBAMA TO ELIMINATE WASTEFUL,
INEFFICIENT, AND DUPLICATIVE PROGRAMS.

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this
resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, motions, or conference reports that achieves
savings by going through the Federal Budget line by line, as
President Obama has called for, to eliminate wasteful,
inefficient, and duplicative spending by requiring--
(1) the head of every department and agency to provide a
report to Congress within 90 days after the date of enactment
of this resolution on programs that are duplicative,
inefficient, or failing, with recommendations for elimination
and consolidation of these programs,
(2) the Office of Management and Budget to provide a report
to Congress within 90 days after the date of enactment of
this resolution on programs that are duplicative government-
wide, with recommendations for elimination or consolidation
of these programs, and
(3) every standing committee of the Senate to conduct at
least one oversight hearing each fiscal year in order to
identify wasteful, inefficient, outdated, and duplicative
programs that could be eliminated and consolidated,

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coburn for his courtesy
and say he has set a very good example for other Members, a very good
example.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.

Amendment No. 910

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, since I am not a squish like Senator
Coburn, I am going to go ahead.
My amendment is straightforward. This amendment creates a budget
point of order on legislation that increases the cost of energy for
middle-class families. Why are we doing this? The climate change
proposal that was in the President's budget would create a massive tax
increase on anybody who uses energy, and that would be every American
middle-class family, which already has a tough time getting by. This
would be a point of order against any bill that would raise the cost of
energy on our middle-class families who are struggling to get by.
I ask the Senate to rally around this concept. We can deal with
climate change without passing a $3,000-per-household energy tax on the
families of America who are having a hard time paying their bills.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from South Carolina offering
the amendment?
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. I am sorry. I thought we had done that. Everything I
said still goes.

[[Page 9842]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Graham] proposes an
amendment numbered 910.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To protect middle-income taxpayers from a national energy
tax)

On page 68, after line 4, insert the following:

SEC. _. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT IMPOSES A
NATIONAL ENERGY TAX ON MIDDLE-INCOME TAXPAYERS.

(a) In General.--After a concurrent resolution on the
budget is agreed to, it shall not be in order in the senate
to consider any bill, resolution, amendment between Houses,
motion, or conference report that includes a National energy
tax increase which would have widespread applicability on
middle-income taxpayers.
(b) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(1) Middle income taxpayers.--The term ``middle-income''
taxpayers means single individuals with $200,000 or less in
adjusted gross income (as defined in section 62 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986) and married couples filing
jointly with $250,000 or less in adjusted gross income (as so
defined).
(2) Widespread applicability.--The term ``widespread
applicability'' includes the definition with respect to
individual income taxpayers in section 4022(b)(1) of the
Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of
1998.
(3) National energy tax increase.--The term ``National
energy tax increase'' means any legislation that the
Congressional Budget Office would score as leading to an
increase in the costs of producing, generating or consuming
energy.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it is my intention to vote for this
amendment. I ask the Senator from South Carolina, would the Senator
from South Carolina, in a moment of comity and weakness, be willing to
accept a voice vote?
Mr. GRAHAM. No.
Mr. CONRAD. I thought that might be the answer. All right. My
intention is to vote for the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 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.
The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 33, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 135 Leg.]

YEAS--65

Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Webb
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--33

Akaka
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Burris
Cardin
Carper
Dodd
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harkin
Inouye
Kaufman
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Whitehouse

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The amendment (no. 910) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 931, as Modified

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the next amendment is the Landrieu
amendment with 2 minutes equally divided.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this amendment seeks to establish a
deficit-neutral reserve fund based on the current law supporting
revenue sharing for coastal States contributions to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and a fund for innovative energy technology.
It would save up to, which is the current law today, which 26
Senators voted on, up to 50 percent which can be set aside from future
oil and gas revenues for revenue sharing for coastal States for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund and for funds to be created to invest
in alternative energy technologies.
This is something that has been debated in the Senate but has been
broadly supported by Republicans and Democrats. There has been some
opposition. I suspect there may be some today. But there has been broad
bipartisan support for revenue sharing for coastal States contributions
to the Land and Water Conservation Fund and alternative energy sources.
This does not change the current law, it does not direct drilling
anywhere in the country that does not already exist. That is the
essence of the amendment I offer with myself and Senator Begich from
Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu], for herself and
Mr. Begich, offers an amendment numbered 931, as modified.

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

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC. 2___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR OUTER CONTINENTAL
SHELF OIL AND NATURAL GAS LEASING REVENUES.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Chairman of
the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this resolution
by the amounts provided by a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that would provide
that up to 50 perecent of any revenues collected by the
United States from oil and natural gas leases in the outer
Continental Shelf shall be--
(1) distributed among coastal energy producing States; and/
or
(2) allocated for--
(A) the conduct of innovative alternative energy research;
and
(B) supporting parks and wildlife.
(b) Deficit Neutrality.--Subsection (a) applies only if the
legislation described in subsection (a) would not increase
the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2019.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is not an insignificant amendment. It
is not small change. It has very significant consequences to all
States. A very small number of States, a handful, will get a big
windfall. All of the rest of the States will have money otherwise
raised from OCS--raised from revenues from mineral leasing royalties
not go to them at all.
Currently, revenue goes to all 50 States. There is a small carving
out for some of the coastal States and Florida. This amendment says:
All the revenue raised, all the coastal revenue goes to only those few
coastal States, which means revenue would not go to the other States
that benefit currently from oil and gas leasing revenue.
The other big consequence is, this is a big tax increase. It is a
revenue-neutral provision. That means it is $110 billion,
conservatively, over 10 years, which means we have to raise taxes $110
billion to pay for giving money to a small handful of States and take
it away from the majority of the States.
I strongly urge members not to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

[[Page 9843]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 60, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 136 Leg.]

YEAS--37

Barrasso
Begich
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Carper
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Landrieu
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Shelby
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker

NAYS--60

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Kennedy
Sessions

The amendment (No. 931), as modified, was rejected.

Change of Vote

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Roberts has a unanimous consent
request on a change of vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished Senator and nattily dressed
chairman of the Budget Committee.
Mr. President, on rollcall vote 136, I voted ``nay.'' It was my
intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to change my vote, since it will not affect the outcome.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would say to colleagues, I do not know
what it is about this year, but the hole just keeps getting deeper. We
still have over 200 amendments, and nobody seems to be much interested
in kind of being collegial here and allowing us to get to some kind of
reasonable list. Now, 200 amendments pending, 3 an hour--that is almost
70 hours. That is 3 days. So please work with us and be willing to take
voice votes. When we have amendments that are being adopted
overwhelmingly, you know, really, do we really intend to stay here for
3 days? I hope not.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following be the next
group of amendments to be considered; that the provisions of the
previous order regarding debate time, vote time, and budget points of
order remain in effect for the duration of consideration of amendments
to the budget resolution; that the amendments be considered in the
order listed: Hutchison No. 866, Menendez No. 921, Coburn No. 895,
Brownback No. 840--we have done this? Well, this is good. We are making
progress.
Mr. GREGG. What about voice votes?
Mr. CONRAD. 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. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 921, 895, 880, and 788

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have four amendments in this list that
we could agree to: Menendez No. 921; Coburn No. 895, Murray-Bond No.
880, and Barrasso-Wyden--do we have a number on that?
Mr. GREGG. No. 788.
Mr. CONRAD. No. 788.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that they be agreed
to.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those four
amendments be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BUNNING. What are the four amendments, please?
Mr. CONRAD. Menendez No. 921, Coburn No. 895, Murray-Bond No. 880,
Barrasso-Wyden No. 788.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 921, 895, 880, and 788) were agreed to, as
follows:

amendment no. 921

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA) and the Family Violence Prevention and
Services Act (FVPSA), and other related programs)

On page 49, after line 3, insert the following:

SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN ACT (VAWA) AND THE FAMILY
VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND SERVICES ACT (FVPSA),
AND OTHER RELATED PROGRAMS.

amendment no. 895

(Purpose: To provide a deficit-neutral reserve fund to end abusive no-
bid contracts by requiring all Federal contracts over $25,000 to be
competitively bid)

On page 49, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

SEC. 216. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ENDING ABUSIVE NO-
BID CONTRACTS.

amendment no. 880

(Purpose: To create a deficit-neutral reserve fund for legislation to
enable States to establish or expand quality programs of early
childhood home visitation)

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR HOME VISITATION
PROGRAMS.

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this
resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, motions, or conference reports that provide funds
to States to establish or expand quality programs of early
childhood home visitation that increase school readiness,
child abuse and neglect prevention, and early identification
of developmental and health delays, including potential
mental health concerns, and that--
(1) serve pregnant women, or parent's or other primary
caregivers and their children under the age of entry into
kindergarten through quality programs of early childhood home
visitation;
(2) are delivered by nurses, social workers, child
development specialists, or other well-trained and competent
staff, as demonstrated by education or training and the
provision of ongoing specific training and supervision in the
model of service being delivered;
(3) have outcomes and research standards that--
(A) demonstrate ongoing positive outcomes for children,
parents and other primary caregivers that enhance child
health and development;
(B) conform to a clear consistent home visitation model
that has been in existence for at least 3 years and that--
(i) is research-based, grounded in relevant empirically-
based knowledge;
(ii) is linked to program determined outcomes;
(iii) is associated with a national organization or
institution of higher education that

[[Page 9844]]

has comprehensive home visitation program standards that
ensure high quality service delivery and continuous program
quality improvement; and
(iv) has demonstrated significant positive outcomes when
evaluated using well-designed and rigorous randomized
controlled or well-designed and rigorous quasi-experimental
research designs, and the evaluation results have been
published in a peer-reviewed journal; and
(4) show, establish, or propose linkages to high quality
early learning opportunities;

provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2019.

amendment no. 788

(Purpose: To fund the account Hazardous Fuel Reduction on Federal Lands
(within Function 300) at the level authorized in the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act of 2003)

On page 13, line 21, increase the amount by $200,000,000.
On page 13, line 22, increase the amount by $140,000,000.
On page 14, line 1, increase the amount by $60,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $140,000,000.
On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $60,000,000.

amendment no. 788

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that Senator Barrasso
and I have offered to fully fund the Healthy Forests Restoration Act,
by providing an additional $200 million for this purpose. I am very
pleased that my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley, has also joined
us in this amendment as well as Senators Crapo, Kyl, Enzi, Bennett and
Hatch.
Significantly, this amendment would provide for full funding for this
legislation for the first time since its passage. I helped author the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act in 2003--a bipartisan bill that I
worked on with a number of my colleagues to help address serious forest
health issues and a significant backlog of hazardous fuels that have
been building up on our national forests.
When Congress passed the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, HFRA,
Congress authorized $760 million in new money to complete hazardous
fuel reduction work on 20 million acres. Yet in each of the past years
the Bush administration's budget request has fallen short, in my
estimation by well over $600 million less than Congress authorized.
Because the Healthy Forests Restoration Act was never fully funded in
the prior administration, it has never really had the chance to work.
Our amendment would ensure that rural communities will finally get the
resources they were promised. These funds will put these communities on
a path to preventing wildfires and bringing jobs back to the forest.
In hearings before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
previous administration leaders assured me that even in the face of
such severe budget cuts, they could get the work done, possibly within
8 to 10 years. Yet in hearings before the committee we also heard
witnesses from the GAO and USDA inspector general's office testify that
the agencies were falling far short of meeting this mandate and that
hazardous fuels were building up in our forests as much as three times
faster than the agencies could remove them.
When you come from a State like mine, where the Federal Government
owns so much of the land, the health of those public forests is a very
serious issue--one with life or death consequences for communities that
are next to these forests and could become raging infernos in the next
fire season.
We can no longer dawdle on completing the thinning work that urgently
needs to be performed on our Nation's forests. This work would also
provide jobs thinning overstocked forests in rural communities, while
reducing the threat of wildfires.
Those wildfires are getting more and more costly to fight and
consuming more and more of the budget of our public lands agencies. It
simply doesn't make sense to not spend the money on preventing the
fires and then turn around during the fire season and watch the
millions of dollars flow freely while people's homes and livelihoods go
up in smoke.
Full funding of the HFRA would also allow for funding to communities
so they can implement ``community wildfire protection plans'' developed
in areas that are part of ``wildland urban interface'' and living on
the edge of our public forests.
I hope my colleagues will support this commonsense amendment and get
the Healthy Forests Act back on track.

Amendment No. 840, as Modified

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a
modification to the desk on behalf of Senator Brownback to his
amendment No. 840.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.

Amendment No. 866

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, that takes us to the Hutchison amendment,
No. 866.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, my amendment would create a point of
order against any legislation that would impose or increase the
marriage penalty tax. We have worked very hard in Congress to eliminate
the marriage penalty, which we have not been able to do completely, but
we have mitigated it, lowered it significantly.
Before we addressed this issue, the marriage penalty was an average
of $1,100 per couple; that is, two single people getting married caused
them to have to pay $1,100 more in taxes because of the marriage
penalty in the Tax Code. We have mitigated that to a great extent.
This amendment would create a point of order against any legislation
that would impose or increase the marriage penalty. We all know we
should not in any way discourage marriage in this country. We have been
able to do that. I think we need to stick with it, and this is the way
to do it.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself, Mr.
Martinez, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Brownback, proposes
an amendment numbered 866.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide a point of order against legislation that has the
effect of imposing a greater tax liability on taxpayers who are married
than if such taxpayers had filed individual tax returns)

At the end of subtitle A of title III, insert the
following:

SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER ON LEGISLATION THAT IMPOSES A
MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY.

(a) In General.--In the Senate, it shall not be in order,
to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report that includes any provision which imposes
or increases a marriage tax penalty.
(b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``marriage
penalty'' means any provision under which the Federal income
tax liability of taxpayers filing a joint return under
section 6013 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is greater
than such tax liability of such taxpayers if such taxpayers
were unmarried and had filed individual tax returns under
section 1(c) of such Code.
(c) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended only
by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, dully
chosen and sworn.
(d) Appeals.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under this section.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I support the Hutchison amendment. I think
there is strong support on this side.
Would the Senator be willing to take a voice vote?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Texas.
I ask unanimous consent that the Hutchison amendment No. 866 be
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back time?
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 866) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 840, as Modified

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, that takes us to Brownback amendment No.
840. Senator Brownback would describe that amendment. This is a similar
circumstance. There is strong support on

[[Page 9845]]

this side toward the Senator's amendment, and we could take it on a
voice vote if the Senator would be willing to do that.
If the Senator would take a moment to describe his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would be happy to take a moment to
describe the amendment. And if by going by voice vote it is more likely
to stay in conference, I would be happy to do a voice vote.
Mr. CONRAD. It is amazing how that will improve the chances.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Well, I am quite excited about that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] proposes an
amendment numbered 840, as modified.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide funds for a Commission on Budgetary Accountability
and Review of Federal Agencies)

On page 25, line 24, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
On page 25, line 25, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
On page 26, line 3, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
On page 26, line 4, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
On page 26, line 7, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
On page 26, line 8, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
On page 26, line 11, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
On page 26, line 12, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
On page 26, line 15, increase the amount by $4,000,000.
On page 26, line 16, increase the amount by $4,000,000.
On page 10, line 20, decrease the amount by $3,000,000.
On page 10, line 21, decrease the amount by $3,000,000.
On page 10, line 24, decrease the amount by $6,000,000.
On page 10, line 25, decrease the amount by $6,000,000.
On page 11, line 3, decrease the amount by $8,000,000.
On page 11, line 4, decrease the amount by $8,000,000.
On page 11, line 7, decrease the amount by $8,000,000.
On page 11, line 8, decrease the amount by $ 8,000,000.
On page 11, line 11, decrease the amount by $4,000,000.
On page 11, line 12, decrease the amount by $4,000,000.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, colleagues, this is an amendment that
passed last year. It creates a commission, an independent commission,
to review all of Federal spending, make recommendations to the body,
and then requires a vote on those recommendations whether to continue
the program or discontinue it. It is a way for us to get at failed
programs. It is a way for us to get at inefficient programs or programs
that have accomplished their purposes.
This is at the core of what so many people want to see us do; that
is, to get our spending under control so we can spend on higher
priority categories. That is what this amendment would do, and it does
it in a fashion and in a way that we have seen before that has worked
on eliminating wasteful Government spending.
This has had broad bipartisan support in the past. I would hope we
could accept it and it could stay in the overall budget in conference.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have strong support for the amendment
on this side. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Hearing none, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 840), as modified, was agreed to.

Amendment No. 898 Withdrawn

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of
Senator Graham, to withdraw amendment No. 898.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CONRAD. Without objection on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 953, as Modified

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, that takes us to the Boxer amendment, No.
953, afterschool reserve fund.
Senator Boxer.
Mrs. BOXER. I say to the Senators, thank you so much, Senator Conrad
and Senator Gregg. I say thank you very much to Senator Ensign. He and
I have been working on afterschool for many years.
This is a Boxer-Ensign amendment. There is a modification at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] for herself and
Mr. Ensign, proposes an amendment numbered 953, as modified.

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

(Purpose: To add a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the 21st Century
Community Learning Centers afterschool program)

At the end of Title II, insert the following:

SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR 21ST CENTURY
COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other levels and limits in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that would increase funding
for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program by
the amounts provided in such legislation for such purpose,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2019.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are not adding a penny. We are just
saying, within the amounts that are in the education budget, to fully
fund afterschool programs. We all know it helps our kids, and there are
millions on the list. Senator Ensign explained many times--he wanted to
speak here today, but he is not on the floor--that afterschool programs
really saved his life when he was a young child.
So I hope this amendment will be accepted.
I thank my colleagues, and I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote, if we could do
that.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if the Senator would be willing to let us
pass over this amendment for a minute, we have some questions on our
side, and hopefully we can clear them up.
Mrs. BOXER. I am sorry?
Mr. GREGG. We have some questions on our side. Hopefully, we can
clear them up. I ask the Senator, can we move on to the next amendment
and move back to yours?
Mrs. BOXER. Of course. Senator Ensign thought it was all taken care
of, so he is off the floor. Maybe we can get him back out here. Thank
you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
amendment?
Without objection, the amendment is set aside.

Amendment No. 730

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, that takes us to Reid amendment No. 730,
and the leader is here.
Senator Reid.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986,
individuals were entitled to deduct State and local sales taxes. When
the deduction was repealed, it put taxpayers in States without an
income tax, such as Nevada, Washington, and others, at a disadvantage.
It took us 22 years before fairness was restored when the deduction was
reinstated in 2004. The problem is that deduction is not a permanent
part of the law.
The amendment I have filed with Senators Ensign, Cantwell, Murray,
Nelson, Hutchison, and others fixes that by establishing a reserve fund
for legislation making the deduction permanent. Based on all the
information we have, this would affect lots of people--almost half a
million in Nevada. At a time when families are struggling to make ends
meet, every penny counts.

[[Page 9846]]

I would accept a voice vote on this amendment, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have just been informed that the
matching amendment to the Reid amendment may be withdrawn. They are
working on that right now. So that would mean a vote on the Reid
amendment and the Hutchison amendment may not be necessary.

Amendment No. 953, as Modified

So, Mr. President, I ask that we now return to the Boxer amendment
because we have reached conclusion on that. We know it will require a
vote. If the Senator would be so inclined, we could return to that
amendment and go to a vote.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator has used her minute.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Colleagues, if I could ask to be heard for one more
moment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you.
I simply want to say that we are a little caught off guard here
because we were told this was cleared on the Republican side. This is a
Boxer-Ensign amendment. It does not add one penny to the deficit. It
does not change anything. It just says, within the funding for
education, let's fully fund afterschool programs because we have so
many kids who are waiting to get into those programs. I am hopeful we
will have a strong bipartisan vote for this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
953, as modified. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 9, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 137 Leg.]

YEAS--89

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

NAYS--9

Bunning
Coburn
DeMint
Gregg
Inhofe
Kyl
McCain
Sessions
Voinovich

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The amendment (No. 953), as modified, was agreed to.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, if we are really going to have recorded
rollcall votes--what was the final tally--on votes that are 89 to 9, we
are going to be here a very long time.
Honestly, I have been doing this for 22 years. I don't know if I have
ever seen a year where colleagues just seem to be absolutely insistent
on having rollcall votes on things that are going to keep us here a
very long time. We cannot make people give up their votes or take voice
votes. But at some point there has to be a serious consideration. Is
this what we are really going to do to each other? Are we going to be
here for 70 hours? That is where we are headed.
With that, we can go to the Snowe amendment--or has the Hutchison-
Reed amendment been resolved? We should pass over that and go to
Senator Snowe's amendment. She is right here. If the Senator would
explain her amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.

Amendment No. 773

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 773.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maine [Ms. Snowe] proposes an amendment
numbered 773.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide for
the extension of the top individual tax rates for small businesses
after 2010)

At the end of title II, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PROVIDE FOR THE
EXTENSION OF THE TOP INDIVIDUAL TAX RATES FOR
SMALL BUSINESSES.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, my amendment would create a deficit-neutral
reserve fund for the tax cuts of 2001 to extend those tax rates to
small businesses that earn 50 percent of their income from small
business.
If we fail to do that, we can expect small businesses to see their
taxes rise by 9 percent by allowing those rates to go up from 33
percent to 36 percent, and 36 percent to 39.6 percent. Why would we
want to impose a tax on the very entities that we are depending upon to
lead us out of this economic morass by increasing their taxes?
Just this week, the Joint Tax Committee indicated there are 6.5
percent of those small businesses that earn over $250,000, which is
three times the original estimate by those who were opposed to this
amendment. Let me say that the Small Business Administration said 93
percent of all small business owners file an individual tax return. The
Treasury Department has indicated that 9 percent earn 70 percent of the
income in this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask the Senator if she is willing to
take this on a voice vote?
Ms. SNOWE. I am.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask for a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
773, offered by the Senator from Maine.
The amendment (No. 773) was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 816, 885, 872, 827, 764, 788, 795, 817, 837, 818, 874,
839, 877, 797, 802, and 826 En Bloc

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are now ready to offer a draft
managers' package No. 1.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments
be considered en bloc and adopted en bloc, and that the motions to
reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. The amendments are
as follows:
Boxer, No. 816, dependent care; Bennett of Utah, No. 885, DOE
pensions; Dodd, No. 872, firefighter grants; Collins, No. 827; Carper,
No. 764; Barrasso, No. 788; Pryor, No. 795; Bunning, No. 817; Dorgan,
No. 837; Bunning, No. 818; Landrieu, No. 874; Roberts, No. 839; Reed of
Rhode Island, No. 877; Burr, No. 797; Pryor, No. 802, and Enzi, No.
826.
Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, has the Senator considered
my

[[Page 9847]]

amendment No. 742, which is accepted on both sides to my knowledge?
Senator Akaka and I put it forward, having to do with the health care
of veterans. Nobody has objected to it.
Mr. CONRAD. That is being considered in the next tranche. We are
working on that right now.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

amendment no. 816

(Purpose: To provide access to affordable, quality child care for
middle class families by making improvements in the employer-provided
child care credit and the dependent care tax credit)

On page 38, line 19, after ``refundable tax relief'' insert
``and enhancement of the employer-provided child care credit
and enhancement of the dependent care tax credit''.

amendment no. 885

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to cover the full
cost of pension obligations for employees of laboratories and
environmental cleanup sites under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Energy)

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC. 2___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR PENSION COVERAGE
FOR EMPLOYEES OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
LABORATORIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP SITES.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Chairman of
the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this resolution
by the amounts provided by a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that would authorize
funding to cover the full cost of pension obligations for
current and past employees of laboratories and environmental
cleanup sites under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Energy (including benefits paid to security personnel) in a
manner that does not impact the missions of those
laboratories and environmental cleanup sites.
(b) Deficit Neutrality.--Subsection (a) applies only if the
legislation described in subsection (a) would not increase
the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2019.

amendment no. 872

(Purpose: To add a deficit-neutral reserve fund for provisions of
critical resources to firefighters and fire departments)

At the end of Title II, insert the following:

SEC.__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR PROVISION OF
CRITICAL RESOURCES TO FIREFIGHTERS AND FIRE
DEPARTMENTS.

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other levels and limits in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that would provide
firefighters and fire departments with critical resources
under the Assistance to Firefighters Grant and the Staffing
for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Firefighters Grant
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for 1 such purpose, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through
2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through
2019.

AMENDMENT NO. 827

(Purpose: To modify the provision relating to the deficit-neutral
reserve fund for clean energy legislation to include industrial energy
efficiency programs)

On page 33, line 4, insert ``(including through industrial
energy efficiency programs)'' after ``and efficiency''.

AMENDMENT NO. 764

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-reduction reserve fund for the
elimination and recovery of improper payments)

On page 49, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-REDUCTION RESERVE FUND FOR THE ELIMINATION
AND RECOVERY OF IMPROPER PAYMENTS.

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the aggregates, allocations, functional totals, and
other appropriate levels and limits in this resolution upon
enactment of legislation that achieves savings by requiring
that Federal departments and agencies eliminate improper
payments and increase the use of the recovery audits and uses
such savings to reduce the deficit, by the amount of such
savings, provided that such legislation would decrease the
deficit.

AMENDMENT NO. 795

(Purpose: To modify a deficit neutral reserve fund to ensure
improvement of infrastructure related to flood control)

On page 37, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
(d) Flood Control Projects.--The Chairman of the Senate
Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations of a
committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels and limits in this resolution for one or more bills,
joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports
that provide for levee modernization, maintenance, repair,
and improvement, by the amounts provided in that legislation
for those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2009 through 2019.

AMENDMENT NO. 817

(Purpose: To provide a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the repeal of
the 1993 increase in the income tax on social security benefits)

At the end of title II, add the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE REPEAL OF THE
1993 INCREASE IN THE INCOME TAX ON SOCIAL
SECURITY BENEFITS.

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this
resolution by the amounts provided by a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that
would repeal the 1993 increase in the income tax on social
security benefits, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2009 through 2019.

amendment no. 837

(Purpose: To increase funding for organ transplantation and organ
donation activities at the Health Resources and Services Administration
by $10 million in FY 2010)

On page 19, line 24, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 19, line 25, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
On page 20, line 4, increase the amount by $4,000,000.
On page 20, line 8, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
On page 20, line 12, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $3,000,000.
On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $4,000,000.
On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $2,000,000.
On page 28, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,000,000.

AMENDMENT NO. 818

(Purpose: To provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide for
legislation to increase the amount of capital losses allowed to
individuals)

At the end of title II, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR LEGISLATION TO
INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL LOSSES ALLOWED
TO INDIVIDUALS.

AMENDMENT NO. 874

(Purpose: To provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund for foster care
financing reform)

At the end of title II, insert the following:

SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR FOSTER CARE
FINANCING REFORM.

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this
resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, motions, or conference reports that would--
(1) change the Federal foster care payment system from a
system that supports programs to one that supports children,
whatever their best placement may be, and one that promotes
permanency for children;
(2) when it is determined to be in the best interests of
the child, promote and improve family support, family
preservation, including residential family treatment for
families suffering from substance abuse and addiction, and
time-limited family reunification services;
(3) provide for subsidies and support programs that are
available to support the needs of the children prior to
removal, during removal, and post placement, whether through
reunification, adoption, kinship adoption, or guardianship;
(4) promote innovation and best practice at the State
level; and
(5) guarantee that public funds are used to effectively
meet the needs of children who have been abused or neglected;
by the amounts provided in such legislation for those
purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase
the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal
years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal
years 2009 through 2019.

[[Page 9848]]

AMENDMENT NO. 839

(Purpose: To fully fund the small business child care grant program
under section 8303 of the Small Business and Work Opportunity Act of
2007)

On page 21, line 24, increase the amount by $20,000,000.
On page 21, line 25, increase the amount by $15,200,000.
On page 22, line 3, increase the amount by $20,000,000.
On page 22, line 4, increase the amount by $19,800,000.
On page 22, line 7, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 22, line 8, increase the amount by $12,400,000.
On page 22, line 12, increase the amount by $2,500,000.
On page 22, line 16, increase the amount by $100,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $20,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $15,200,000.
On page 28, line 2, decrease the amount by $20,000,000.
On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $19,800,000.
On page 28, line 6, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $12,400,000.
On page 28, line 11, decrease the amount by $2,500,000.
On page 28, line 15, decrease the amount by $100,000.

AMENDMENT NO. 877

(Purpose: To ensure that the deficit-neutral reserve fund for higher
education may be used for Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership
programs)

On page 34, line 13, insert ``such as by investing in
programs such as the programs under subpart 4 of part A of
title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070c
et seq.),'' after ``students,''.

AMENDMENT NO. 797

(Purpose: To develop biodefense medical countermeasures by fully
funding the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority
(BARDA) in a fiscally responsible manner)

On page 19, line 24, increase the amount by $850,000,000.
On page 19, line 25, increase the amount by $170,000,000.
On page 20, line 4, increase the amount by $476,000,000.
On page 20, line 8, increase the amount by $136,000,000.
On page 20, line 12, increase the amount by $51,000,000.
On page 20, line 16, increase the amount by $17,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $850,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $170,000,000.
On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $476,000,000.
On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $136,000,000.
On page 28, line 11, decrease the amount by $51,000,000.
On page 28, line 15, decrease the amount by $17,000,000.

amendment no. 802

(Purpose: To provide a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the Veterans
Health Administration to ensure that the supply of appropriately
prepared health care professionals is available to meet the needs of
the Veterans Health Administration)

At the end of title II, add the following:

SEC. 216. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR HEALTHCARE
PROFESSIONALS FOR THE VETERANS HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION.

by the amounts provided in that legislation for that purpose,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the total of the period of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years of
2009 through 2019.

amendment no. 826

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to repeal certain
deductions from mineral revenue payments made to States)

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC. 2___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO REPEAL DEDUCTIONS
FROM MINERAL REVENUE PAYMENTS TO STATES.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Chairman of
the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this resolution
by the amounts provided by a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that would repeal the
requirement to deduct certain amounts from mineral revenues
payable to States under the heading ``administrative
provisions'' under the heading ``Minerals Management
Service'' under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'' of
title I of the Department of the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-8).
(b) Deficit Neutrality.--Subsection (a) applies only if the
legislation described in subsection (a) would not increase
the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2019.

amendment no. 872

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am in strong support of the Dodd-
Lieberman-Collins amendment.
A decade ago, many of us in this body worked together to create the
FIRE Grant Program--the goal of which was simple, but essential: It
gives local fire departments the ability to purchase new equipment and
initiate education and training programs.
Soon after we wrote that bill, we were reminded why it was so
desperately needed--the Worcester Cold Storage blaze on December 3,
1999, that left 17 children without their fathers.
That story reminds us of the price our fire fighters pay every day to
keep our communities safe.
We also wrote the SAFER Act to put an additional 75,000 firefighters
on the job.
Today, the FIRE Act provides the single largest stream of Federal
funding to communities to train and equip firefighters. Along with the
SAFER Act, it has already provided more than $3 billion in grants to
help hire, train, and equip firefighters.
In essence, these historic pieces of legislation have made the
Federal Government a partner with our Nation's firefighters.
But to make that partnership as strong as it needs to be to keep our
communities safe, we need to ensure that the Federal Government
provides the necessary resources. We need to fund those programs.
In fiscal year 2009, the FIRE and SAFER Programs were funded at $565
million and $210 million respectively. FIRE is authorized through this
fiscal year and will be reauthorized later this year, while SAFER is
scheduled for reauthorization next year.
Our amendment will simply ensure there is adequate funding for the
FIRE and SAFER Programs for fiscal years 2010 to 2014.
Economic recovery depends on safe and secure communities.
Just recently, East Hartford was forced to eliminate 19 municipal
jobs, including firefighters. Farmington is trying to budget for
replacing decade old fire engines, while Torrington and Greenwich are
deciding whether they will be able to repair and build a new firehouse.
This is happening in fire departments across my State.
We already made great strides with the economic recovery package
providing $210 million to help America's first responders. But with
this amendment, we can ensure that one thing that will not be left
behind during this economic downturn is the safety of our communities.
And so I thank my colleagues and urge them to support this amendment.

amendment no. 874

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this amendment would create a deficit
neutral fund in order to provide for reform of the current foster care
system.
The foster care system is broken tremendously overburdened and needs
to be fixed.
The system is understaffed and under trained. Children linger too
long before securing a safe and permanent home. More funding could be
available for family reunification services. Administrative funds could
be used more efficiently.
Data collection is insufficient. The foster care financing structure
is antiquated and inflexible and prevents states from responding to a
variety of challenges.
We need to replace the old system with one that improves the foster
care payment structure to support children rather than programs,
promotes and improves family preservation and ensures that public funds
are used effectively.

[[Page 9849]]

Our amendment sets us on a course to make these vital improvements to
the foster care system.
I urge my colleagues to support the Landrieu-Grassley amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, that is very helpful. That cleared a lot
of amendments on both sides. I now go to Senator Hutchison for the
purpose of withdrawing her amendment.

Amendment No. 868 Withdrawn

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment No. 868. I do
support Senator Reid's amendment. It is important.

Amendment No. 868 Withdrawn

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. That is very gracious of her. We
could go to the Reid amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that Reid amendment No. 730 be adopted.
Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, I want to
point out that in New Hampshire we have no sales or income tax. If
people want to escape these taxes, they should come to New Hampshire.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I renew my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 730) was agreed to, as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to permanently
extend the deduction for state and local sales taxes)

At the end of Title II, insert the following:

SEC. __ . RESERVE FUND TO PROMOTE TAX EQUITY FOR STATES
WITHOUT PERSONAL INCOME TAXES.

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the aggregates, allocations, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports that
would provide for the permanent extension of the deduction
for state and local sales taxes, by the amounts provided in
such legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2019.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, that takes us to the Thune amendment No.
803.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.

Amendment No. 803

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] for himself, Mr.
Bennett, and Mr. Ensign, proposes an amendment numbered 803.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To protect charitable giving by ensuring that organizations
that provide important religious, educational, cultural, health care,
and environmental services are not negatively impacted by changes to
the Federal income tax deduction for charitable donations)

On page 68, after line 4, insert the following:

SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER ON LEGISLATION THAT INCREASES REVENUE
ABOVE THE LEVELS ESTABLISHED IN THE BUDGET
RESOLUTION.

(a) In General.--After a concurrent resolution on the
budget is agreed to, it shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill, resolution, amendment between Houses,
motion, or conference report that would cause revenues to be
more than the level of the revenues set forth, prior to any
adjustment made pursuant under any reserve fund, for that
first fiscal year or for the total of that fiscal year and
the ensuing fiscal years in the applicable resolution for
which allocations are provided under section 302(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--
(1) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the
Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, 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 this section.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, my amendment is very straightforward. It
creates a budget point of order against any legislation that would
raise revenue from a reduction in the tax deduction for charitable
donations.
What the Senator from North Dakota is going to say is that it is not
included in his budget. As we know, this is a long process, and we also
know the President, in his budget, included a proposal that would
reduce the amount people could claim as a tax benefit for a charitable
donation.
Again, we don't know what is going to happen from this point forward
in the budget process. This could go into conference, and a provision
like this could be added. Again, this places a point of order against
any legislation that would raise revenue from the tax deduction for
charitable giving.
Americans gave $300 billion in 2007 to charitable causes, which is
equal to 2 percent of our GDP.
A Washington Post article said this:

Diana Aviv, [president of Independent Sector, a national
membership organization of charities] said any decrease in
charitable giving caused by Obama's proposal, no matter how
small, would be `seen as a stake in the heart.' ''--``With
all other means of income down, the idea that there will be
another potential cut to the income of those nonprofit
organizations feels catastrophic,'' Aviv said. ``It is
utterly unacceptable.''

I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, would the Senator accept a voice vote? It
would help a great deal in terms of moving the agenda and in terms of
the disposition of the chairman on results out of the conference
committee.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as much as I appreciate the generosity of
the Senator in offering me that opportunity, I think this is an
important issue. I think the Senate needs to be on record.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
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 necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Specter) would have voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 3, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 138 Leg.]

YEAS--94

Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
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
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--3

McCaskill
Sanders
Whitehouse

NOT VOTING--2

Kennedy
Specter

The amendment (No. 803) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.

Amendment No. 824

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I propose we go next to Enzi amendment
No. 824. It has been cleared on both sides.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, built into this budget is an assumption
that the 33 percent and 35 percent tax

[[Page 9850]]

brackets would be allowed to expire. As a result, many individuals and
small businesses would see their taxes rise substantially in the very
near future.
The Administration has been quick to explain that the tax hike
wouldn't take effect until January 2011 after the economy has
rebounded. But no one can be sure when our economy will turn the corner
and the administration's economic assumptions have been criticized as
being more optimistic than most.
While I do not support raising taxes--especially in this economic
climate--I realize I am in the minority in this Chamber. So I am here
now to offer my friends across the aisle a chance to improve this
budget resolution.
My amendment would block any tax increase until the economy has
recovered. A sure sign of recovery would be a reduction in the
unemployment rate to 5.8 percent, a level many private sector
economists associate with a fully productive economy.
Common sense tells us that employment is a key indicator of our
economy's strength and potential for growth. The organization formally
tasked with identifying U.S. recessions, the National Bureau of
Economic Research--NBER--used job numbers to determine the start date
of our current recession and it is only right to use job numbers as a
signal that it has ended.
I don't support the tax increases in this budget, but if the majority
in this Chamber insists on moving forward with higher taxes, they
shouldn't do it while the economy is mired in recession.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we adopt
the Enzi amendment No. 824.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 824) was agreed to, as follows:

(Purpose: To protect taxpayers and businesses from the job-killing and
growth-stunting impact of tax increases imposed while the domestic
economy is in crisis)

At the end of subtitle A of title III, insert the
following:

SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER ON LEGISLATION THAT INCREASES TAXES
DURING ANY PERIOD WHEN THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS
IN EXCESS OF 5.8 PERCENT.

(a) In General.--In the Senate, it shall not be in order,
to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report during any period in which the unemployment
rate in the United States (as measured by the most recent
Bureau of Labor Statistics' Current Population Survey and
based on the national seasonally adjusted rate for persons
age 16 and over) exceeds 5.8 percent if such bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report increases
taxes.
(b) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended only
by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly
chosen and sworn.
(c) Appeals.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under this section.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I especially thank Senator Enzi, who
demonstrates once again why everybody regards him as a gentleman here.
I appreciate his being gracious.
Madam President, that takes us next to the Conrad AMT amendment,
which I will not pursue, and we will go directly to the Grassley
amendment on the alternative minimum tax.

Amendment No. 950

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment
numbered 950.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To ensure that millions of middle-income families do not face
an alternative minimum tax increase in 2013 and 2014 and that the
budget resolution honestly and accurately reflects that result)

On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $8,608,000,000.
On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by
$105,822,000,000.
On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $8,608,000,000.
On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $105,822,000,000.
On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $179,046,000.
On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $2,901,367,000.
On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $179,046,000.
On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $2,901,367,000.
On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $8,787,046,000.
On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by
$108,723,367,000.
On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by $8,787,046,000.
On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by
$117,510,413,000.
On page 6, line 3, increase the amount by $8,787,046,000.
On page 6, line 4, increase the amount by $117,510,413,000.
On page 27, line 11, increase the amount by $179,046,000.
On page 27, line 12, increase the amount by $179,046,000.
On page 27, line 15, increase the amount by $2,901,367,000.
On page 27, line 16, increase the amount by $2,901,367,000.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the chairman's resolution patches the
AMT for 2010 through 2012. Now, that is good, but it is not good
enough. Since we have a 5-year window, we should patch AMT for all 5
years. My amendment is to make sure that AMT is patched 2013 and 2014
so that the entire 5-year period has an AMT patch.
This would provide tax relief to 18 million families at a cost of
$114 billion. This patch is essential to honest budgeting because we
all know that the AMT will eventually pass without being patched. This
amendment also helps families plan their financial affairs properly,
rather than leave them guessing as to what their future tax burden will
be.
Also, by giving greater stability to this area of the tax law, tax
professionals will administer the law better, leading to better
compliance and a smaller tax gap.
I ask support for this amendment to patch AMT for 2013 and 2014, and
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, we already have 3 full years of
alternative minimum tax protection in the chairman's mark--3 full
years. We have never had that much before in any resolution.
The amendment of the Senator would add $117 billion to the debt.
After we lost $2 trillion in the CBO forecast, we had to insist that
some additional things be paid for. I urge my colleagues to defeat the
Grassley amendment and understand we have 3 full years of alternative
minimum tax protection in the chairman's mark.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 950.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 58, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 139 Leg.]

YEAS--40

Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Thune
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--58

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Bunning
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley

[[Page 9851]]

Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The amendment (No. 950) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that under the
rules we have been operating on for each of the tranches, that we next
go to Inhofe No. 742; followed by Sanders, No. 811; followed by
Stabenow, No. 879; followed by Bond, No. 926; followed by Coburn, No.
894; followed by Bennett, No. 954.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, that would take us next to the Inhofe
amendment. If the Senator would describe his amendment.

Amendment No. 742

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment No. 742 be considered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an
amendment numbered 742.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for advance appropriations for medical care for
veterans through the Department of Veterans Affairs)

On page 57, strike line 23 and insert the following:

casting; and
(3) for the Department of Veterans Affairs for the Medical
Services, Medical Administration, Medical Facilities, and
Medical and Prosthetic Research accounts of the Veterans
Health Administration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, this is one of the rare amendments we
have that is not going to cost anything but makes a rearrangement in
the flow of funding. One of the problems we are having now is that in
19 out of the last 22 years, Congress has been unsuccessful in passing
annual funding for veterans health care. In fact, over the last 7
years, there has been a delay averaging 3 months in the funding flow
for the care of veterans.
This can be corrected. What this amendment does, it offers a solution
by providing advance appropriations for veterans health care. It does
not mean it increases the cost. It means it actually comes in--and this
is used in some other areas of Government. In fact, it is interesting
that in October of 2008, then-Senator Obama, a candidate, said:

The way our Nation provides funding for VA health care must
be reformed. . . . My administration will recommend passage
of advance appropriations legislation . . .

For this purpose.
Senator Danny Akaka is a cosponsor on this. I ask it be accepted. I
do not need a rollcall.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator from Oklahoma be agreeable to a voice
vote on this amendment?
Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that we accept the Inhofe
amendment, No. 742.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 742) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 811

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, that takes us then next to the Sanders
amendment, No. 811.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes an
amendment numbered 811.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund to establish a
national usury law, and for other purposes)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL
USURY LAW.

The chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the aggregates, allocations, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports to
establish a national usury law, provided that such
legislation does not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2019.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, this amendment, No. 811, would simply
establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to establish a national usury
law. Establishing a national usury law is not a radical concept. About
half the States in our country have usury laws now, capping interest
rates on their books. Unfortunately, the State usury laws were made
meaningless by a 1978 Supreme Court decision that allowed national
banks to charge whatever interest rates they wanted if they move to
States without an interest rate cap.
The bottom line is people all over this country are tired of bailing
out banks and then paying 25 or 30 percent interest rates on their
credit cards. That is wrong. We need a national usury rate, and this
amendment would begin the process of establishing one.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, obviously, this is not the appropriate
vehicle to legislate a national usury law. Even if a national usury law
made sense, which it does not, because this is clearly a States rights
issue, I am not sure what we would use here. Would we use the Koran or
the Bible for setting this?
Let's be honest, a national usury law is not a good idea. Its time
has not come and this amendment should be defeated.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 31, nays 67, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 140 Leg.]

YEAS--31

Begich
Boxer
Brown
Burris
Cardin
Casey
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harkin
Kaufman
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Udall (NM)
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--67

Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennet
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Klobuchar
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Wicker

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The amendment (No. 811) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

Change Of Vote

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, thank you very much. And I thank the
manager of the bill.
I would like to change my vote on rollcall vote No. 140. It was my
intention to vote ``nay,'' and I voted ``yea.'' I voted ``yea'' when I
was presiding. I ask unanimous consent that my vote be changed to
reflect a ``nay'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page 9852]]

Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, just for the information of colleagues,
very soon we are going to need to take a break. Floor staff have not
eaten; they have not had a break. So we are going to have to take a
break.
Before we do that, I would like to dispose of the remaining
amendments in this tranche, and I would ask Senator Bond if we would be
willing to take a voice vote on his amendment if Senator Stabenow would
take a voice vote on hers?
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I will respond by saying that we on this
side would like to have a vote on the point of order on the climate
legislation.
Mr. CONRAD. So I take that as----
Mr. BOND. No.
Mr. CONRAD. Well, OK. That means two more votes. I do not know how
many times we voted on this already. But if people are insistent on
having votes, we will get to stay here.
Mr. DORGAN. Would the chairman of the committee yield? Is it not the
case that most of the amendments, perhaps 90 percent of the amendments
we have voted on today, would have no real policy implications?
Mr. CONRAD. That is probably a pretty fair estimate. The Budget
Committee does not have the authority to tell committees of
jurisdiction the specifics of legislative outcomes. These are message
amendments, and the truth is, we all do it. We do it on both sides. But
I have to say to my colleagues, it has run amok this year. For some
reason this year we have hundreds of amendments out there, and people
are just stuck. Even when they could get a voice vote and it pass, they
still want votes. We have had votes that were nine in opposition. But
that is a Senator's right.
Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator would yield further for a question, might
it not be advisable, given the fact that most amendments have no policy
implications at all, if they are made to the Budget Act, just to accept
all amendments en bloc by UC and discard all of those without merit
once you get to conference?
Mr. CONRAD. The problem is, that would take unanimous consent. It is
very clear we cannot get unanimous consent.
Is Senator Coburn in the Chamber? I ask unanimous consent that we set
aside for a moment the Stabenow and Bond amendments for the purpose of
going to the Coburn amendment because I am told that Senator Coburn
would be willing to take a voice vote; is that correct?
Mr. COBURN. I would take it by unanimous consent.
Mr. CONRAD. Even better. I ask unanimous consent that the Coburn
amendment, No. 894, be adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 894) was agreed to, as follows:

(Purpose: To provide a deficit-neutral reserve fund to set performance
standards to identify failing Government programs)

On page 49, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

SEC. 216. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR SETTING
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TO IDENTIFY FAILING
GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS.

Amendment No. 879

Mr. CONRAD. I thank our colleague. That takes us back to Stabenow
amendment No. 879.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow], for herself, Mr.
Brown, Mrs. Boxer, and Mrs. Shaheen, proposes an amendment
numbered 879.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To modify the authorization for climate change legislation)

On page 33, line 20, strike ``or help'' and insert ``create
new jobs in a clean technology economy, strengthen the
manufacturing competitiveness of the United States, diversify
the domestic clean energy supply to increase the energy
security of the United States, protect consumers (including
policies that address regional differences), provide
incentives for cost-savings achieved through energy
efficiencies, provide voluntary opportunities for agriculture
and forestry communities to contribute to reducing the levels
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and help''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
Ms. STABENOW. We have had a number of votes that indicated what we
should not do as it relates to a climate change policy. This is about
what we should do. I believe, just as with any piece of legislation, if
it is done right, it can be very positive.
I believe it can be about creating jobs and revitalizing the economy.
I would like to thank Senators Brown, Boxer, and Shaheen for supporting
this amendment which lays out a framework for a balanced climate change
policy to create jobs and a clean technology economy, strengthening
manufacturing competitiveness, diversifying domestic clean energy
supplies, protecting consumers, including policies that address
regional differences, provide incentives for cost savings achieved
through energy efficiencies, and allowing voluntary opportunities for
agriculture and forestry to participate in this process of lowering
greenhouse gases.
I ask for support from my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. GREGG. Would the Senator take a voice vote?
Ms. STABENOW. My question, I guess, through the Chair would be, is
Senator Bond also willing to take a voice vote on his amendment?
Mr. BOND. Madam President, my amendment shoots with real bullets. It
provides a Budget Act point of order for any climate change legislation
that brings in more revenue than that set forth in the budget
resolution.
So it does--if that will be accepted by voice vote, it is creating a
new Budget Act point of order. We would like a vote. But it does have
real teeth.
Mr. CONRAD. I would just say to the Senator, we would be willing to
take yours on a voice vote, Senator Stabenow's on a voice vote, then go
to the Bennett for a vote. And we could take a break because people
have not had a break.
We have voted on this over and over and over. I do not think the
record could be more clear.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, assuming a voice vote means approval, I
am willing to take a voice vote.
Mr. CONRAD. That is in a separate category. We will have a vote on
yours.
Mr. GREGG. We will vote on both.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 879.
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 necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 25, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 141 Leg.]

YEAS--73

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Burr
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Crapo
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hutchison
Inouye
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez

[[Page 9853]]

McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--25

Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bunning
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Gregg
Hatch
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Landrieu
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Sessions
Shelby
Vitter
Wicker

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The amendment (No. 879) was agreed to.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

____________________

RECESS

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have conferred with the Republican leader.
I have conferred with the two managers of the bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 6
o'clock this evening.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if we could
have the attention of the Members so we can explain what we are trying
to do. I say to Senator Bond, yours will be the first vote when we come
back. I say to colleagues, we need to take a break to try to put
together a managers' package and determine the final amendments that
require a vote. That will take a little bit of time to best organize so
we do not waste everyone's time. In addition, some people have not had
a break who have not eaten. They have not had any breaks since 11
o'clock this morning, especially the staff. We wish to emphasize we
need to take this 45-minute break.
Members who have multiple amendments, at least with respect to our
side, are going to have a much better chance getting some amendment
accepted if they are a little reasonable on their other amendments; in
other words, prioritize, please. Let's try to work down. Some people
have six amendments remaining. We need to try to prioritize. During
this period, if people who have remaining amendments can come to us and
tell us what are their priorities; we can't do them all.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor. We will resume at 6 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate stands in recess
until 6 o'clock.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 5:19 p.m., recessed until 6:01 p.m. and
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. Reid).

____________________

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR
2010--Continued

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

Amendment No. 926

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 926 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment
numbered 926.

Mr. BOND. 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 protect workers from significant job loss by providing a
point of order against climate change or similar legislation that
raises Federal revenues to such an extent that it causes significant
job loss in manufacturing- or coal-dependent U.S. regions such as the
Midwest, Great Plains or South)

On page 68, after line 4, insert the following:

SEC.___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT CAUSES
SIGNIFICANT JOB LOSS.

(a) In General.--After a concurrent resolution on the
budget is agreed to, it shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill, resolution, amendment between Houses,
motion, or conference report that--
(1) would cause revenues to be more than the level of
revenues set forth for that first fiscal year or for the
total of that fiscal year and the ensuing fiscal years in the
applicable resolution for which allocations are provided
under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
and (2) would cause significant job loss in manufacturing- or
coal-dependent regions of the United States such as the
Midwest, Great Plains or South.
(b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--
(1) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the
Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, 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 this section.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment provides a new point of order
to prevent climate change legislation from raising more revenue than in
the resolution, killing jobs in the coal and manufacturing-dependent
regions of the United States, such as the Midwest, the Great Plains,
and the South.
There is no question climate change legislation will raise trillions
of dollars in Federal revenue through its Government auction of carbon
allowances.
President Obama said ``electricity rates would necessarily
skyrocket.''
This new energy tax will kill jobs in energy-intensive sectors such
as manufacturing, auto assembly, steel, cement, plastics, glass, and
fertilizer.
Experts predicted last year's Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill
would have killed 3 million to 4 million jobs. The Northeast and west
coast will avoid the full impacts because they rely on lower carbon
natural gas to generate electricity. However, climate legislation will
hit hard the coal and manufacturing-dependent Midwest, Great Plains,
and South.
I ask my colleagues to protect our workers by supporting this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Michigan,
Ms. Stabenow, who had the time in opposition, I wish to indicate that
what the Senator is talking about is not part of the chairman's mark.
The chairman's mark provides an energy initiatives reserve fund. It is
entirely up to the committees of jurisdiction what legislation they
write to reduce our dependence on foreign energy, to deal with global
climate change. This resolution makes absolutely no determination about
what those committees will report. The effect of this amendment, to me,
is a nullity because it is creating a budget point of order against
something that does not exist in the chairman's mark.
I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, on behalf of Senator
Stabenow.
Mr. BOND. Will the Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
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.
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:

[[Page 9854]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 142 Leg.]

YEAS--54

Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker

NAYS--44

Akaka
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The amendment (No. 926) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CONRAD. 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. CONRAD. Mr. President, the next amendment to be dealt with is
Bennett amendment No. 954.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

Amendment No. 954, as Modified

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I call up amendment 954, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] proposes an amendment
numbered 954, as modified.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To save the American taxpayer over $150,000,000,000 by
adjusting spending levels beyond fiscal year 2010 to compensate for
spending from the stimulus bill in the corresponding fiscal years)

On page 4, line 15, decrease amount by $76,325,000,000.
On page 4, line 16, decrease amount by $38,065,000,000.
On page 4, line 17, decrease amount by $22,872,000,000.
On page 4, line 18, decrease amount by $12,787,000,000.
On page 4, line 24, decrease amount by $76,325,000,000.
On page 4, line 25, decrease amount by $38,065,000,000.
On page 5, line 1, decrease amount by $22,872,000,000.
On page 5, line 2, decrease amount by $12,787,000,000.
On page 5, line 8, decrease amount by $76,325,000,000.
On page 5, line 9, decrease amount by $38,065,000,000.
On page 5, line 10, decrease amount by $22,872,000,000.
On page 5, line 11, decrease amount by $12,787,000,000.
On page 5, line 18, decrease amount by $76,325,000,000.
On page 5, line 19, decrease amount by $114,390,000,000.
On page 5, line 20, decrease amount by $137,262,000,000.
On page 5, line 21, decrease amount by $150,049,000,000.
On page 6, line 1, decrease amount by $76,325,000,000.
On page 6, line 2, decrease amount by $114,390,000,000.
On page 6, line 3, decrease amount by $137,262,000,000.
On page 6, line 4, decrease amount by $150,049,000,000.
On page 9, line 24, decrease amount by $960,000,000.
On page 9, line 25, decrease amount by $960,000,000.
On page 10, line 3, decrease amount by $634,000,000.
On page 10, line 4, decrease amount by $634,000,000.
On page 10, line 7, decrease amount by $277,000,000.
On page 10, line 8, decrease amount by $277,000,000.
On page 10, line 11, decrease amount by $104,000,000.
On page 10, line 12, decrease amount by $104,000,000.
On page 10, line 24, decrease amount by $162,000,000.
On page 10, line 25, decrease amount by $162,000,000.
On page 10, line 3, decrease amount by $114,000,000.
On page 10, line 4, decrease amount by $114,000,000.
On page 10, line 7, decrease amount by $50,000,000.
On page 10, line 8, decrease amount by $50,000,000.
On page 11, line 25, decrease amount by $1,095,000,000.
On page 12, line 1, decrease amount by $1,095,000,000.
On page 12, line 4, decrease amount by $750,000,000.
On page 12, line 5, decrease amount by $750,000,000.
On page 12, line 8, decrease amount by $174,000,000.
On page 12, line 9, decrease amount by $174,000,000.
On page 12, line 12, decrease amount by $63,000,000.
On page 12, line 13, decrease amount by $63,000,000.
On page 13, line 25, decrease amount by $13,760,000,000.
On page 14, line 1, decrease amount by $13,760,000,000.
On page 14, line 4, decrease amount by $11,759,000,000.
On page 14, line 5, decrease amount by $11,759,000,000.
On page 14, line 8, decrease amount by $7,728,000,000.
On page 14, line 9, decrease amount by $7,728,000,000.
On page 14, line 12, decrease amount by $5,419,000,000.
On page 14, line 13, decrease amount by $5,419,000,000.
On page 14, line 25, decrease amount by $5,685,000,000.
On page 14, line 1, decrease amount by $5,685,000,000.
On page 14, line 4, decrease amount by $4,111,000,000.
On page 14, line 4, decrease amount by $4,111,000,000.
On page 15, line 8, decrease amount by $2,286,000,000.
On page 15, line 9, decrease amount by $2,286,000,000.
On page 15, line 12, decrease amount by $468,000,000.
On page 15, line 13, decrease amount by $468,000,000.
On page 15, line 25, decrease amount by $5,584,000,000.
On page 16, line 1, decrease amount by $5,584,000,000.
On page 16, line 4, decrease amount by $4,284,000,000.
On page 16, line 5, decrease amount by $4,284,000,000.
On page 16, line 8, decrease amount by $3,047,000,000.
On page 16, line 9, decrease amount by $3,047,000,000.
On page 16, line 12, decrease amount by $531,000,000.
On page 16, line 13, decrease amount by $531,000,000.
On page 16, line 25, decrease amount by $8,785,000,000.
On page 17, line 1, decrease amount by $8,785,000,000.
On page 17, line 4, decrease amount by $7,035,000,000.
On page 17, line 5, decrease amount by $7,035,000,000.
On page 17, line 8, decrease amount by $6,052,000,000.
On page 17, line 9, decrease amount by $6,052,000,000.
On page 17, line 12, decrease amount by $5,422,000,000.
On page 17, line 13, decrease amount by $5,422,000,000.
On page 19, line 3, decrease amount by $29,963,000,000.
On page 19, line 4, decrease amount by $29,963,000,000.
On page 19, line 7, decrease amount by $4,011,000,000.
On page 19, line 8, decrease amount by $4,011,000,000.
On page 19, line 10, decrease amount by $262,000,000.
On page 19, line 11, decrease amount by $262,000,000.
On page 20, line 3, decrease amount by $6,421,000,000.
On page 20, line 4, decrease amount by $6,421,000,000.
On page 20, line 7, decrease amount by $3,157,000,000.
On page 20, line 8, decrease amount by $3,157,000,000.
On page 20, line 11, decrease amount by $842,000,000.
On page 20, line 12, decrease amount by $842,000,000.
On page 20, line 15, decrease amount by $183,000,000.

[[Page 9855]]

On page 20, line 16, decrease amount by $183,000,000.
On page 23, line 3, decrease amount by $133,000,000.
On page 23, line 4, decrease amount by $133,000,000.
On page 23, line 7, decrease amount by $150,000,000.
On page 23, line 8, decrease amount by $150,000,000.
On page 23, line 11, decrease amount by $150,000,000.
On page 23, line 12, decrease amount by $150,000,000.
On page 24, line 3, decrease amount by $297,000,000.
On page 24, line 4, decrease amount by $297,000,000.
On page 24, line 7, decrease amount by $133,000,000.
On page 24, line 8, decrease amount by $133,000,000.
On page 25, line 3, decrease amount by $848,000,000.
On page 25, line 4, decrease amount by $848,000,000.
On page 25, line 7, decrease amount by $649,000,000.
On page 25, line 8, decrease amount by $649,000,000.
On page 25, line 11, decrease amount by $750,000,000.
On page 25, line 12, decrease amount by $750,000,000.
On page 26, line 3, decrease amount by $1,400,000,000.
On page 26, line 4, decrease amount by $1,400,000,000.
On page 26, line 7, decrease amount by $1,196,000,000.
On page 26, line 8, decrease amount by $1,196,000,000.
On page 26, line 11, decrease amount by $1,024,000,000.
On page 26, line 12, decrease amount by $1,024,000,000.
On page 26, line 15, decrease amount by $504,000,000.
On page 26, line 16, decrease amount by $504,000,000.
On page 27, line 3, decrease amount by $857,000,000.
On page 27, line 4, decrease amount by $857,000,000.
On page 27, line 7, decrease amount by $457,000,000.
On page 27, line 8, decrease amount by $457,000,000.
On page 27, line 11, decrease amount by $230,000,000.
On page 27, line 12, decrease amount by $230,000,000.
On page 27, line 15, decrease amount by $93,000,000.
On page 27, line 16, decrease amount by $93,000,000.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have not seen the modification.
Mr. BENNETT. I have only one copy which I gave the clerk. We found
that some of the numbers had been omitted.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CONRAD. 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. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Bennett can conclude his remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, according to CBO, the stimulus bill will
spend over $150 billion between fiscal years 2011 and 2014. My
amendment will remove that amount from this budget resolution because
it seems to me we do not need to fund the same things twice.
By reducing the proposed spending amounts in the budget resolution,
Congress will be recognizing that we have already passed money to spend
in that area. For those who say, yes, but the stimulus is different, we
are all hoping that the need for stimulus will be passed by the time we
get to 2014 and it will not be stimulative but, rather, inflationary.
It is for that reason that I offer the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator's amendment would eliminate 20
percent of the economic recovery package we passed weeks ago. The
Senator's amendment would cut defense by over $2 billion, would cut
veterans by over $400 million, would cut areas in education, health,
and infrastructure.
If there is one thing that united this body, it was investments in
infrastructure, much of what would be cut under this amendment.
I urge my colleagues to vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 56, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 143 Leg.]

YEAS--42

Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker

NAYS--56

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

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The amendment (No. 954 was rejected.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are now making significant progress on
putting together a managers' package and on putting together those
amendments that will require a vote. We still have a certain amount of
clearing to be done in order to be ready to go to those final lists and
get them locked in, but that work is going on right now between the two
sides.
Let me just give a status report, if I could. We are down to about 55
amendments. That is pretty good, given the fact we started at 231. But
55 at 3 an hour would be another 18 hours. So the word needs to go out
that we are asking colleagues who can withhold on amendments that they
have filed to use them for a later date. Those who would be willing to
accept a voice vote, if they could make certain our staffs are notified
of that, we will then be able to proceed in the most efficient way
possible.
Mr. President, we also should notify Members that at 8 p.m., give or
take a few minutes, we intend to vote on the amendment on estate tax.
That is the Lincoln-Kyl amendment. We just want to give people a heads-
up that the amendment will be voted on at about that time--roughly 8
p.m., give or take.
With that, 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. CONRAD. 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. CONRAD. Mr. President, we need to alert colleagues that we really
need them, if they have amendments, to be on the floor or in the
cloakroom. We have amendments that we are ready to go to, but we can't
find the Senators. So let me just tell you, if we can't find the
Senators, they are going to lose their chance to offer their amendment.
We are going to give a 5-minute grace period, but if Senators have
amendments, they have to be in a place where we can reach them.

Amendment Nos. 889, 881, 955, 809, 912, 794, 876, 899, 883, 970, 820,
887, 917, 838, and 916

Mr. President, we are ready to go to the next managers' package.

[[Page 9856]]

I ask unanimous consent that the managers' package be considered en
bloc and agreed to en bloc. It includes the following: Klobuchar
amendment No. 889, Dorgan amendment No. 881, Dodd amendment No. 955,
Brown amendment No. 809, Begich amendment No. 912, Pryor amendment No.
794, Lincoln-Snowe amendment No. 876, Lincoln-Snowe amendment No. 899,
Collins amendment No. 883, Hatch amendment No. 970, Enzi amendment No.
820, Klobuchar amendment No. 887, McCaskill amendment No. 917, Dorgan
amendment No. 838, and Tester amendment No. 916.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would like to clarify that it is
Enzi amendment No. 820?
Mr. CONRAD. Enzi. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? There is no objection, and
it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, en bloc, as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 889

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to expedite
research at the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection
Agency on the viability of the use of higher ethanol blends at the
service station pump)

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC. 2___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO EXPEDITE RESEARCH
ON VIABILITY OF USE OF HIGHER ETHANOL BLENDS AT
SERVICE STATION PUMP.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Chairman of
the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this resolution
by the amounts provided by a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that would expedite
research at the Department of Energy and the Environmental
Protection Agency on the viability of the use of higher
ethanol blends at the service station pump.
(b) Deficit Neutrality.--Subsection (a) applies only if the
legislation described in subsection (a) would not increase
the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2019.

AMENDMENT NO. 881

(Purpose: To provide for the use of the deficit-neutral reserve fund
for tax relief to extend and expand the charitable IRA rollover)

On page 38, line 19, insert ``, such as enhanced charitable
giving from individual retirement accounts, including life-
income gifts,'' before ``or refundable tax relief''.

amendment no. 955

(Purpose: To increase funding for the Maternal and Child Health Block
Grant within the Health Resources and Services Administration by $188
million in FY 2010)

On page 19, line 24, increase the amount by $188,000,000.
On page 19, line 25, increase the amount by $56,000,000.
On page 20, line 4, increase the amount by $81,000,000.
On page 20, line 8, increase the amount by $34,000,000.
On page 20, line 12, increase the amount by $13,000,000.
On page 27 line 23, decrease the amount by $188,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $56,000,000.
On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $81,000,000.
On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $34,000,000.
On page 28, line 11, decrease the amount by $13,000,000.

AMENDMENT NO. 809

(Purpose: To modify the deficit-neutral reserve fund for Clean Energy
to create jobs and strengthen American manufacturing competitiveness by
establishing clean renewable energy manufacturing supply chains)

On page 33, line 2, after ``development,'', insert
``strengthen and retool manufacturing supply chains,''.

AMENDMENT NO. 912

(Purpose: To include in the deficit-neutral reserve fund for America's
veterans and wounded servicemembers funding authority for retirement
benefits for members of the Alaska Territorial Guard who served during
and after World War II)

On page 41, line 24, insert after ``Indemnity
Compensation,'' the following: ``provide for the payment of
retired pay for members of the Alaska Territorial Guard who
served in the Alaska Territorial Guard during and after World
War II,''.

AMENDMENT NO. 794

(Purpose: To establish deficit-neutral reserve funds to enhance and
coordinate drug control efforts among Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies through the expansion of the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas program and increased drug interdiction funding at
the Department of Homeland Security)

On page 49, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUNDS TO ENHANCE DRUG-
CONTROL EFFORTS WITHIN OUR COMMUNITIES AND
ALONG OUR BORDERS.

(a) HIDTA.--The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the
Budget may revise the allocations of a committee or
committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels and
limits in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports that
increase the number of counties designated as High Intensity
Drug Trafficking Areas to provide coordination, equipment,
technology, and additional resources to combat drug
trafficking and its harmful consequences in critical regions
of the United States by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2019.
(b) Drug Smuggling.--The Chairman of the Senate Committee
on the Budget may revise the allocations of a committee or
committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels and
limits in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports that
increase drug interdiction funding at the Department of
Homeland Security to combat drug smuggling across
international borders by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2019.

AMENDMENT NO. 876

(Purpose: To ensure that health coverage is affordable to small
businesses and individuals who are self-employed)

On page 30, line 10, strike ``, households'' and insert
``(in particular to small business and individuals who are
self-employed), households''.

AMENDMENT NO. 899

(Purpose: To provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund to promote
individual savings and financial security, and for other purposes)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PROMOTE INDIVIDUAL
SAVINGS AND FINANCIAL SECURITY.

The chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the aggregates, allocations, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports that
promote financial security through financial literacy,
retirement planning, and savings incentives, including
individual development accounts and child savings accounts,
provided that such legislation does not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total fiscal years 2009 through
2014 or the period of the total fiscal years 2009 through
2019.

amendment no. 883

(Purpose: To ensure that the deficit-neutral reserve fund for higher
education may be used for Federal TRIO programs and Gaining Early
Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs)

On page 34, line 13, insert ``such as by investing in
programs such as the programs under chapters 1 and 2 of
subpart 2 of part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 et seq., 1070a-21 et seq.),''
after ``students,''.

AMENDMENT NO. 970

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to support the
National Health Service Corps)

On page 49, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE NATIONAL HEALTH
SERVICE CORPS.

AMENDMENT NO. 820

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to improve the
animal health and disease program)

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC. 2___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO IMPROVE ANIMAL
HEALTH AND DISEASE PROGRAM.

[[Page 9857]]

resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that
would ensure that the animal health and disease program
established under section 1433 of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7
U.S.C. 3195) is fully funded.
(b) Deficit Neutrality.--Subsection (a) applies only if the
legislation described in subsection (a) would not increase
the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2019.

AMENDMENT NO. 887

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to promote
payment policies under the Medicare program that reward quality and
efficient care and address geographic variations in spending)

On page 32, line 10, after ``increases;'' insert ``or'' and
the following:
(4) promote payment policies under the Medicare program
that reward quality and efficient care and address geographic
variations in spending;

AMENDMENT NO. 917

(Purpose: To expand the matters covered by the deficit-neutral reserve
fund for defense acquisition and contracting reform)

On page 43, after line 24, add the following:
(4) reduce the award of contracts to contractors with
seriously delinquent tax debts;
(5) reduce the use of contracts, including the continuation
of task orders, awarded under the Logistics Civil
Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) III;
(6) reform Department of Defense processes for acquiring
services in order to reduce costs, improve costs and schedule
estimation, enhance oversight, or increase the rigor of
reviews of programs that experience critical cost growth;
(7) reduce the use of contracts for acquisition, oversight,
and management support services; or
(8) enhance the capability of auditors and inspectors
general to oversee Federal acquisition and procurement;

AMENDMENT NO. 838

(Purpose: To ensure full funding for Adam Walsh Act programs, with an
offset)

On page 24, line 24, increase the amount by $23,000,000.
On page 24, line 25, increase the amount by $16,000,000.
On page 25, line 4, increase the amount by $4,000,000.
On page 25, line 8, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
On page 25, line 12, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $23,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $16,000,000.
On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $4,000,000.
On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $2,000,000.
On page 28, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,000,000.

AMENDMENT NO 916

(Purpose: To increase funding for veterans beneficiary travel
reimbursement mileage rate, with an offset)

On page 23, line 24, increase the amount by $133,000,000.
On page 23, line 25, increase the amount by $133,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $133,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $133,000,000.

Amendment No. 881

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to express my concerns about the
Dorgan-Snow amendment No. 881.
The IRA rollover was first enacted as temporary provision in the
Pension Protection Act which I championed in 2006. Rollovers to grant-
making charitable organizations with some element of donor control,
such as private foundations, donor advised funds, and supporting
organizations, were specifically prohibited. These entities were
specifically prohibited from receiving rollover funds because I wanted
to make sure that the money would actually get to charities doing work
on the frontlines rather than sit in a donor-controlled account.
The provision has become one of the annual ``tax extender''
provisions. So under current law, which expires December 31, 2009, an
individual may rollover up to $100,000 from their IRA to a public
charity but not to one of the prohibited entities. Amendment No. 881 to
the budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 13, promotes the extension of
current-law regarding IRA rollovers to charity, which I also support.
However, the amendment also promotes an expansion of the provision by
allowing split-interest trusts to receive IRA rollover contributions.
Split-interest trusts are more worrisome than those that are currently
prohibited from receiving IRA rollover contributions. These trusts
allow donors to retain an income stream from the contributed assets for
a defined period. So, just like with donor-advised funds and supporting
organizations, the contribution does not result in an immediate benefit
to a charity actually providing services while the donor receives
significant tax benefits at the time of the contribution.
The cost of extending current law through 2009 was almost $1
billion--expanding the IRA rollover provision to allow more entities to
receive them would increase the cost. Before we do that, I believe we
should make sure that grant-making entities, including split-interest
trusts, are accountable for paying out minimum amounts to actual
charities before we allow them to receive IRA rollovers.
I understand that Senator Dorgan is willing to work with me and my
staff if and when Senator Baucus and I consider an expansion of the IRA
rollover provision in the Finance Committee. In light of this good
faith offer, I will not object to the unanimous consent request for
this amendment today and look forward to working with Senator Dorgan to
resolve our differences.

Amendment No. 876

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate amendment
No. 876, which I have cosponsored with my colleague Senator Lincoln.
Our bipartisan amendment would simply clarify that a deficit-neutral
reserve that would transform the health system will specifically
address the needs of small businesses and the self-employed. More than
half--52 percent--of our nation's uninsured either work for a small
business or are dependent on someone who does. Yet remarkably, this
budget resolution fails to even mention the crucial priority of small
business health insurance reform.
As former chair and now ranking member of the Senate Committee on
Small Business and Entrepreneurship, one of the top issues facing small
business continues to be access to affordable health insurance. Since
2000, health insurance premiums have increased by 89 percent--far
outpacing inflation and wage gains, and only 49 percent of our Nation's
smallest employers, with less than 10 employees, are now able to offer
health insurance to their employees as a workplace benefit.
Further compounding the crisis, small businesses are trapped in
dysfunctional markets that possess little, if any, meaningful
competition among insurers. Just last month, the Government
Accountability Office released a report that I requested, along with
Senators Bond, Durbin, and Lincoln, which highlighted an alarming trend
of consolidation in the state small group insurance markets. For
example, the combined market share of the five largest carriers
represented 75 percent or more in 34 of 39 States surveyed, compared to
26 States in 2005. Large insurers dominated over 90 percent of the
market in 23 States, including Maine, where five insurers now control
96 percent of the market.
The sad truth remains that small business insurance markets continue
to lack competition among insurers. No competition means higher costs,
and higher costs translate to no health insurance.
That is why I will soon reintroduce, with Assistant Majority Leader
Durbin and Senator Lincoln, the Small Business Health Options Program--
SHOP--Act, a bipartisan measure that has generated a broad array of
support, including NFIB, the National Association of Realtors, SEIU,
AARP, and Families USA. Our bipartisan measure would inject competition
into reformed state insurance markets, allow small businesses and the
self employed to pool together nationally, and provide a targeted tax
credit to small business owners. I firmly believe that the policies in
the SHOP Act, including fairer insurance ``rating'' rules that are not
based on an individual's health status, must be included in the broader
health reform debate that is underway in Congress.
I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of aisle to support this
non-controversial amendment, which would

[[Page 9858]]

clarify that when Congress passes broader health reform and universal
coverage this year, it will fully consider the issue of small business
health insurance reform.

Amendment No. 899

I rise as a cosponsor to support amendment No. 899 introduced by my
colleague Senator Blanche Lincoln that creates a deficit neutral
reserve fund to promote financial security through financial literacy,
retirement planning, and savings incentives, including individual
development accounts and child savings accounts. I am proud that we
have worked together on the issue of financial security and financial
literacy over the last several years, in particular on the issue of
individual development accounts, IDAs, that will allow low-income
individuals to pay for education expenses, first-time homebuyer costs,
and business capitalization or expansion costs.
I join Senator Lincoln in support of this crucial amendment because
we must boost savings in the United States, as a sound national savings
policy is essential to helping Americans build a better future for
themselves. Higher rates of saving can also strengthen the national
economy. A paradox of the current economic recession is that our
national savings rate has risen as Americans prepare for possible bad
times ahead. Personal saving, as a percentage of disposable personal
income, was 4.2 percent in February. It was 4.4 percent in January. The
last time the saving rate exceeded 4.0 percent two straight months was
August and September 1998, up 4.3 percent and 4.2 percent,
respectively.
It was more than 10 years ago the last time we had a savings rate
above 4 percent. I am glad to see it happening, but we need to increase
education on financial security so that Americans have a cushion to get
through difficult economic times. I thank the new Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions and Family Policy for adding
me as a cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank all our colleagues for cooperating
on these managers' packages. We are working to clear additional
amendments right now. I think at this point, until Senator Gregg
returns, we need to note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 957

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the next amendment that requires a vote is
the Lautenberg amendment as it affects Amtrak. The Senator is not quite
ready. We will give him a minute to do that.
While we are waiting, let me indicate to colleagues, we need Senators
who have amendments to be here or to be in the cloakroom. We have dead
time here because, for amendments that are going to require a vote,
Senators who are insisting on votes are not here. That is not going to
work.
We have now worked on another group of amendments. Momentarily we
will be prepared to offer another managers' amendment. I remind
colleagues that the estate tax amendment of Senator Lincoln and Senator
Kyl will be voted on about 8 o'clock. We need to keep that in mind as
we plan the time.
I say to the Senator, we are ready to accept that amendment by
unanimous consent. If the Senator wishes to speak, he could, for a
minute, or we could take the amendment.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to offer a straightforward
amendment that recognizes that investments in our transportation
infrastructure system must be a priority for our country. The amendment
would simply add transportation, including passenger and freight rail,
as an eligible project under the ``Investments in America's
Infrastructure'' reserve fund. It is already included in the budget.
Our highways and skyways are so congested and crowded that passengers
and freight are routinely delayed. The estimates show these problems
will only get worse with the growth of freight traffic, expected to
double its size by 2025. Railroads are the one mode of transportation
that can grow to help alleviate the congestion.
Amtrak needs more and better passenger and freight rail service. I
ask support for this amendment.
I call up the amendment and ask for its immediate consideration,
amendment No. 957.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] proposes an
amendment numbered 957.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To include funding for freight and passenger rail in the
deficit-neutral reserve fund for investments in America's
infrastructure)

On page 35, line 18, insert ``transportation, including
freight and passenger rail,'' after ``energy, water,''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are prepared to take that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing on the amendment.
The amendment (No. 957) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 934

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Cornyn is prepared with an
amendment. Would the Senator describe his amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 934 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment
numbered 934.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase transparency by requiring five days of public
review of legislation before passage by the Senate)

At the appropriate place insert the following:

SEC. _. REQUIREMENT THAT LEGISLATION BE AVAILABLE AND SCORED
5 DAYS BEFORE A VOTE ON PASSAGE.

(a) In General.--In the Senate, it shall not be in order,
to vote on final passage on any bill, joint resolution, or
conference report unless the text and a budget score from the
Congressional Budget Office of the legislation, are available
on a publicly accessible Congressional website five days
prior to the vote on passage of the legislation.
(b) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the
Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(c) Appeals.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under this section.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my amendment would pose a 60-vote point of
order against a bill that had not been made available for public review
along with the score of the Congressional Budget Office on a
congressional Web site for at least 5 days.
As everyone will recall, the President himself said this was his
goal, to offer greater transparency, hence greater accountability, and
thus instill greater confidence in the people and their Government.
Unfortunately, that pledge has been violated more times than it has
been honored, and in our rush to pass the stimulus bill that was
circulated--the conference report--at 11 o'clock on a Thursday night,
we were required to vote on it less than 24 hours later and thus the
uproar over the AIG bonuses ensued because, frankly, Members of the
Senate did not know what they were voting on and could not know what
they were voting on without this kind of transparency.
I commend this to my colleagues. It is consistent with what the
President has advocated and I think it is a good way to do business.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would ask the Senator from Texas, would
he be willing to allow us to take this on a voice vote or by unanimous
consent?
Mr. CORNYN. I would say to the distinguished chairman of the Budget
Committee, I have three amendments which I have on the dock. This is
the only one of those three that I would like to have a record vote on.
Mr. CONRAD. Can I put this another way? This amendment is not
germane.

[[Page 9859]]

So we can have a vote on it, it probably will not succeed, or we could
voice vote it and you would succeed.
Mr. CORNYN. Well, we have had this proposition tendered before. I
realize that in all likelihood this amendment would be stripped out in
conference behind closed doors. I do not think that is particularly an
honest way to deal with these important issues--to say yes on the floor
and then to strip them out behind closed doors and to act like we are
being consistent and not hypocritical.
I understand what the chairman has to do. He will do what he has to
do. But I would like a record vote.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator certainly has that right. Let
me raise the germaneness point of order.
Let me ask the Parliamentarian, is the amendment of the Senator
germane?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the opinion of the Chair, it is not
germane.
Mr. CONRAD. I raise the germaneness point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to waive the point of order.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 144 Leg.]

YEAS--46

Alexander
Barrasso
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Klobuchar
Kyl
Landrieu
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker

NAYS--52

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

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are
52. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained, and the amendment falls.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Next up is Senator Wicker.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

Amendment No. 798

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 798 and ask for
its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker] proposes an
amendment numbered 798.

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

(Purpose: To ensure that law abiding Amtrak passengers are allowed to
securely transport firearms in their checked baggage)

On page 37, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
(d) Allowing Amtrak Passengers to Securely Transport
Firearms on Passenger Trains.--None of amounts made available
in the reserve fund authorized under this section may be used
to provide financial assistance for the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) unless Amtrak passengers are
allowed to securely transport firearms in their checked
baggage.

Mr. WICKER. The amendment is very simple and straightforward. It aims
to ensure that gun owners and sportsmen are able to transport securely
firearms aboard Amtrak trains in checked baggage, a practice that is
done thousands of times a day at airports across the country. I
emphasize that this amendment deals with checked, secured baggage only.
It would return Amtrak to a pre-9/11 practice. It does not deal with
carry-on baggage. Unlike the airline industry, Amtrak does not allow
the transport of firearms in checked bags. This means that sportsmen
who wish to use Amtrak trains for hunting trips cannot do so because
they are not allowed to check safely a firearm. I emphasize, this bill
deals with checked, secure luggage, not carry-on luggage. It would
apply to Amtrak the same as airlines.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield the time in opposition to the Senator from New
Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I object to this disruptive amendment offered by the
Senator from Mississippi. He wants to enable the carrying of weapons,
guns, in checked baggage. One doesn't have to be very much concerned
about what we are doing when they look at the history of attacks on
railroads in Spain and the UK and such places.
This amendment has no place here interrupting the budgetary
procedure. The pending amendment is not germane and, therefore, I raise
a point of order that the amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Mr. GREGG. Is the germaneness well taken on this?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive the Budget Act in relation to the Wicker amendment No. 798.
Mr. GREGG. I didn't even make the motion to waive, but I am happy to
have the question be on the motion to waive.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, that motion is
automatic.
Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 63, nays 35, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 145 Leg.]

YEAS--63

Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Sanders
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Voinovich
Webb
Wicker

NAYS--35

Akaka
Boxer
Brown
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harkin
Inouye
Kaufman
Kerry
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed

[[Page 9860]]

Rockefeller
Schumer
Stabenow
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 63, the nays are
35. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. 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. CONRAD. 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. CONRAD. Next up----
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if the motion was agreed to, then we have
to vote on the amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. Why don't we just take it on a voice vote?
Mr. GREGG. Yes. I ask unanimous consent.
Mr. CONRAD. I think we have to do it by voice.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 798) was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Lieberman is next.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.

Amendment No. 904

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I call up
amendment No. 904.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] proposes an
amendment numbered 904.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. 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 add a deficit-neutral reserve fund to reduce the strain on
United States military personnel by providing for an increase in the
end strength for active duty personnel of the United States Army)

At the end of title II, insert the following:

SEC. 216. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INCREASE IN THE
END STRENGTH FOR ACTIVE DUTY PERSONNEL OF THE
ARMY.

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other levels and limits in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that would reduce the strain
on the United States Armed Forces by authorizing an increase
in the end strength for active duty personnel of the Army to
a level not less than 577,400 persons, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for such purpose, provided that
such legislation would not increase the deficit over either
the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or
the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2019.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am honored to be joined in
introducing this amendment by my colleagues, Senators Cornyn, Thune,
and the distinguished occupant of the chair, Senator Begich. This
amendment would ease the strain on the U.S. Army which today is
carrying the bulk of the battle in Iraq and Afghanistan for us by
establishing a deficit-neutral reserve fund to increase Army Active-
Duty end strength by 30,000 personnel.
Although we have depleted the so-called Grow the Force initiative and
the Army is now at an end strength of 547,000, the so-called well time
for our soldiers has not improved. They still have little more than 1
day at home for every day they spend in the theater. Our soldiers and
their families----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Our soldiers continue to serve under an unacceptable
strain. I ask my colleagues to ease that strain by adopting this
amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are prepared to take that on a voice
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 904) was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 746

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the next amendment is from Senator Udall
of Colorado. If he could describe it in 30 seconds.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Ensign
for joining me in this amendment. This is a deficit-neutral reserve
fund amendment that would help prevent forest fires. Our State budgets
are facing economic wildfires. This would help State and private lands
reduce fuel loads so we can prevent catastrophic forest fires. Let's
stand with Smokey the Bear. Let's prevent forest fires. Vote for this
amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Udall, I call up his
amendment No. 746.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. UDALL] proposes an amendment
numbered 746.

Mr. CONRAD. 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 establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for wildland fire
management activities)

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC. 2___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR WILDLAND FIRE
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Chairman of
the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this resolution
by the amounts provided by a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that would--
(1) allow wildland fire management funds for hazardous
fuels reduction and hazard mitigation activities in areas at
high risk of catastrophic wildfire to be distributed to areas
demonstrating highest priority needs, as determined by the
Chief of the Forest Service; and
(2) provide that no State matching funds are required for
the conduct of activities described in paragraph (1).
(b) Deficit Neutrality.--Subsection (a) applies only if the
legislation described in subsection (a) would not increase
the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2019.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are prepared to take this amendment on
a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 746) was agreed to.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, next we go to the Lincoln-Kyl amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.

Amendment No. 873

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, before I begin, I wish to say a word of
thanks to Chairman Conrad, who has done a tremendous job providing
great leadership. He and his staff have done a wonderful job reflecting
the President's priorities and, more importantly, putting balance to
the budget before us.
Because my time is limited, I wish to take a moment to read to you a
few excerpts from an editorial that appeared in the Arkansas Democrat-
Gazette earlier this year. It was submitted by a member of a family who
runs a timber operation in southwest Arkansas and that has been in the
family since 1907. He said:

The estate tax kills jobs. It kills companies that provide
jobs. In the process it kills

[[Page 9861]]

towns and communities, particularly those in rural areas
dependent upon the land and local industry.

Five times this man's family has been subjected to the estate tax--
five times.
He goes on:

Between the 1950s and 1980s, vast amounts of money--tens of
millions of dollars--were raised to pay the tax. Lands were
clear cut, mills liquidated, communities destroyed. . . .The
next hit will be too great.

Think about this type of family business. They have grown their
business, reinvested in it over a century's worth of time, put almost
all their profits back into it, and now this particular company employs
over 1,000 Arkansans and has multiple mills that are worth a good bit
of money--millions of dollars.
This amendment provides real relief to our family-owned businesses.
In a time when our Government has handed out billions upon billions to
failed Wall Street banks, it is time we provide a little relief to our
businesses on Main Street that are in need of help right now. These are
people who employ more than half the workers in Arkansas. These are the
people who, if we reform the estate tax, will invest in their
businesses and create more jobs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. LINCOLN. I ask my colleagues to look at this seriously and
realize we are not protecting the ultrawealthy. We are working for
small businesses, family businesses in each and every one of our
States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). I remind the Senator that the
amendment has not been called up.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up
amendment No. 873.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln], for herself, Mr.
Kyl, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Pryor, Mr.
Roberts, Mrs. Landrieu, and Mr. Enzi, proposes an amendment
numbered 873.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To create a deficit-neutral reserve fund for estate tax
relief)

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ESTATE TAX RELIEF.

provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2019.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wish to remind all colleagues that the
chairman's mark takes the estate tax exemption from $1 million per
person in 2011 to $3.5 million, $7 million a couple. The proposal by
the Senator from Arkansas would take it to $5 million, and $10 million
a couple, reduces the rate from 45 percent to 35 percent. It is in a
deficit-neutral reserve fund. The cost of this amendment from 2012 to
2021, when it is fully effective, is over $100 billion. Where does the
money come from? Either by cutting spending somewhere else or raising
other taxes.
I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wish to proceed for a few moments on
my leader time. I am speaking in effect for Senator Kyl, who has been
our leader on the issue of the death tax for many years.
The Lincoln-Kyl amendment, on which we are about to vote, would
decrease the burden on those who get hit with the death tax by
increasing the exemption by $1.5 million to $5 million and by reducing
the rate of taxation down by 10 percent to 35 percent.
No one should have to be taxed on their assets twice, and no one
should have to visit the tax man and the undertaker on the same day. It
is the Government's final outrage. But if we can't repeal this tax,
then we should at least lower it at a time when Americans are already
burdened by shrinking retirement savings.
This budget, in keeping with the administration's plan, seeks to keep
the death tax exemption at $3.5 million and the tax rate at 45 percent.
By offering an amendment that would lower the rate and the exemption,
Senators Kyl and Lincoln are offering crucial support and protection to
small businesses, family ranchers, and farms.
This amendment has wide bipartisan support, including Senators
Nelson, Pryor, and Landrieu--all on the Democratic side--and Senators
Grassley, Roberts, Enzi, and Collins on the Republican side. It also
has strong support from the small business community, which desperately
needs relief at the current moment. It would spur economic growth,
which we need, and it makes good overall economic sense since the death
tax costs more to comply with than it raises in revenue.
The Lincoln-Kyl amendment is important, it is timely, and I strongly
urge its support.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader, my
friend, Senator Reid quoted me by name in his remarks in opposition to
the Lincoln-Kyl amendment.
The distinguished leader quoted me as describing death tax relief
legislation as ``unseemly.''
Since that quote was used to argue against Senator Lincoln's
amendment, which I support, I thought it important to respond to the
distinguished leader and set the record straight.
The distinguished leader is correct. I did say, at that time shortly
after the Katrina hurricane hit, that proceeding to death tax relief
would be ``unseemly.''
It is important for everyone to understand the context of that
statement. It was made shortly after the terrible hurricane hit the
gulf states. At that time, the Senate was about to reconvene after the
August recess. The pending business was a cloture motion on the motion
to proceed to a House bill that provided death tax relief.
The majority leader, Senator Frist, had filed the cloture motion
before the Senate departed for the August recess. Of course, that
procedural action occurred weeks before the hurricane hit. When asked
about the Senate schedule, I responded that proceeding to the death tax
bill, and, thereby not dealing with the hurricane victims, would be
unseemly.
The distinguished leader's comments caused me to recall how the
finance Committee, which I chaired at the time, dealt with Katrina.
Senator Frist did the right thing and set the Senate in motion to
deal with the hurricane victims. The Finance Committee acted with
lightning speed on a bipartisan basis, and in concert with the House,
to deliver relief to hurricane victims. I was quite proud of our
efforts to help people in need. That was the first Katrina tax relief
bill.
The second Katrina tax relief bill, unfortunately, took a lot longer
to do. Some on the other side saw the Katrina bill as a chance to enact
a National agenda of greatly enhancing social programs. I did not
question their motives at the time and do not now. But, the bottom line
was that this attempt to leverage a crisis for a National agenda,
significantly delayed our efforts to rebuild the hard-hit gulf zone.
As the distinguished leader will recall, the gulf state Senators, led
by Senator Lott, forced the Senate to focus on helping their states
rebuild and recover. A similar effort was underway in the House.
Fortunately, the efforts of the bipartisan group of gulf state
Senators caused the leadership on the other side to abandon their
efforts to leverage the hurricane disaster for a National agenda. No
one accused the leadership on the other side of being unseemly.
Senator Frist did the right thing and focused on the hurricane
victims. The leadership on the other side did the

[[Page 9862]]

right thing and focused on bipartisan hurricane relief efforts.
There is a lesson in this history for all of us. Do not try to
leverage a crisis for unrelated purposes.
Senator Lincoln's amendment was not ``unseemly.'' To use my reaction
to a question about the Senate schedule is to miss the point I was
making The Lincoln/Kyl amendment is a reasonable effort to find a
bipartisan compromise on a time-sensitive tax issue. It is an effort to
enable a solution to a problem that vexes family farmers and small
businesses. The amendment's purpose and substance are the opposite of
unseemly. The Lincoln/Kyl amendment is ``decorous.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will use my leader time. This chart says
it all. In February, 651,000 Americans lost their jobs. Five million
Americans have lost their jobs this past year--5 million. Our
unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1 percent. Nevada's
unemployment is 10 percent, but Nevada is not the highest. We have some
States that are far more than 10 percent unemployed. Three million more
children will likely be living in poverty by the end of this year. The
net worth of American households dropped by a combined total of $11
trillion last year--$11 trillion.
These statistics tell a story--a very clear story--but what is even
clearer is the suffering every American sees and feels every day.
Families whose incomes have fallen are now concerned that they won't
be able to make their next mortgage payment. Students at this time of
the year should be overjoyed with receiving acceptance to go to
college, but because of what is happening at home--their dad or mom has
lost a job--they can't go to college. Workers who have given decades of
loyal service at the office or factory realize now they can't retire
because their pensions are gone and their retirement savings have
disappeared. Senior citizens on a fixed income used to have to make a
decision as to whether it would be medicine or food. Now many seniors
don't have the choice for either.
We know what caused this crisis: 8 years of fiscal policies under the
previous administration and its allies in Congress who gave away the
store at the expense of the rest of America.
President Obama inherited a crisis that no President should have to
inherit or fix. Instead of focusing full time on the future, he and we
in Congress must first clean up the devastating mistakes of the past.
We can only turn the page from the recession to recovery if we watch
every single taxpayer dollar the way families watch every dollar in
their budget. Every dollar counts.
That is why it is so stunning, so outrageous, that some would choose
this hour of national crisis to push an amendment to slash the estate
tax for the superwealthy. This isn't for the wealthy; this is for the
superwealthy. Yet that is what we see here today.
The proposal now before us would take $100 billion of American
taxpayer money--actually, it is more than that--more than $100 billion
of taxpayer money over the next few years and spend it on slashing
taxes on the estates of the wealthiest two-tenths of 1 percent of
Americans. So 99.8 percent of Americans would derive no benefit--none.
In fact, 99.8 percent of Americans would actually see their tax dollars
redirected to the estates of those who are at the very top of the
economic food chain.
Here is what one newspaper said today:

The proverbial millionaires next door--the plumbers,
contractors, and accountants who amass substantial wealth
through hard work and modest living--are not the intended
beneficiaries of the proposed cut. The Obama budget already
takes care of them. That means 99.8 percent of estates will
never, ever pay a penny of estate tax.

Here is what another newspaper said today, entitled ``More Tax Cuts
for the Rich":

The hypocrisy here is breathtaking. More fundamentally, it
is hard to stomach those who argue for more tax cuts--and
then bemoan the failure to stanch rising deficits. A vote for
this amendment, at this time of so much red ink and so much
suffering, would reflect the most skewed of priorities.

This is only a couple of the Americans all over America today trying
to understand what is going on in Washington.
In recent years, Congress has already reduced tax rates on the
ultrawealthy estates. In fact, the Tax Policy Center calculates that a
$20 million estate right now--now--will pay an effective tax rate of 23
percent. Nurses pay more than that, schoolteachers pay more than that,
and secretaries pay a higher tax rate than that, but we say for an
estate of $20 million, 23 percent is OK. That is what the Tax Policy
Center calculates.
But for the proponents of the amendment now before us, that is not
good enough. So they propose that we spend $100 billion on a tax cut
for the top two-tenths of 1 percent. Proponents of this legislation say
they will find offsets for this $100 billion giveaway that will make it
deficit neutral. Think about that. Deficit neutral. That means you have
to get offsets.
Where are we going to get offsets? They have to come from somewhere.
They are not coming from the sky. Are we going to take them from
Medicare? From Senator Inouye's defense budget? From the Peace Corps?
From education?
Even in the best of times, there is no question that we could find a
better use for an extra $100 billion. We could put new textbooks in
classrooms. We could build better renewable energy transmission lines.
We could provide health care to more working families. If it got out of
hand, we could do what we did in the last years of the Clinton
administration: Reduce the debt.
I can think of no way to describe this amendment other than stunning
hypocrisy.
Many of the very same Republicans who held hands with President Bush
as he squandered a record budget surplus and turned it into a record
deficit suddenly claim to be ``deficit hawks.'' They tell us we cannot
invest in the middle class--the very people their disastrous policies
have harmed.
These same Republicans tried to stop us from providing health
insurance to millions of children of low-income families, so that these
kids could go to a doctor when they are sick or hurt. They fought
against President Obama's economic recovery plan, because it had the
audacity to invest in creating jobs for victims of the recession Bush
created.
Now they are fighting against a budget that cuts taxes for the middle
class, puts us on a path toward cutting the Republican deficit in half,
and invests in middle-class priorities, such as health care, education,
and clean, renewable energy. That is what Chairman Conrad has done.
After 8 years of creating a record deficit so that they could slash
taxes on the ultrawealthy, now they oppose our efforts to help the
middle class.
These newly hatched deficit hawks say no to any proposal that invests
in the people their policies harmed. But when it comes to giving away
another $100 billion plus of taxpayer money to the top two-tenths of 1
percent--money that could pay down the deficit they claim to care so
much about--these same Senators line up in support.
Again, this is stunning hypocrisy. Not only that; it is outrageous
hypocrisy.
When the estate tax issue was debated back in 2005, in the aftermath
of Hurricane Katrina, the then-chairman of the Finance Committee,
Senator Grassley, said this--remember, at that time there was a defined
group of people who were suffering in the gulf, but now it is the whole
country. Today, it was announced on the radio that, for the first time
since the Great Depression, all 50 States, without exception, have a
downturn in their economy. Here is what Senator Grassley said then,
after Hurricane Katrina:

It's a little unseemly to be talking about doing away with
or enhancing the estate tax at a time when people are
suffering.

If Katrina, which was a disaster for this country, was a reason not
to do the estate tax, why now when all 300 million Americans are
suffering? People are suffering now in every city, State, and town in
America.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It amounts to nothing
but

[[Page 9863]]

a giveaway to the wealthiest two-tenths of 1 percent of Americans, at
the expense of the other 99.8 percent of Americans.
Especially in this time of economic crisis, this is the wrong
priority for our country. I ask everybody to vote ``no'' on this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Lincoln
amendment No. 873.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 146 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Cantwell
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker

NAYS--48

Akaka
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Burris
Byrd
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
The amendment (No. 873) was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 913, as Modified, and 875, as Modified

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding the adoption of amendments Nos. 913 and 875, the
amendments be modified with the changes at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments, as modified, are as follows:

amendment no. 913, as modified

(Purpose: To provide for enhanced oversight of the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System concerning the use of emergency economic
assistance)

On page 48, line 21, strike ``banks'' and all that follows
through ``2008,'' on line 24 and insert the following
``banks, to include (1) an evaluation of the appropriate
number and the associated costs of Federal reserve banks; (2)
publication on its website, with respect to all lending and
financial assistance facilities created by the Board to
address the financial crisis, of (A) the nature and amounts
of the collateral that the central bank is accepting on
behalf of American taxpayers in the various lending programs,
on no less than a monthly basis; (B) the extent to which
changes in valuation of credit extensions to various special
purpose vehicles, such as Maiden Lane I, Maiden Lane II, and
Maiden Lane III, are a result of losses on collateral which
will not be recovered; (C) the number of borrowers that
participate in each of the lending programs and details of
the credit extended, including the extent to which the credit
is concentrated in one or more institutions; and (D)
information on the extent to which the central bank is
contracting for services of private sector firms for the
design, pricing, management, and accounting for the various
lending programs and the terms and nature of such contracts
and bidding processes,''.

amendment no. 875, as modified

(Purpose: To require information from the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System about the use of emergency economic assistance)

In Sec. 215, following ``contracts and bidding processes,''
add the following: ``;and (3) including the identity of each
entity to which the Board has provided ``all loans and other
financial assistance since March 24, 2005, the value or
amount of that financial assistance, and what that entity is
doing with such financial assistance,'' after ``2008,''.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list I
send to the desk be the only amendments remaining in order to the
budget resolution and managers' amendments which have been cleared by
the managers and leaders and that a side by side be in order to any of
the amendments on the list at the discretion of the managers and
leaders; that the order in which the amendments are considered be
determined by the managers; that upon disposition of all amendments,
the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the concurrent resolution,
with the provisions of the previous orders remaining in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The list is as follows:

DeMint healthcare No. 963, Kyl Iran No. 932, Crapo Capital
Gains No. 897, Hatch Terrorism Tools POO No. 962, Alexander
Student Loans No. 792, DeMint CPSC No. 964, DeMint Autos No.
965, DeMint Earmarks No. 967, Sessions Border Fence POO No.
969, Crapo FDIC No. 958, Burr Veterans Health No. 777, Coburn
No. 828, Coburn No. 830, Hatch Medicare Advantage No. 976,
Hatch/Baucus (Not Yet Filed), KBH OCS No. 867, Vitter Oil and
Gas No. 751, Vitter Drug Testing No. 937, Enzi Unfunded
Mandates No. 819, Enzi Health IT No. 822, Graham Debt/
Household No. 959, Barrasso Cow Tax No. 765, Barrasso NEPA
No. 960, Barrasso ESA No. 890, Crapo DOE Loan Guarantees No.
733, Crapo Nuclear Research Priority No. 734, Hatch DNRF for
FDA Facilities No. 939, Snowe/Landrieu DNRF for Energy Star
No. 940, Session OCS Inventory No. 770, Hatch/Dodd Maternal
Child Health Block Grant No. 878, Martinez Trade Agreements
No. 843, Murkowski Nat'l Health Service Corps No. 841, Begich
Denali No. 901, Begich Arctic Oil No. 903, Brown Training No.
810, Klobuchar Food Safety No. 886, Lautenberg Homeland
Security Grants No. 977, Pryor CPSC No. 814.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are prepared to go to the DeMint
amendment.
Mr. GREGG. No, Durbin.
Mr. CONRAD. I am sorry. Mr. President, next in order is the Durbin
amendment and then the DeMint amendment.
Senator Durbin.

Amendment No. 974, as Modified

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 974, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an
amendment numbered 974, as modified.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide that no additional estate tax relief beyond that
which is already assumed in this resolution, which protects over 99.7
percent of estates from the estate tax, shall be allowed under any
deficit-neutral reserve fund unless an equal amount of aggregate tax
relief is also provided to Americans earning less than $100,000 per
year)

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC.__. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT PROVIDES
ADDITIONAL RELIEF FOR THE ESTATE TAX BEYOND THE
LEVELS ASSUMED IN THIS BUDGET RESOLUTION UNLESS
AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL TAX RELIEF IS
PROVIDED TO MIDDLE-CLASS TAXPAYERS.

(a) In General.--In the Senate, it shall not be in order to
consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report that would provide estate tax relief beyond
$3,500,000 per person ($7,000,000 per married couple) and a
graduated rate ending at less that 45 percent unless an equal
amount of tax relief is provided to Americans earning less
than $100,000 per year and that such relief is in addition to
the amounts assumed in this budget resolution.
(b) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended only
by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly
chosen and sworn.
(c) Appeals.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate duly chosen and sworn shall be required
to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on any point
of order raised under this section.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the midst of the worst recession in 75
years, with hundreds of thousands of Americans losing their jobs and
their homes, 51 Members of the Senate believe our highest priority is
to give a generous tax break to the wealthiest

[[Page 9864]]

people in America. Many of these same Senators have been wailing for
weeks about deficits but obviously believe deficits do not count when
it comes to tax breaks for the wealthy.
At this point, it is clear they would move forward with these tax
breaks for the wealthiest people in America. My amendment is simple. It
creates a point of order. It says we should help struggling Americans
first. Before we give an additional $100 billion in tax breaks to the
superwealthy, we must first give at least as much in tax relief to
Americans earning less than $100,000. It will be tax relief beyond that
already included in this budget resolution.
The amendment creates a point of order that if the people insist, a
majority of Senators, that we give this estate tax to the wealthiest,
at least let's help working families first before we do so.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition? The Senator
from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the Senate just voted to support estate tax
relief set at $5 million per person to be exempted and at no more than
a 35-percent rate. The Durbin amendment creates a point of order unless
you have a rate of at least 45 percent and a $3.5 million per person
exempted amount. It is directly contrary to what we just voted for.
Were this to be adopted, you would have two absolutely contradictory
instructions--one for a $5 million exempted amount; the Durbin
amendment, $3.5 million. Having voted the way we did, the Durbin
amendment should be defeated.
To the extent that it suggests there should be other tax relief, I
stipulate to that, I am all for it. But the point of order relates to
anything above the $3.5 million or below the 45-percent rate.
I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. DURBIN. Do I have any time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 974, as modified.
Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 147 Leg.]

YEAS--56

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

NAYS--43

Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Landrieu
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker
The amendment (No. 974), as modified, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

Amendments Nos. 777, 962, and 946

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have a number of amendments we can now
take by unanimous consent: Burr No. 777, Hatch No. 962, and Dorgan No.
946.
I ask unanimous consent that we approve Burr amendment No. 777, Hatch
amendment No. 962, and Dorgan amendment No. 946.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 777, 962, and 946) were agreed to, as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 777

(Purpose: To provide that legislation that would provide authority to
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to recover from a private health
insurer of a disabled veteran amounts paid for treatment of such
disability is subject to a point of order in the Senate)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. LIMITATIONS ON LEGISLATION THAT WOULD PERMIT THE
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO RECOVER FROM A
PRIVATE HEALTH INSURER OF A DISABLED VETERAN
AMOUNTS PAID FOR TREATMENT OF SUCH DISABILITY.

(a) Point of Order.--If the Senate is considering
legislation, upon a point of order being made by any Senator
against the legislation, or any part of the legislation, that
the legislation, if enacted, would result in providing
authority to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to recover
from a private health insurer of a veteran with a service-
connected disability amounts paid by the Secretary for the
furnishing of care or treatment for such disability, and the
point of order is sustained by the Presiding Officer, the
Senate shall cease consideration of the legislation.
(b) Waivers and Appeals.--
(1) Waivers.--
(A) In general.--Before the Presiding Officer rules on a
point of order described in subsection (a), any Senator may
move to waive the point of order and the motion to waive
shall not be subject to amendment.
(B) Vote.--A point of order described in subsection (a) is
waived only by the affirmative vote of 60 Members of the
Senate, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeals.--
(A) In general.--After the Presiding Officer rules on a
point of order described in subsection (a), any Senator may
appeal the ruling of the Presiding Officer on the point of
order as it applies to some or all of the provisions on which
the Presiding Officer ruled.
(B) Vote.--A ruling of the Presiding Officer on a point of
order described in subsection (a) is sustained unless 60
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, vote not to
sustain the ruling.
(3) Debate.--
(A) In general.--Debate on the motion to waive under
paragraph (1) or on an appeal of the ruling of the Presiding
Officer under paragraph (2) shall be limited to 1 hour.
(B) Division.--The time shall be equally divided between,
and controlled by, the Majority leader and the Minority
Leader of the Senate, or their designees.
(c) Legislation Defined.--In this section, the term
``legislation'' means a bill, joint resolution, amendment,
motion, or conference report.
(d) Termination.--The provisions of this section shall
terminate on December 31, 2012.

AMENDMENT NO. 962

(Purpose: To ensure the continued safety of Americans against terrorist
attack by Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations by providing a
point of order against any legislation that would weaken or eliminate
critical terror-fighting tools)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. POINT OF ORDER.

(a) In General.--After a concurrent resolution on the
budget is agreed to, it shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill, resolution, amendment between Houses,
motion, or conference report that--
(1) weakens any authorized anti-terrorism tool or
investigative method provided by the USA Patriot Act of 2001
(PL 107-56), the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act of 2004 (PL 108-458), the USA Patriot Improvement and
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (PL 109-177), or the FISA
Amendments Act of 2008 (PL 110-261); or
(2) eliminates any authorized anti-terrorism tool or
investigative method provided by any of the statutes referred
to in paragraph (1).
(b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeals.--
(1) Waiver.--Subsection (a) may be waived or suspended in
the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of
the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of
the Chair relating to any provision of subsection (a) shall
be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or
joint resolution. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under subsection (a).

[[Page 9865]]

amendment no. 946

(Purpose: To increase the budget authority for the Indian Health
Service by an additional $200 million to obtain a total $600 million
increase over the FY 2009 enacted level)

On page 19, line 24, increase the amount by $200,000,000.
On page 19, line 25, increase the amount by $130,000,000.
On page 20, line 4, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
On page 20, line 8, increase the amount by $20,000,000.
On page 20, line 12, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $130,000,000.
On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.
On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $20,000,000.
On page 28, line 11, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.

amendment no. 962

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, since the attacks of September 11, 2001,
Congress has taken steps to give the Federal law enforcement and
intelligence community the necessary tools to keep our citizens safe
from terrorist attacks. Last week, FBI Director Robert Mueller
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. When asked about
expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act, Director Mueller urged Congress
to renew these provisions. He referred to them as ``exceptional tools
to help protect our national security.'' Director Mueller further
provided the committee with information regarding the use of these
provisions.
From 2004 to 2007, the roving wiretaps provision was used 225 times--
that is--25 times over 3 years. That breaks down to 75 times a year.
Roving wiretaps were only used 147 times in 3 years. Congress granted
the FBI the authority to use national security letters, NSL, in
counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations. The use of
NSLs is invaluable in these investigations. Their use also predates the
attacks on 9/11.
The uninformed and the paranoid portray these tools as an example of
unchecked government monitoring reminiscent of a scene from George
Orwell's book ``1984.'' I would submit to my colleagues that these
figures show that these necessary tools have not been overused. Fail-
safes and checks against overuse and improper application exist at
numerous levels in this process. Changing administrations does not
diminish the terrorism threat to our country. Two days ago, a Taliban
leader responsible for brazen attacks in Pakistan issued a threat to
attack the White House.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, This amendment will go far in meeting the
Federal Government's trust responsibility to provide health care
services to Native Americans.
There is a health care crisis in Indian Country and I have spoken
many times on the Senate floor about the importance of funding and
meeting our obligation to provide for the health care of the First
Americans. There are over 4 million Native Americans in this country,
just fewer than 2 million of which depend on the Indian Health Service
for their health care needs. However, the Indian Health Service is
severely underfunded. Despite our trust obligation to Indian Tribes,
the Federal Government spends twice as much on the health care of
Federal prisoners as we do on American Indians.
My amendment will increase the budget authority for the Indian Health
Service by an additional $200 million to obtain a total of $600 million
in increased budget authority over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.
The President's request for ``over $4 billion'' for total IHS funding,
asks for an increase for IHS of over $400 million. My amendment will
increase the President's budget request from $400 million to $600
million in increased budget authority for the Indian Health Service.
This brings us to the total that committee Vice Chairman Barrasso and I
recommended for the Indian Health Service for fiscal year 2010 in our
views and estimates letter to the Senate Budget Committee on March 13,
2009. As my colleagues will remember, last year, Congress
overwhelmingly passed a similar amendment requesting a $1 billion
increase in Indian Health Service budget authority by a vote of 69 to
31. I ask my colleagues to again consider the great need for assistance
in Indian health, even in these tough economic times.
While $200 million is small in comparison to the unmet needs of the
Indian Health Service, when included with the President's request, the
amendment makes the overall increase in budget authority equal to $600
million. This amendment is crucial because it shows that Congress is
committed to funding the Indian Health Service at a higher level and
emphasizes the government's effort to continue to fulfill its trust
responsibility to provide health care in Indian Country.
We passed the Indian Health Care Improvement Act on the floor of the
Senate in the 110th Congress. I am proud of that because it had been
many years since this Congress had addressed the issue of Indian health
care. Unfortunately, the bill did not pass the House and Indian Country
suffers the consequences.
Through a number of hearings by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee,
we have confirmed extensive unmet health care needs in Indian Country.
The need includes over $3 billion just for health facilities and an
ever growing $1 billion for contract health services. The health status
of Native Americans are staggering. For example, Native Americans die
at higher rates than other Americans from tuberculosis 600 percent
higher, alcoholism, 510 percent higher, diabetes, 189 percent higher,
and suicide, 70 percent higher. Third world conditions exist right here
in this country on Indian lands.
The story of Jami Rose Jetty highlights what underfunding the Indian
health care system means to the lives of our youth and families in
Indian Country and communities across the U.S. In February, I held an
Indian Affairs oversight hearing on youth suicide. At that hearing, a
young woman of 16 years old, named Dana Lee Jetty of the Spirit Lake
Nation in North Dakota testified. She told the story of losing her
sister, Jami Rose Jetty, who committed suicide at just 14 years old.
Dana described her sister Jami as someone who had a lot of friends
and was mature for her age. Jami was an open-minded, caring, and
compassionate teenager. The sisters were best friends and part of a
middle-class, loving home.
Jami's mother knew there was something wrong with her daughter. She
took Jami to Indian health care facilities over and over again, but no
doctor properly diagnosed her depression. Even though her mother knew
better, the doctors would say Jami was ``just a typical teenager'' and
send the family home. In November 2008, Jami took her own life.
During her testimony, Dana emphasized that she felt her sister Jami
would still be alive had there been trained mental health professionals
available near the Spirit Lake Reservation. Unfortunately, Jami didn't
receive the services she needed. Dana, her family, and the entire
Spirit Lake community were affected by the loss of this precious young
life.
Jami did not receive the care she needed because we have a health
care system in Indian Country that is not working. It is dramatically
underfunded. We are rationing health care and people are dying as a
result. It is truly a scandal, which should be front-page news.
Mr. President, by asking for an increase in Indian health funding, my
amendment allows us to continue the dialogue with Indian Country. It
emphasizes that the United States understands the health disparities
that Native Americans face and that we will make Indian Country a
priority this Congress. I thank my colleagues for joining me today and
in the future in supporting efforts to improve the health of Native
Americans throughout the United States.

Amendment No. 965

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, next we go to an amendment by Senator
DeMint with respect to the auto industry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

[[Page 9866]]

Mr. DeMINT. I call up amendment No. 965.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an
amendment numbered 965.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prevent taxpayer-funded bailouts for auto manufacturers)

On page 4, line 13, decrease the amount by $10,829,000,000.
On page 4, line 14, decrease the amount by $131,000,000.
On page 4, line 15, decrease the amount by $195,000,000.
On page 4, line 16, decrease the amount by $279,000,000.
On page 4, line 17, decrease the amount by $379,000,000.
On page 4, line 18, decrease the amount by $485,000,000.
On page 4, line 22, decrease the amount by $10,829,000,000.
On page 4, line 23, decrease the amount by $131,000,000.
On page 4, line 24, decrease the amount by $195,000,000.
On page 4, line 25, decrease the amount by $279,000,000.
On page 5, line 1, decrease the amount by $379,000,000.
On page 5, line 2, decrease the amount by $485,000,000.
On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $10,829,000,000.
On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $131,000,000.
On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $195,000,000.
On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $279,000,000.
On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $379,000,000.
On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $485,000,000.
On page 5, line 16, decrease the amount by $10,829,000,000.
On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by $10,960,000,000.
On page 5, line 18, decrease the amount by $11,155,000,000.
On page 5, line 19, decrease the amount by $11,434,000,000.
On page 5, line 20, decrease the amount by $11,813,000,000.
On page 5, line 21, decrease the amount by $12,298,000,000.
On page 5, line 24, decrease the amount by $10,829,000,000.
On page 5, line 25, decrease the amount by $10,960,000,000.
On page 6, line 1, decrease the amount by $11,155,000,000.
On page 6, line 2, decrease the amount by $11,434,000,000.
On page 6, line 3, decrease the amount by $11,813,000,000.
On page 6, line 4, decrease the amount by $12,298,000,000.
On page 15, line 17, decrease the amount by
$10,800,000,000.
On page 15, line 18, decrease the amount by
$10,800,000,000.
On page 26, line 20, decrease the amount by $29,000,000.
On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $29,000,000.
On page 26, line 24, decrease the amount by $131,000,000.
On page 26, line 25, decrease the amount by $131,000,000.
On page 27, line 3, decrease the amount by $195,000,000.
On page 27, line 4, decrease the amount by $195,000,000.
On page 27, line 7, decrease the amount by $279,000,000.
On page 27, line 8, decrease the amount by $279,000,000.
On page 27, line 11, decrease the amount by $379,000,000.
On page 27, line 12, decrease the amount by $379,000,000.
On page 27, line 15, decrease the amount by $485,000,000.
On page 27, line 16, decrease the amount by $485,000,000.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, this amendment is called the Auto Bailout
Prevention Amendment. We are debating an amendment which spends more,
borrows more, and taxes more than any budget in history. Americans are
already fed up with how much we spent on all the bailouts. One of the
areas they are most frustrated with is the auto bailouts. We have
already taken over $17 billion from funds designated to financial
institutions and now the administration is talking about some form of
bankruptcy while General Motors and Chrysler have asked for another
$21.6 billion.
This amendment reduces function 370 funds by $21.6 billion, which
prevents the President from further using TARP to prop up General
Motors and Chrysler with taxpayer dollars.
Enough is enough. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who
yields time in opposition?
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Stabenow has the time in
opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, just 3 days ago, President Obama
released a bold new plan to revitalize the American auto industry. We
need to give this plan a chance to work. There are two or three
different outcomes. But they are in the middle of the boldest
restructuring of the American auto industry we have ever seen. This
would cut the legs out from under that.
Our President has made it clear that we are not going to walk away
from the people, the communities or the businesses--the thousands of
businesses that depend on the auto industry.
I would finally say that all around the world countries such as Japan
helping Toyota, Germany, Korea, China, France--around the world, other
countries understand the critical nature for their own national
security in terms of the auto industry; their economic security in
terms of building a middle class, and they have stepped forward in this
global credit crisis to help their auto industries.
We are now in the middle of a plan to save jobs in communities and
restructure. I urge strongly a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 965.
Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 31, nays 66, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 148 Leg.]

YEAS--31

Barrasso
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Specter
Thune
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--66

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

NOT VOTING--2

Byrd
Kennedy

The amendment (No. 965) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. STABENOW. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we still have probably 30-some amendments
left to do. We are working through a process to try to put together
managers' packages that could clear the significant majority of those
amendments, but we still have a number of amendments that will require
votes. One of the lessons I hope we learn from this is to never do it
again. That would be my strong recommendation.
In just a moment, we will be prepared to have a managers' package.

[[Page 9867]]

Amendments Nos. 901, 903, 886, 792, 958, 976, 867, 819, 960, 890, 733,
734, 939, 878, and 841, en bloc

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I propose a managers' package that would
involve Begich No. 901, Begich No. 903, Klobuchar No. 886, Alexander
No. 792, Crapo No. 958, Hatch No. 976, Hutchison No. 867, Enzi No. 819,
Barrasso No. 960, Barrasso No. 890, Crapo No. 733, Crapo No. 734, Hatch
No. 939, Hatch-Dodd No. 878, and Murkowski No. 841. I ask that they be
accepted by unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
amendments are agreed to.
The amendments are as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 901

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the funding
level for the Denali Commission)

On page 35, strike line 11 and insert the following:
(a) Infrastructure.--
(1) In general.--The Chairman of the Senate
On page 35, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
The Chairman of the Budget Committee may also revise the
allocations to allow funding for the Denali Commission
established by section 303(a) of the Denali Commission Act of
1998 (42 U.S.C. 3121 note; 112 Stat. 2681-637) for each
applicable fiscal year at a level equal to not less than the
level of funding made available for the Denali Commission
during fiscal year 2006.

AMENDMENT NO. 903

(Purpose: To modify the deficit-neutral reserve fund to invest in clean
energy and preserve the environment to provide for additional funding
for the conduct of arctic oil spill research)

On page 33, line 5, before ``implement'', insert ``set
aside additional funding from the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund for arctic oil spill research conducted by the Oil Spill
Recovery Institute,''.

AMENDMENT NO. 886

(Purpose: To create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to improve the
safety of the food supply in the United States)

On page 46, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
(c) Food Safety.--The Chairman of the Senate Committee on
the Budget may revise the allocations of a committee or
committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels and
limits in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports that
would improve the safety of the food supply in the United
States, by the amounts provided in such legislation for these
purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase
the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal
years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal
years 2009 through 2019.

AMENDMENT NO. 792

(Purpose: To modify the Deficit-Neutral Reserve Fund for Higher
Education, to maximize higher education access and affordability by
ensuring that institutions of higher education and their students are
able to continue to participate in a competitive student loan program,
in order to maintain a comprehensive choice of student loan products
and services)

On page 34, line 10, strike ``affordable,'' and insert
``affordable while maintaining a competitive student loan
program that provides students and institutions of higher
education with a comprehensive choice of loan products and
services,''.

AMENDMENT NO. 958

(Purpose: To provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund to increase the
borrowing authority of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and
the National Credit Union Administration, and for other purposes)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND INCREASE FDIC AND NCUA
BORROWING AUTHORITY.

The chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the aggregates, allocations, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports to
increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation and the National Credit Union
Administration, provided that such legislation does not
increase the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal
years 2009 through 2019.

AMENDMENT NO. 976

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to address our
Nation's long-term fiscal problems)

On page 32, line 10, after ``increases;'' insert ``or'' and
the following:
(4) protect Medicare Advantage enrollees from premium
increases and benefit reductions in their Medicare Advantage
plans that would result from the estimate of the national per
capita Medicare Advantage growth percentage contained in the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Advance Notice of
Methodological Changes for Calender Year 2010, as proposed on
February 20, 2009, that is made using the Medicare payment
rates for physicians' services assumed in such Advance Notice
rather than the Medicare payment rates for physicians'
services assumed in the President's budget proposal for
fiscal year 2010 (which accounts for additional expected
Medicare payments for such services).

AMENDMENT NO. 867

(Purpose: To reduce U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources, minimize
future gasoline price increases, and reduce the federal budget deficit
through expanded oil and gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf)

On page 33, line 1 after ``reduce our Nation's dependence
on imported energy'' insert ``including through expanded
offshore oil and gas production in the Outer Continental
Shelf''.

amendment no. 819

(Purpose: To reinstate the 60-vote point of order under section
425(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for legislation that
creates unfunded mandates on States and local governments)

On page 68, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

SEC. ___. RESTRICTIONS ON UNFUNDED MANDATES ON STATES AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment, or
conference report that would increase the direct costs of one
or more States or local governments by an amount that exceeds
the threshold provided under section 424(a)(1) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658c(a)(1)).
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under
subsection (a).

amendment no. 960

(Purpose: To increase amounts made available for the conduct of reviews
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969)

On page 13, line 21, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 13, line 22, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.

amendment no. 890

(Purpose: To provide funding to enable certain individuals and entities
to comply with the Endangered Species Act of 1973)

amendment no. 733

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the
innovative loan guarantee program of the Department of Energy)

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC. 2___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INNOVATIVE LOAN
GUARANTEE PROGRAM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Chairman of
the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this resolution
by the amounts provided by a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that authorizes an
additional $50,000,000,000 for use to provide loan guarantees
for eligible projects under title XVII of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16511 et seq.).
(b) Deficit Neutrality.--Subsection (a) applies only if the
legislation described in subsection (a) would not increase
the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2019.

AMENDMENT NO. 734

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for nuclear
research and development)

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC. 2___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT.

[[Page 9868]]

subsection (a) would not increase the deficit over the period
of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the period
of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2019.

AMENDMENT NO. 939

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the 2012
completion of Food and Drug Administration facilities)

On page 49, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE 2012 COMPLETION
OF FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES.

AMENDMENT NO. 878

(Purpose: To increase funding for the Maternal and Child Health Block
Grant within the Health Resources and Services Administration by
$188,000,000 in fiscal year 2010)

On page 19, line 24, increase the amount by $188,000,000.
On page 19, line 25, increase the amount by $56,000,000.
On page 20, line 4, increase the amount by $81,000,000.
On page 20, line 8, increase the amount by $34,000,000.
On page 20, line 12, increase the amount by $13,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $188,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $56,000,000.
On page 28, line 3, increase the amount by $81,000,000.
On page 28, line 7, increase the amount by $34,000,000.
On page 28, line 11, increase the amount by $13,000,000.

AMENDMENT NO. 841

(Purpose: To increase funding for the National Health Service Corps)

On page 19, line 24, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
On page 19, line 25, increase the amount by $30,000,000.
On page 20, line 4, increase the amount by $43,000,000.
On page 20, line 8, increase the amount by $18,000,000.
On page 20, line 12, increase the amount by $7,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $30,000,000.
On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $43,000,000.
On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $18,000,000.
On page 28, line 11, decrease the amount by $7,000,000.

amendment no. 792

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate
unanimously approved my amendment to maximize college affordability and
access by helping to preserve competition and choice in the student
loan program. I look forward to working with my colleagues to preserve
the Federal Family Education Loan--FFEL--program as a viable program
for students and institutions of higher education.
My amendment is very straightforward and it calls on the Congress to
maintain ``a competitive student loan program that provides students
and institutions of higher education with a comprehensive choice of
loan products and services.'' We know that institutions of higher
education like the ability to choose which program to participate in,
and 73 percent of schools choose to use the FFEL program.
I think that we should maintain that ability of institutions to
choose which program to participate in so that we can give them, and
their students, the best options, the best services, and the best
programs.
The President's budget proposes to originate all new student loans in
the Direct Loan program, which is a proposal that I do not support.
When I was U.S. Secretary of Education, I opposed the creation of the
Direct Loan program because I felt that the Federal Government
shouldn't be in the business of being a bank. I still feel that way.
The problem with the government operating as a bank is that we would
have to borrow a lot of money and add to the Federal deficit. The FFEL
program last year generated $52.9 billion in loans, while the Direct
Loan program generated $21.8 billion. If we were to move all of the
FFEL loans to the government's loan program, that's a lot more debt to
add to our books. I don't think we should do that right now when we
know that the FFEL program is working.
I also thought that the Federal Government wouldn't be able to manage
that many loans very effectively or efficiently for the students, and I
haven't changed my mind on that. There are 6,000 colleges and
universities, and over 15 million loans each year to students and
parents. The Department of Education can't manage that many loans, nor
should they. It is a massive undertaking that calls on over 30,000
people throughout our Nation working for banks, guarantors, and
nonprofit lenders. We don't need to increase the Department of
Education staffing by 30,000 people, so I don't see why we should move
all of the loans and operations to that agency.
As the president of one of our lenders in Tennessee recently wrote in
the Knoxville News Sentinel, ``Nationalizing the student loan industry
would be the equivalent of the government taking over the parcel
shipping industry and doing away with FedEx and UPS, relying entirely
on the U.S. Postal Service.'' We can't afford to take that risk when we
are dealing with students.
In the past week we have all heard from many of the institutions of
higher education in our States favoring the continuation of the FFEL
program. My amendment does just that, and it sends the message that the
U.S. Senate supports giving colleges and universities--and ultimately
parents and students--the choice which student loan program works best
for them.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me say that we are just about ready.
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. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 967

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are prepared to go to DeMint amendment
No. 967.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I would like to call up DeMint Amendment
No. 967.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an
amendment numbered 967.

Mr. DeMINT. 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 implement President Obama's earmark reforms)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. EARMARK POINT OF ORDER.

[[Page 9869]]

1 hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the
appellant and the manager of the bill or joint resolution. An
affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the
Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain
an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order
raised under subsection (a).
(d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``congressional
earmark'' means a provision or report language included
primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, or Senator providing, authorizing or
recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget
authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for
a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or
other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a
specific State, locality or Congressional district, other
than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or
competitive award process.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, one of the changes President Obama said he
would bring to Washington is earmark reform.
Last month, on March 11, he laid out his plan. And that is what this
amendment is. It is a four-point plan. I will explain it with quotes
from the President: Any earmark for a for-profit private company should
be subject to the same competitive bidding requirements as other
Federal contracts; No. 2, each earmark must be open to scrutiny at
public hearings where Members will have to justify their expense to the
taxpayer; No. 3, earmarks that Members do seek might be aired on those
Members' websites in advance so the public and the press can examine
them and judge their merits for themselves; and, No. 4, that he would
prohibit the trading of earmarks for public favors.
It is just that simple. This is the President's plan for earmark
reform. I ask my colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Chairman Inouye has the time in opposition.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, at this moment, if you are trying to get
an earmark in the bill, you have to have it posted on your Web site 30
days before markup to give the public an opportunity to look at the Web
site.
Secondly, there is much transparency, much more than ever before.
Thirdly, we have reduced earmarks to less than 1 percent. And now
that, as our Senator has indicated, on March 11, the President spoke on
the earmarks, it went something further.
The President said:

I recognize that Congress has the power of the purse, and I
believe that individual Members of the Congress understand
their districts best. They should have the ability to respond
to the needs of the communities.

Yes, all of us were elected to represent our districts and our
States. We were not elected to be rubberstamps of anyone.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from South
Carolina creates a point of order against legislation that does not
comply with President Obama's recently proposed earmark reforms.
The amendment ignores the layers of reforms that Congress has adopted
in recent years and the reduction in the amount of earmarks that has
already taken place.
For the coming fiscal cycle the Appropriations Committee has required
that earmarks be posted on the requesting Members' Web sites well in
advance of the appropriations bills even being considered in
subcommittee. This well exceeds the 72 hour threshold sought by
President Obama. And I note that President Obama will not make public
his own earmark requests prior to publication of his budget.
The amendment would require all Senators to testify at hearings in
support of any earmarks they seek. If testimony by Senators is to be
required to justify legislative initiatives, why on Earth would we want
to limit this to earmarks? Shouldn't Senators be required to testify at
hearings in support of any legislative initiative they advocate? When
was the hearing on the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina?
The amendment purports to prohibit earmarks from being traded for
``political favors.'' Mr. President, does this mean it is OK to trade
any other official act for political favors? Does this give Members
license to pursue legislative provisions for labor interests or for
particular industries in exchange for political favors? Of course, it
doesn't. My colleagues are well aware that trading earmarks or any
other official act for political favors is already against the laws and
ethics rules of this body.
I am happy for earmarks and all other legislative matters to be
subject to the scrutiny of the legislative process. That is exactly as
it should be. I hope my colleagues will support efforts to consider
individual appropriations bills this summer in an orderly and timely
manner so that the Senator from South Carolina and all other Members
can offer amendments to eliminate spending that they see as wasteful.
But we don't need new points of order to do this. I urge my
colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the
amendment is not germane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to waive is considered made.
Mr. DeMINT. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to waive.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act in
relation to the DeMint amendment No. 967.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 28, nays 69, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 149 Leg.]

YEAS--28

Barrasso
Bennet
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Lieberman
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
Risch
Sessions
Snowe
Thune
Vitter

NAYS--69

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lugar
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Byrd
Kennedy

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 28, the nays are
69. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
The Senator from North Dakota.

Modification to Purpose of Amendment No. 890

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding the adoption of amendment No. 890 by Senator Barrasso,
the amendment be modified in the purpose statement. The modification is
at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The purpose, as modified, is as follows:

[[Page 9870]]

(Purpose: To provide funding for voluntary efforts to conserve
endangered species and to enable certain individuals and entities to
comply with the Endangered Species Act of 1973)

Amendments Nos. 980, as modified; 830, 765, 940, 870, and 810

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have six amendments that have been
agreed to by both sides, starting with Kyl amendment No. 980, as
modified, on Iran--I think the modification is at the desk.
Mr. KYL. It is.
Mr. CONRAD. The modification is at the desk--Coburn amendment No.
830; Barrasso No. 765; Snowe-Landrieu No. 940; Thune No. 870; and Brown
No. 810.
I ask unanimous consent those six amendments be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to.
The amendments (Nos. 980, as modified; 830, 765, 940, 870, and 810)
were agreed to, as follows:

amendment no. 980, as modified

On page 12, line 21, decrease the amount by $1.00.
On page 12, line 22, decrease the amount by $1.00.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $1.00.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $1.00.

amendment no. 830

(Purpose: To provide for legislation that allows for a temporary
suspension of the 10 percent tax penalty in order for struggling
families to make an early withdrawal from their qualified retirement
accounts to pay their monthly mortgage payments)

On page 40, strike lines 9 through 22 and insert the
following:
(f) Housing Assistance.--The Chairman of the Senate
Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations of a
committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels and limits in this resolution for one or more bills,
joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports
related to housing assistance, which may include low income
rental assistance, assistance provided through the Housing
Trust Fund created under section 1131 of the Housing and
Economic Recovery Act of 2008, and legislation that allows
for a temporary suspension of the 10 percent tax penalty in
order for struggling families to make an early withdrawal
from their qualified retirement accounts to pay their monthly
mortgage payments, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2019.

amendment no. 765

(Purpose: To provide that the authorized climate change legislation
decrease greenhouse gas emissions without regulating carbon dioxide,
nitrogen oxide, water vapor, or methane emissions from biological
processes associated with livestock production)

On page 33, lines 19 and 20, after ``emissions'' insert the
following: ``(without regulating carbon dioxide, nitrogen
oxide, water vapor, or methane emissions from biological
processes associated with livestock production)''.

amendment no. 940

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to require a
certain portion of funding for the Energy Star Program of the
Environmental Protection Agency to be allocated to the Energy Star for
Small Business Program)

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC. 2___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ENERGY STAR FOR
SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Chairman of
the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this resolution
by the amounts provided by a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that would set aside,
from amounts made available for the Energy Star Program of
the Environmental Protection Agency, at least 2 percent for
the Energy Star for Small Business Program.
(b) Deficit Neutrality.--Subsection (a) applies only if the
legislation described in that subsection would not increase
the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2019.

amendment no. 870

(Purpose: To provide for a total of $99,000,000 in COPS Hot Spots
funding, as authorized in the Combat Meth Act)

On page 24, line 24, increase the amount by $99,000,000.
On page 24, line 25, increase the amount by $12,000,000.
On page 25, line 4, increase the amount by $28,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $99,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $12,000,000.
On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $28,000,000.

amendment no. 810

(Purpose: To modify the deficit-neutral reserve fund for economic
stabilization and growth to promote new employment opportunities that
are critical to economic recovery by supporting workforce strategies
that help workers seeking specialized training for emerging industries)

On page 37, line 24, insert ``by increasing support for
sector workforce training,'' after ``products,''.

amendment no. 940

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and as a longstanding steward
of the environment, I have continuously requested increased funding for
the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star for Small Business
Program, which has documented how voluntary action by small business
owners can reduce energy costs by 30 percent or more.
The Snowe-Landrieu amendment would require that a minimum of 2
percent of the EPA's Energy Star Program's total budget be allocated to
the Energy Star for Small Business Program. This critical program
provides free unbiased information and technical support for small
businesses to improve their company's financial performance by reducing
energy waste and energy costs, while protecting the Earth's
environment.
Regrettably, in the past, less than 2 percent of Energy Star's annual
funding has been allocated to the Small Business program which is
responsible for reaching the entire small business community, thereby
restricting its tremendous potential impact. This inadequate percentage
grossly underestimates the critical role small businesses can play in
improving our Nation's energy efficiency and reducing our carbon
footprint.
Through efforts to increase energy efficiency, small businesses can
contribute to America's energy security, help to combat global warming,
while strengthening their competitive advantage all at the same time.
With 27 million small businesses in the U.S. comprising 99.7 percent of
all domestic employer firms and producing approximately half of all the
commercial and industrial energy in the United States, the role small
businesses can play in forging a solution to global climate change and
rising energy prices is undeniable.
This amendment would provide small businesses with the funding,
technical assistance, and resources necessary to improve small business
energy efficiency. Every effort must be made at the Federal level to
ensure the connection small businesses can engage in clean and
renewable energy. I appreciate the support of my colleagues on this
amendment.

Amendment No. 810

Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senator Brown,
which I am cosponsoring, to create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to
support funding for critical workforce strategy programs that help
individuals seeking specialized training for emerging industries. This
reserve fund will help highlight the need for resources to grow new
employment opportunities that are critical to economic recovery by
supporting workforce strategy programs that help those in need of
training.
Any effort to further stabilize our careening economy must include
consideration of job training and transformation. Improving and
reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act, WIA, to help the millions
of unemployed--and millions more underemployed--must be a critical
element of bolstering our economy.
Much has been made of the phenomena of ``green jobs'' and a ``green
technology.''At a recent speech in Atlanta, author Tom Friedman urged
America to retake the lead in the world through innovation in ``ET''--
Energy Technology. Friedman said the United States needs to ``invent a
source of abundant, cheap, clean, reliable electrons.'' He compared the
``ET'' movement to the ``IT''--Information

[[Page 9871]]

Technology--movement of the last decade. There are thousands of
entrepreneurs who are developing the next energy concept that will
revolutionize our energy policies, and those concepts will need a
highly educated and prepared workforce to make them a reality. The job
training programs already in place under the Workforce Investment Act
can help activate Americans, and expedite the transformation into a new
energy economy. I believe this amendment will help ensure funding for
our workers to get the best training and pave the way for just such a
revolutionary shift in the future of this country.
Throughout the Nation, workforce strategy programs, like those within
WIA, are being used to promote the long-term competitiveness of
industries and to advance employment opportunities. For example, the
State of Maine has created a program called the North Star Alliance
Initiative. The Alliance has brought together Maine's boat builders,
the University of Maine's Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Centers,
Maine's marine and composite trade association, economic development
groups, and investment organizations for the purpose of advancing
workforce training.
In order to promote programs like the North Star Alliance Initiative,
Senator Brown and I introduced the SECTORS Act, S. 777, which provides
grants to industry clusters--interrelated group of businesses, service
providers, and associated institutions in order to establish and expand
sector partnerships. By providing financial assistance to these
partnerships, this legislation would create customized workforce
training solutions for specific industries at a regional level. A
sector approach is beneficial because it can focus on the dual goals of
promoting the long-term competitiveness of industries and advancing
employment opportunities for workers, thereby encouraging economic
growth. Existing sector partnerships have long been recognized as key
strategic elements within some of the most successful economic
development initiatives throughout the country. Unfortunately, current
federal policy does not provide sufficient support for these critical
ventures. This amendment will help ensure that critical funding will be
made available for the SECTORS Act if it is passed into law.

Amendment No. 969

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, now we wish to go to the Sessions
amendment No. 969.
Senator Sessions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee.
This Congress passed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 by a vote of 80 to
19, with broad bipartisan support, including then-Senators Obama,
Biden, and Clinton. We committed to 700 miles of barriers. Today we are
less than halfway there. The funding has simply not been there.
Some progress is being made in areas where the fencing is in place.
We have had a dramatic reduction in crime in the San Diego area since
the fence was completed a number of years ago. This will help us reduce
crime. It will help us reduce drug smuggling, gun smuggling, and
immigration violations. We have a lawless border.
Progress is being made, colleagues. We are seeing a reduction in the
number of people entering America, a reduction in the number of
arrests. And if we follow through with what we have told the American
people we intend to do, we will be able to create a lawful system of
immigration, which is a responsibility this Congress has.
I urge support of this amendment. It is consistent with previous
votes. It puts a budget point of order against an appropriation in this
area that does not fund the fence completion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an
amendment numbered 969.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for a point of order against any appropriations
bill that fails to fully fund the construction of the Southwest border
fence)

On page 68, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST FAILURE TO FULLY FUND
SOUTHWEST BORDER FENCE.

(a) Point of Order.--After a concurrent resolution on the
budget in the Senate is agreed to, it shall not be in order
in the Senate to consider any appropriations bill that fails
to provide at least $2,600,000,000 to carry out section
102(b)(1) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note).
(b) Form of Point of Order.--A point of order under
subsection (a) may be raised by a Senator as provided in
section 313(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(c) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended only
by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly
chosen and sworn.
(d) Appeals.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain
an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order
raised under this section.
(e) Sunset Provision.--This section shall cease to be
effective on the earlier of--
(1) the date on which $2,600,000,000 is appropriated to
carry out section 102(b)(1) of the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; or
(2) the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of
this Act.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Schumer has the time in
opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, many of us supported the fence. Many of
us opposed it. But one thing is for sure, there is only about $120
million left to complete this section of the fence.
The amendment we have before us--without an evaluation as to whether
it is effective, without an evaluation of where the new parts should
go, without an evaluation as to whether there are other, better ways to
deal with the problem of undocumented and illegal immigration--says
vote $2.6 billion whether it works or not. That does not make much
sense at a time when we are trying to balance the budget, be fiscally
austere.
I had prepared a side by side. Let's have an evaluation by the
Department of Homeland Security and the Border Patrol and everyone else
as to whether the fence is working. I do not think that is clear. We
should find out where it is working, how to make it better.
Another thing we do here, without even any test, is set a double
fence--$2.6 billion whether we know it works or not. I urge the
amendment be defeated; we let the Department of Homeland Security study
the most effective way to deal with illegal immigration, and if a
double fence or another thing is needed, we will learn about that in
time.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the
amendment is not germane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to waive is considered made.
Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.
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 bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 36, nays 61, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 150 Leg.]

YEAS--36

Alexander
Barrasso
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
McCain
McConnell
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--61

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer

[[Page 9872]]

Brown
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Byrd
Kennedy

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 36, the nays are 61.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are now down to six amendments and
final passage. I wish to thank all the colleagues who have helped us
get to this point.

Amendment No. 963

The next amendment in order would be the DeMint amendment No. 963 on
health care.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to call up DeMint amendment No.
963.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an
amendment numbered 963.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for a point of order against any legislation that
eliminates the ability of Americans to keep their health plan or their
choice of doctor)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER ON LEGISLATION THAT ELIMINATES THE
ABILITY OF AMERICANS TO KEEP THEIR HEALTH PLAN
OR THEIR CHOICE OF DOCTOR.

(a) In General.--In the Senate, it shall not be in order,
to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report that eliminates the ability of Americans to
keep their health plan or their choice of doctor (as
determined by the Congressional Budget Office).
(b) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended only
by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly
chosen and sworn.
(c) Appeals.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under this section.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, there are a number of concerns about this
budget, and I have heard from a number of Americans who see in the
budget hundreds of millions of dollars for health care which suggests
that the Government is not only going to expand into banks and auto
companies and education but to expand into health care. One of the
propositions President Obama made is that Americans will always be able
to pick their own plans and choose their own doctors. This amendment
simply codifies that. It creates a point of order against any
legislation that would eliminate the ability of a patient to pick their
own plans or their own doctor.
I encourage my colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. President, would Senator DeMint be willing
to accept a voice vote?
Mr. DeMINT. If you can assure me we will win.
Mr. CONRAD. I assure you.
Mr. DeMINT. It is a done deal. Thank you.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask to take this on a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 963) was agreed to.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, that gives us five. We are going to go to
the countdown; five plus final passage.

Amendment No. 964

DeMint No. 964 is the next amendment in order.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to call up amendment No. 964.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an
amendment numbered 964.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect small
and home businesses from the burdensome and impractical requirements of
the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO
BAN ON LEAD IN CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS.

(a) In General.--The Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of 1 or more
committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution by the amounts authorized to be appropriated for
the programs described in paragraphs (1) through (6) in 1 or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or
conference reports that fund consumer product safety,
including any program that--
(1) delays the lead ban in section 101 of the Consumer
Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 1278a) by 6
months;
(2) exempts thrift stores, consignment shops, and other
second hand sellers from the provisions of such section;
(3) exempts children's motorcycles and all terrain vehicles
from treatment as banned hazardous substances under such
section;
(4) exempts books from treatment as banned hazardous
substances under such section;
(5) allows a product to comply with the lead ban in such
section if every component of the product complies with the
ban; or
(6) does not require products manufactured before the
effective date of the ban under such section to be removed
from store shelves.
(b) Limitation.--The authority described in subsection (a)
may not be used unless the appropriations in the legislation
described in paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (a)
would not increase the deficit over--
(1) the 6-year period beginning with the first day of
fiscal year 2009; or
(2) the 11-year period beginning with the first day of
fiscal year 2009.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as
cosponsors Senators Bennett, Enzi, Brownback, Coburn, and Vitter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask for my colleagues' attention because
this is not a partisan amendment; it is not a messaging amendment.
Many of my colleagues have probably heard from a number of
constituents about some problems with the Consumer Product Safety Act
that we passed. This amendment simply allows for the improvement of
that bill with certain considerations such as allowing current
inventory to sell through, exempting thrift stores and secondhand
sellers, exempting book sales and children's motorcycles, allowing
manufacturers to prove there is no lead content by proving that their
components have no lead contents. This means they don't have to destroy
existing inventory if they can prove it is safe. This amendment does
nothing to diminish safety, but it is common sense.
Please, this is costing millions of dollars, thousands of jobs across
this country. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Pryor has the time in opposition.
Mr. CONRAD. Senator Pryor has the time in opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, this amendment is a bad amendment. Last
year, the Senate passed this legislation with 97 votes. It is a good
bill. It bans lead in children's toys. It does so many other great
things to make sure our marketplace is safe. It protects us from unsafe
Chinese toys.
We need to vote against this amendment. The problem is not with the
act. It is very clear from the Consumer Product Safety Commission,
where the Commissioner, who is not the Chairman, says that the single
most important step that needs to be taken in furtherance of the
implementation of the CPSIA at the agency is to have a third
Commissioner who would also be a chairman appointed to lead the agency.
Until then, any legislative fixes are premature.

[[Page 9873]]

The CPSC has the authority to fix all the problems that have been
raised by the Senator from South Carolina.
I strongly urge that we vote for our children and vote no on the
DeMint amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 58, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 151 Leg.]

YEAS--39

Alexander
Barrasso
Begich
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Klobuchar
Kyl
Lugar
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker

NAYS--58

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

NOT VOTING--2

Byrd
Kennedy

The amendment (No. 964) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

Amendment No. 870, as Modified

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Thune
amendment, No. 870, be modified with the changes which are at the desk,
notwithstanding adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 24, line 24, increase the amount by $99,000,000.
On page 24, line 25, increase the amount by $12,000,000.
On page 25, line 4, increase the amount by $28,000,000.
On page 25, line 8, increase the amount by $59,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $99,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $12,000,000.
On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $28,000,000.
On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $59,000,000.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are now down to three amendments and
final passage, and one of the three can be done on a voice vote.

Amendment No. 828

The next amendment in order is Coburn amendment No. 828.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, imagine tomorrow morning, if we are in
session, and you no longer get to vote your conscience, that a Federal
bureaucrat will tell you what you can and cannot do.
The fact is, we have wonderful physicians in this country who make
decisions every day based on a multitude of factors, including what
they think in their conscience is right. This is an amendment which
simply protects that right, just as you would want the right for your
vote in this body to be protected. It also protects the conscience of a
patient to be able to choose the physician and the caregiver to whom
they trust their body and their health.
I hope this body will support this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 828.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To protect the freedom of conscience for patients and the
right of health care providers to serve patients without violating
their moral and religious convictions)

On page 31, strike lines 3 through 7 and insert the
following: ``cans;
(8) maintain long-term fiscal sustainability and pays for
itself by reducing health care cost growth, improving
productivity, or dedicating additional sources of revenue; or
(9)(A) subject to subparagraph (B), protect the freedom of
conscience for patients and the right of health care
providers to serve patients without violating their moral and
religious convictions, which includes, but is not limited to,
prohibiting--
(i) discrimination on the basis of a provider's objection
to perform or participate in specific surgical or medical
procedures or prescribe certain pharmaceuticals;
(ii) legal coercion against a provider who expresses a
conscience objection to perform or participate in specific
surgical or medical procedures or prescribe certain
pharmaceuticals; and
(iii) government coercion of patients to enroll in specific
health insurance plans or see pre-selected health care
providers; and
(B) require the principles described in subparagraph (A)
shall not be construed to authorize or shield from liability
the denial, on the basis of a patient's race or present or
predicted disability, of a surgical or medical procedure or
pharmaceutical that a provider offers to others;''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Murray has the time in opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this amendment would put in place a
regulation that would mean health care providers--not just doctors but
anybody in a health care clinic or hospital--could refuse millions of
women health care for critical services. It jeopardizes Federal family
planning services, Medicaid, and title X, and it undermines State laws
that guarantee women access to contraceptive services.
Health and Human Services has proposed to rescind this rule which the
Bush administration published when their clock was running out.
This amendment puts ideology ahead of science and ahead of women's
health care. Federal law already permits medical professionals to
decline to assist in abortions based on their religious beliefs. But
stopping this regulation will not change that. This amendment goes way
too far and ignores the needs of patients and denies women reproductive
health care services.
I encourage my colleagues to vote no.
Mr. GREGG. 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 on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the
roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 56, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 152 Leg.]

YEAS--41

Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker

NAYS--56

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hagan

[[Page 9874]]

Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Byrd
Kennedy

The amendment (No. 828) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the next amendment that is in order is
amendment No. 751 by Senator Vitter, if he could briefly mention the
amendment.

Amendment No. 751

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 751.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an
amendment numbered 751.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the
reading of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To protect the more than 6 million Americans employed by the
domestic oil and gas industry and to ensure low-cost energy for
America's consumers, businesses, and families)

On page 33, line 8, after ``legislation'', insert the
following:
``would not increase the cost of producing energy from
domestic sources, including oil and gas from the Outer
Continental Shelf or other areas; would not increase the cost
of energy for American families; would not increase the cost
of energy for domestic manufacturers, farmers, fishermen, or
other domestic industries; and would not enhance foreign
competitiveness against U.S. businesses; and''

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we accept the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing no objection, it
is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 751) was agreed to.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Vitter, and I also want to
take just a moment to thank Senator Crapo for his graciousness in
withdrawing an amendment, as well as Senator Martinez for his
graciousness in withdrawing an amendment. We appreciate it very much.

Amendment No. 937

We are now on to the final amendment before final passage, No. 937,
by Senator Vitter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 937.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an
amendment numbered 937.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the
reading of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require States to implement drug testing programs for
applicants for and recipients of assistance under the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which would encourage
healthy, drug-free families instead of encouraging dependent behavior
or on-going drug abuse)

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC.__. RESERVE FUND TO REQUIRE DRUG TESTING AND TO PROVIDE
DRUG TREATMENT FOR TANF RECIPIENTS.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other levels in this resolution for a bill,
joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report
that--
(1) Would require that States operate a drug testing
program as part of their Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) program;
(2) Would provide treatment programs for those who test
positive for illegal drug use or are convicted of drug-
related crime;
(3) Would withhold TANF assistance for two years to any
recipient who, after initially testing positive and having
been offered treatment, again tests positive; and
(4) Would not reduce or deny TANF assistance allocated for
dependents if the dependent's caretaker tests positive for
drug use or is convicted of drug-related crime; by the
amounts provided in that legislation for that purpose,
provided that such legislation would not increase deficit
over either the total of the period of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years of
2009 through 2019.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It advances
the policy of drug testing for welfare or TANF recipients. If a
recipient were to test positive, they would get treatment. If they
tested positive again, then and only then would they be denied the
benefit.
Under no circumstances, would the children of that beneficiary be
denied the children's benefit because they, of course, would not be a
guilty party in any way.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Baucus will speak in opposition to
the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Begich). The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment for a lot of
reasons. No. 1, this is an unfunded mandate. The TANF program, the low-
income program, the welfare program, is a block grant program. We give
to all the States and the States set up their own systems under TANF.
This is an unfunded mandate. It tells States they have to test all low-
income people for drugs.
I think, frankly, it is a mean-spirited amendment. I believe we
should not equate all low-income families with drug addiction. States
can decide for themselves if they want to drug test. My State of
Montana does. TANF, again, is a block grant program. States can decide
for themselves what they want to do. We should not equate all low-
income families with drug addiction, and I strongly encourage this
amendment be soundly defeated.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 27 seconds remaining.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I don't understand what is mean spirited
about not giving tax money to folks who have drug problems and about
trying to get them help, which is the first and most important thing we
can do to actually help them.
I urge broad bipartisan support for this commonsense amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
937.
Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily
absent.
The result was announced--yeas 18, nays 79, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 153 Leg.]

YEAS--18

Barrasso
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Grassley
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
McConnell
Risch
Vitter

NAYS--79

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Graham
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)

[[Page 9875]]

Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Byrd
Kennedy

The amendment (No. 937) was rejected.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, during these recent budget debates, I have
been reminded that some in Washington used to mock President Reagan for
the ``rosy economic scenarios'' they said his budgets relied upon. But
never--until now--has any President's economic model differed so
fundamentally from those predicted by most independent analysts.
President Obama's budget chief, Peter Orszag, predicts that from
2010-2013 the economy will grow 4 percent a year. But the blue-chip
economic forecasters say it is much lower--about 2.7 percent. That is a
big difference when we are talking about hundreds of billions of
dollars.
President Obama claims his budget will halve the deficit by 2014. But
the way it gets there is by first running up a huge deficit and then
cutting that number in half. The Congressional Budget Office now
projects a $1.669 trillion deficit in 2009 that will bottom out at $658
billion in 2012, which is still more than 40 percent above the highest
deficit during the Bush administration. But the Congressional Budget
Office also says the deficits accumulated by Obama's budget will then
surge to $9.2 trillion in 2019.
President Obama has said he will cut taxes for 95 percent of
Americans. But his budget would raise taxes by $1.4 trillion over 10
years. It not only lets some of the existing tax rates expire--thus
raising taxes--but implements a colossal energy tax that will impact
every American household--regardless of income--and is estimated to
drop an additional $3,168 annual bill on every family, on top of its
existing energy costs. Remember, candidate Obama told us that under
this energy plan, ``electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.''
Why is this a good idea?
Economic historian John Steele Gordon draws this analogy to an energy
tax in the recent issue of Commentary magazine: ``If passed it will act
on the economy as a whole exactly the way a governor acts on a steam
engine, increasingly resisting any increase in revolutions per minute.
. . . The more the economy tries to speed up the more [this tax] will
work to prevent it from doing so.''
Think about the incongruity between the growth predicted in President
Obama's budget and the policies his budget would partially implement.
This budget would saddle American taxpayers, businesses, and industry--
everyone--with a bevy of new tax increases and regulations that, once
enacted, will unavoidably harm job creation and growth by making it
more expensive for businesses to hire and by removing money from the
private economy and transferring it to Washington.
How can our economy recover with the Government hampering job
creation and growth?
Facts are stubborn things, as President Reagan used to say. We know
that raising taxes in time of recession has never helped the economy
grow. Why would this time be different?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I strongly believe that the Senate needs
to address the serious and pressing problem of climate change, and I
look forward to that debate this Congress. I do not, however, believe
it would be appropriate to use the fast-track procedure known as
reconciliation to consider climate change legislation. Reconciliation
is intended for legislation that reduces the deficit. I have strongly
opposed past efforts to use reconciliation to address policy matters,
such as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It wasn't
appropriate then; it isn't appropriate now.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in approaching the budget for fiscal year
2010, I am heavily influenced by the $700 billion expenditure in
President Bush's bailout package--it was badly administered and I voted
against release of the second $350 billion--and the President Obama
twin brother $787 billion stimulus package. We have to take a closer
look than usual at the mounting deficits and mounting national debt.
These budget votes are all going to be determined by the Democratic
majority largely on party lines so my vote is really a protest vote and
to show there is substantial concern, at least with the loyal
opposition, to limit Federal expenditures. To that end, I supported
amendments offered by Senators Sessions, No. 772, and Crapo No. 844, to
freeze domestic discretionary spending. I also supported amendments by
Senators Alexander, No. 747, and Gregg, No. 739, to require a 60-vote
threshold on any budget resolution that increases public debt.
Congress must take action to address the current deficit spending
especially the increasing funds for entitlement programs. I supported
an amendment offered by Senator Gregg, No. 835, to establish a
commission to examine the long-term obligations of the Federal
Government and make recommendations to reduce that spending. Similarly,
I voted in favor of the McCain amendment, No. 882, as an alternative
budget resolution to lay down a marker to encourage reductions in
Federal expenditures. The budget is just an outline without any of
these votes being determinative as to what will occur on appropriations
bills, where I will take another look at spending proposals depending
on circumstances at that time.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I support the budget resolution for fiscal
year 2010. The resolution embraces many priorities that I strongly
support. They include a renewed commitment to energy efficiency,
educational improvements, middle-class tax cuts, and our veterans.
The resolution preserves the major priorities in President Obama's
budget that was submitted to Congress. The President's budget outlined
a blueprint for addressing and reversing the effects of the deep
recession, collapse of the housing and credit markets, and the rise in
joblessness that we inherited from the previous administration by
setting the stage for sustained economic growth through investments in
energy, education, and infrastructure, which were begun in the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA. Since President Obama's budget was
submitted to Congress, the CBO's re-estimate of that budget has added
$2.3 trillion to long-term deficit projections. Accordingly, the
resolution adjusts the President's budget to cut the long-term deficit
in half from $1.2 trillion in fiscal year 2010 to $508 billion in
fiscal year 2014 while retaining the President's core priorities.
The resolution matches the funding level in the President's budget
for fiscal year 2010 energy discretionary funding to reduce our
dependence on foreign sources of fuel, produce green jobs, promote
renewable energy development, and improve the electric transmission
grid, while encouraging energy conservation and efficiency.
I am pleased that this resolution continues with green investments
made in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act and provides
increases for the energy efficiency and renewable energy program. The
resolution will enable investments in further research and development
in clean and sustainable energy technologies from resources that are
abundant in my State of Hawaii, such as wind, solar, ocean, hydrogen,
and biomass.
The resolution invests in our Nation's future by fully funding the
President's request for discretionary education and training programs.
This includes expanding early childhood education programs that have
proven to be so instrumental in preparing our Nation's children for
future success. The budget also increases support for programs designed
to reach out to low-income students so that every child has an equal
opportunity to succeed. Similarly, by providing the necessary funding
to support a $5,550 maximum Pell grant award in the 2010-2011 school
year, this budget resolution will provide much needed assistance to
individuals striving to achieve their higher

[[Page 9876]]

education goals including adults returning to school to revise and
revamp their skills in order to more effectively compete in today's
workforce.
I was also pleased to see that funding was included in the budget
resolution to enhance and improve the capability of the Federal
acquisition workforce. In my role as both chairman of the Subcommittee
on Oversight of Government Management and a senior member of the Armed
Services Committee, I have long advocated for improvements in the
hiring and retention of Federal employees. Similarly, I strongly
support funding for the reform of Department of Defense processes for
the acquisition of weapons systems including the reduction of no-bid
and cost-plus contracts.
As chairman of the Federal Workforce Subcommittee, I am pleased the
resolution provides pay parity between Federal civilian and military
servicemembers in the average annual pay raise, which is consistent
with more than 20 years of congressional precedent and my priorities.
Turning to items in the budget resolution for the Department of
Veterans Affairs, the resolution includes the President's request, plus
$540 million to compensate for the ill-advised proposal that would have
billed veterans' insurance companies for service-connected care.
President Obama made the right decision not to move forward with that
proposal. Veterans' care and benefits are a cost of war and treatment
for conditions directly related to service is the responsibility of the
government alone.
The resolution also includes mandatory budget authority for important
benefits, such as compensation and pension, for veterans and their
survivors. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the
administration to enact the funding increases and targeted programs to
help VA adapt to the changing needs of veterans and their loved ones.
My colleagues, this resolution, with its targeted investments and
changed public-policy priorities, will help us address the essential
needs of the Nation.
I urge my colleagues to support the budget resolution for fiscal year
2010.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I believe the document we are now
debating reflects two basic realities. First, it reflects the deep
troubles that we have inherited from years of lax regulation, excessive
risk, neglected oversight, even fraud and criminal behavior in our
financial sector.
As President Obama said when he addressed the Joint Session of
Congress, America's ``day of reckoning'' has arrived. The deficit
spending of the past administration and the economic collapse that
began last fall have created deep structural problems that this budget
inherits.
Along with short-sighted budget policies that have put us deeper into
debt, the collapse of our financial sector has brought down virtually
every other sector of our economy. Those facts set the difficult
context in which we do our work.
Delaware has not been spared from the waves of bad economic news that
have swept over our Nation. We have seen the job losses in our
manufacturing industries, layoffs in flagship companies like DuPont,
and downsizing in our financial services industry.
Nationally, we just lost another three-quarters of a million jobs
last month. In Delaware, our statewide unemployment rate has hit 7.4
percent, a level we have not seen in a generation.
As families in Delaware and around the country sit at their kitchen
tables, they know that the world outside has changed. For those who
have lost their jobs, for the husbands, the mothers, who have come home
with that heartbreaking news--the process of sorting out mortgage
payments, health insurance, groceries--even school books and lunch
money--has taken on a sad urgency.
For the others, whose neighbors are out of work, whose neighborhood
now has a foreclosure or two mixed in with the for sale signs, whose
own jobs could be among the next to go--basic decisions about family
priorities are growing tougher every day.
We must not forget those families as we do our work here on the
Federal budget this week.
But this budget reflects another reality, as well. It reflects the
fundamental strengths of our country--our faith in the future, our
ability to pull together, the strengths of our national character.
And this budget reflects the change in direction, the change in
priorities and values, the American people voted for last November.
To help with family finances, this budget provides tax cuts to
middle-class families.
To begin the work of making our health care system more affordable,
this budget makes health care more accessible for families and small
businesses.
It makes a college education more accessible and more affordable, so
our children can qualify for the jobs that will define our economic
future.
This budget starts winding down our dependence on imported fossil
fuels, by investments in clean and renewable energy we can provide
right here--creating new processes, new products, and new jobs.
And it begins the process of restoring the balance to our Nation's
finances--a balance we had achieved just eight years ago--indeed, a
budget surplus that was squandered.
Just as the economic crisis has hit the paychecks of American
workers, it has lowered the economic activity that funds the revenues
we need to pay for our national priorities.
One key part of our response to this crisis must be to fill the hole
left in our economy by the loss of 5 million jobs, the loss of so much
economic activity. Our economic recovery package, passed earlier this
year, is a part of that response.
So a key function of this budget will be to continue to fill that gap
in our economy, to continue to provide families, businesses, and state
and local governments with the resources they need to slow, stop, and
reverse the decline in our economy.
But if we are to move beyond the current crisis, we must make the
investments that will reshape our future.
This budget is a clear statement of new priorities: it lays down a
new foundation for economic growth. These are the priorities, these are
the commitments President Obama and Vice President Biden campaigned on.
These are the priorities the American people voted for last November.
We must not lose sight of the lesson before us: under the previous
administration we gave free rein--and huge financial rewards--to short-
term risk-taking, to highly leveraged debt, to deals that many times
were not worth the paper they were written on.
We now know that tens of billions, or maybe more, of those paper
profits were created by criminal enterprises like the one run by Bernie
Madoff. Others, while legal, tread on the very border of our outdated
and poorly enforced rules and regulations.
At the same time, we failed to recognize and support average families
in their struggles with rising health care costs, with the rising costs
of a college education.
We wasted years when we could have invested in cleaner and more
efficient domestic sources of energy, while our dependence on dirty,
dangerous, uncertain sources of imported oil increased. Those wasted
years made our country more vulnerable to those who control oil
reserves.
The American people have rejected those failed policies and misplaced
priorities. This budget replaces them with an agenda for rebuilding our
economy and reasserting our values.
Budgets are statements of our priorities, here in Washington, at the
kitchen tables of families in Delaware, in the homes of families around
the country.
No budget is perfect. All budgets reflect difficult choices. In this
economic crisis, our choices are more difficult, and our decisions
carry more importance.
I believe this budget reflects the best balance of addressing our
present crisis, building a foundation for the future, and putting our
finances on a sustainable path.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

[[Page 9877]]

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote for this budget resolution. It
rightfully recognizes that our way through these difficult times is by
investing in our future, with significant funding for infrastructure,
energy independence and programs that ensure the safety, health, and
education of our Nation's children. This budget resolution makes clear
that we cannot continue to cut taxes for a handful of wealthy
individuals, at the expense of the many and hope that someday the
benefits will trickle down. That course of action would lead to deeper
and deeper deficits.
The prior administration's fiscal policies failed. They left us in
difficult and uncertain times. Unemployment in my state of Michigan and
across the country is sky high. The financial markets are in turmoil,
and millions of hard-working Americans that still have jobs are not
only concerned about their depleted savings and retirement accounts,
but making their mortgage payments. And now, some of the greatest
companies in our country are under great duress.
Our shared ability to navigate these troubled waters will depend upon
our willingness to come together. Through this budget resolution, the
Senate will set the blueprint for its work to help reverse the past
administration's failed fiscal policies that have been so damaging to
our economy.
The Budget Committee includes in this resolution deficit-neutral
reserve funds to promote economic recovery and growth, investments in
infrastructure, and a long overdue commitment to the health of
Americans. With adequate funds, we can modernize the health care system
by continuing to progress towards health information technology. With
additional dollars to help support and strengthen the health care
workforce, we are making a firm statement that we will no longer shirk
our responsibilities and will continue to fight for the 45.7 million
uninsured individuals who have not had access to health care.
This budget will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It allows
us to improve our educational system. And it provides tax relief to
millions of middle-income Americans, including providing much-needed
relief from the alternative minimum tax. Congress, and our citizens,
have long known that this tax was never intended to hit middle-class
families.
I am also pleased that this budget paves the way for using our
committed resources to restore our financial system, while providing
critical transparency and accountability for taxpayers. While I was
pleased to support the economic stimulus packages, they only provided a
partial solution to fixing our economy's problems. We cannot stop now.
Although we have already taken unprecedented efforts to stimulate and
revive our economy, there is more work ahead. While hard-working
families struggle to make ends meet, we owe it to them to continue to
invest in their futures.
I am pleased that this budget resolution includes my proposal to
establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to promote American
manufacturing. Congress needs to take bold, decisive action to
revitalize our domestic manufacturing sector. The U.S. has lost more
than 4.1 million manufacturing jobs since January 2001 and over 300,000
manufacturing jobs in Michigan since January 2001. It is important that
we revitalize and maintain a strong manufacturing base in the U.S. The
manufacturing industry faces pressure from international corporations
that are strongly supported by their respective governments; our own
government needs to lend similar support to keep American manufacturing
companies competitive in the global marketplace.
The deficit-neutral reserve fund included in this budget lays the
groundwork for legislation to address important initiatives to boost
American manufacturing. I look forward to continuing to work with my
colleagues to stimulate the manufacturing sector in a meaningful way,
and make a wise investment in the long-term growth, health, and
stability of the manufacturing industry.
The budget wisely includes a deficit-neutral reserve fund to
accommodate legislation that would provide investments in clean energy
and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, leaving the details of the
legislation to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction. The threat
of climate change is real and its impacts could be catastrophic if we
do not act quickly. Clean energy and advanced technologies hold the
promise for making real progress on reducing harmful greenhouse gases.
While swift action is needed to confront the daunting challenges of
global climate change, I oppose misusing the budget reconciliation
process in the consideration of climate legislation. That legislation
would influence every sector of the U.S. economy and could have far-
reaching impacts across the globe. For this reason, I supported an
amendment offered by Senator Johanns that would prohibit the use of
reconciliation for climate legislation. I voted in support of the
Johanns amendment to reaffirm my opposition to an extremely truncated
process for climate legislation, which would make a deliberative
approach impossible. Taking action on climate change legislation to
protect public health, the economy, and natural security should be done
in a thoughtful way and not rushed through Congress.
I was pleased to join Senator Dorgan in proposing an amendment to
provide an increase of $10 million for organ donation activities at the
Health Resources Services Administration. This modest amendment is
aimed at fulfilling the promise of the Organ Donation and Recovery
Improvement Act of 2004, to increase the number of organ donations.
Currently, over 100,000 individuals are on the organ transplant waiting
list, and more than 83,000 of those are in need of a kidney transplant.
On average, patients wait 4 years before receiving a kidney transplant.
Medicare spends about $55,000 per patient per year for dialysis. This
means that every kidney donation has the potential to save Medicare as
much as $220,000. Unfortunately, nearly 6,000 people die every year
while waiting for a transplant. By doing more to educate people about
donation and developing programs to encourage donation, we can take
steps to reduce that number.
Mr. President, this budget will continue the job of getting our great
Nation back on track, and it deserves to pass.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of
organizations opposing this budget resolution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Outside Groups Key Voting and Opposing The Senate Budget Resolution

groups Key Voting Against Final Passage of The Budget

Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Associated
Builders and Contractors, Center for Fiscal Accountability, Citizens
Against Government Waste, Club for Growth, Concerned Women for America,
Freedom Works, Independent Electrical Contractors, International
Foodservice Distributors Association, National Association of
Wholesaler-Distributors, and National Taxpayers Union.

Groups Opposing The Budget

American Conservative Union, American Family Business Institute,
Americans for Limited Government, Associated General Contractors, Club
for Growth, Council on National Policy, Family Research Council,
National Association of Manufacturers, Numbers USA, Small Business
Entrepreneurship Council, Tax Relief Coalition, and U.S. Chamber of
Commerce.

Groups Opposing Using Reconciliation For Health Care and Carbon Tax
Within The Budget

Business Roundtable, National Federation of Independent Business,
National Mining Association, and Small Business & Entrepreneurship
Council.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to say a brief word so we know what
we are going to do when we get back on Monday, 2 weeks from Monday.
First of all, I express my appreciation to the whole Senate for the
outstanding work done by the managers of this bill, Chairman Conrad,
Ranking

[[Page 9878]]

Member Gregg. They did wonderful work. All the Senate speaks with one
voice in recognizing the tremendous difficulty of this resolution. The
work was done with civility. We had difficult amendments. This is a day
the Senate should be proud.
I applaud and commend, I repeat, on behalf of the entire Senate, the
brilliant work done by these two fine gentlemen.
When we come back, I was hoping we would not have to have this vote
on Monday, but it appears we are going to have to. We have two wars
going on. One, as we know, Afghanistan, and one we cannot put out of
our mind in Iraq. One of the great career senior foreign service
officers whom we have had in recent years, Christopher R. Hill of Rhode
Island, has been nominated by the President to be Ambassador to Iraq.
It is hard to comprehend, but I am going to have to file cloture on
that tonight before we leave. I would hope everyone who is trying to
hold up this man would give this some thought. How does this look? It
does not look very good. But we are going to go ahead, and we are going
to have this cloture vote on Monday. We have a lot of other things we
could work on. We have a lot to do. We have a 5-week work period when
we get back. I have already informed the Republican leader as to what
days we are not going to have votes; there are three of them.
I hope everyone has a good 2 weeks. We have a lot of time we need to
spend at home. We have not been home. These have been very long
periods, two long work periods we have had since we have become a new
Congress.
Of course, I have to say for all of us, it is very exiting to all of
us to see the Presiding Officer.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to take a minute to thank the
majority leader and Republican leader for their assistance in helping
us move this bill in a reasonably expeditious way, considering it is
the budget.
I especially wish to thank the chairman and his staff, headed up by
Mary Naylor. They do an extraordinary job. They are extremely
professional and very courteous to the minority. It is always an open
and fair process when we take up the budget, and they set an excellent
standard.
I additionally wish to thank my staff, headed up by Cheri Reidy and
Jim Hearn, Allison Parent, and they do a fabulous job. I also wish to
thank the folks up there on the dais because they stay here all day and
make sure we are in order and keeping things on the move and we thank
them very much for their time.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the chairman of the committee and the
ranking member did such a wonderful job. I think we should all express
our appreciation.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wish to thank all of our colleagues.
This is a tough, difficult day for all of us. I think the Senate has
conducted itself well and distinguished itself today.
I wish to thank each of our colleagues for that. I especially wish to
thank Leader Reid for his support throughout this process; Senator
Murray, who I think has a special knack for convincing people not to
offer amendments. Thank goodness for Senator Murray. To my colleague,
Senator Gregg, you could not ask for a better partner. There is no one
more professional, more decent or somebody whose word is better than
Senator Gregg. I deeply appreciate it, as well as his professional
staff, who have been terrific to work with.
On our side, Mary Naylor, my staff director; John Righter and Joel
Friedman, my deputies; Joe Gaeta, Steve Bailey, Mike Jones, Jamie
Morin, Stu Nagurka, Steve Posner, Sarah Kuehl, and all the others who
have contributed.
This has been a labor of love. They have worked night and day,
weekends for months, and I deeply appreciate their sacrifice.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me briefly echo the remarks of the
majority leader and congratulate Chairman Conrad and Ranking Member
Gregg and say we have a lot of freshmen Senators. You probably think
this is a tough day. I might mention to you, this is one of the least
tough budget days we have had in the time that I have been here. I
think I see the Vice President smiling. He would agree with that.
That is a tribute largely to Senator Gregg and Senator Conrad. Thank
you so much for an excellent job.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish to make a plea, if I can publicly.
There is still time between now and tomorrow to try to do something
differently on this question of sending our Ambassador to Iraq.
Senator Lugar is supportive. I am supportive. There is bipartisan
support for this nominee. He is going to be approved. We all know that.
Iraq is experiencing increasing political difficulties, and the missing
ingredient of our capacity to get the success we want is political
reconciliation.
Ambassador Crocker has not been well recently. He has put enormous
energy in this effort. Getting Christopher Hill there in the next 2
weeks can make a difference. I would urge our colleagues, if there are
other issues linked to this, there are other ways to work it through.
My hope would be that we would be able to free him up. It is a
terrible message to send, to tie him to issues of North Korea or
otherwise extraneous. It handicaps our capacity to maximize our efforts
in a war.
If we are going to treat a war seriously, we ought to treat this
Ambassador nomination seriously. I would ask my colleagues to think
about that while there is an opportunity to be able to approve it in
these next 24 hours.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I hate to throw a little cold water on
this whole ``Kumbaya'' party we are having, but I think it is an
important precedent that we determine tonight.
I rise to make a parliamentary inquiry regarding the status of the
budget resolution: Specifically, I rise to inquire if the resolution
remains a privileged measure, notwithstanding the adoption of 10
corrosive points of order, 8 of which reach into the jurisdiction of
the Finance Committee, 1 of which reaches into the Veterans' Committee,
and 1 into the Judiciary Committee.
In the case of the Durbin amendment, No. 974, the point of order
specifies, with exacting detail, what level of taxpayer must receive a
tax cut in order to allow death taxes to go forward.
Therefore, I put the question to the Chair: Does the pending budget
resolution retain its privileged status despite these corrosive points
of order having been adopted?
The VICE PRESIDENT. It does.
Mr. ENSIGN. Further parliamentary inquiry: Does that mean it would
require 60 votes for passage?
The VICE PRESIDENT. It does not require 60 votes for passage.
Mr. ENSIGN. Further parliamentary inquiry: Is losing its privileged
status at this point, does that mean it would be still fully debatable?
The VICE PRESIDENT. It has not lost its privileged status.
Mr. ENSIGN. So that would be the precedent for the future, 8 to 10
corrosive amendments does not lose its privileged status.
The VICE PRESIDENT. This particular budget resolution has not lost
its privileged status.
Mr. ENSIGN. I thank the Chair.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, to briefly respond to the Senator from
Massachusetts, the chairman of the distinguished Foreign Relations
Committee has raised a serious issue about Ambassador Hill.
A number of us on our side have serious questions about Ambassador
Hill and how he conducted himself in the last assignment. I would like
to see what some of those instructions were from that assignment.
I recognize the seriousness of the situation we are in in Iraq, no
question

[[Page 9879]]

about that. But I have serious reservations about his position in going
to that. I think this will be a good period of time for us to get some
of these questions answered from the State Department.
I have proffered a letter to them. I have some serious questions
about what took place during the negotiations with North Korea and a
possible missile launch that will take place even in this interim, and
this was our lead negotiator there.
For those reasons, I, amongst others, am raising questions at this
time. I think they need to be answered before he is approved for such
an important spot for the United States.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the adoption of the concurrent
resolution, as amended.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 154 Leg.]

YEAS--55

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

NAYS--43

NOT VOTING--1

Byrd

The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 13), as amended, was agreed
to.
(The resolution will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Begich). The Senator from Michigan.

____________________

NOMINATION OF ASHTON CARTER

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I had the intent, when we got to executive
session, of asking unanimous consent that Calendar item No. 47, Ashton
Carter's nomination, be agreed to by unanimous consent. There is a hold
on this nomination. The two Senators who have that hold have indicated
to me their reasons for it. One of those Senators--and I have talked to
Senator Shelby; there is no objection to my identifying him this way--
has not had the opportunity that he seeks to talk to Mr. Carter. He has
made a commitment that he will do so as quickly as he possibly can
after the recess so we can hopefully get to this nomination very
promptly. It is essential this be taken up.
So in light of the assurance I have received from Senator Shelby
particularly, and I have talked also to Senator Sessions about this
matter, I am not going to make that unanimous consent request tonight.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

NOMINATION OF JANE HOLL LUTE

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, in a few minutes there will be a unanimous
consent request on a voice vote for a nominee to the No. 2 position at
Homeland Security--a very nice lady by the name of Ms. Lute.
I would make the point, as the second most senior member on Homeland
Security on the minority side, I cast a ``no'' vote for this person in
committee, and that is very well detailed in my statement.
But I think there are some important things the American people
should know about her previous service in terms of the peacekeeping
forces under her direction as far as the procurement, management, and
followup.
Here is what we know. Forty-three percent of all the money spent on
international peacekeeping at the United Nations was either involved in
fraud or kickback schemes and illegal contracting.
The other thing we know is that the international peacekeepers raped
and abused hundreds and hundreds of people, for which at this time
today the services under the direction of Ms. Lute have not been
directed toward or the care given for those individuals who suffered
those consequences.
The other thing we know is that the contracting associated with her
administration in the U.N. was associated with several no-bid contracts
that were inefficiently done and ineffectively carried out. It is on
that basis that I agreed not to hold up her nomination. She will go
through, and she will be confirmed. But this nominee has to prove
herself at the Department of Homeland Security. I am willing to be
proven wrong, but the fact is, her reason for the problems she had at
the U.N. was the lack of cooperation at the U.N. She is going to be
running a much larger budget with greater responsibilities, and if, in
fact, that is the case, and it was all the U.N., then her limited
experience, we can hope, will grow, and she will be an effective
Assistant Secretary.
There are other people much more qualified who could fill this
position. As I said, this is a very humble lady. She has served with
great distinguished service in the Armed Services of this country.
There is no personal animosity nor direction toward her individually.
But the fact is, one of our most difficult agencies is the Department
of Homeland Security. It has big problems, conflicts, lack of
transparency, and inefficiency.
It is my hope that after she is confirmed, she will, in fact, be up
to the task, and we, both in the Senate and as American taxpayers, will
get real value out of her service.
With that, I yield the floor.

____________________

EXECUTIVE SESSION

______

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to executive session to consider, en bloc, Calendar Nos. 37,
38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60,
and all nominations on the Secretary's desk; that the Agriculture
Committee be discharged, and the Senate proceed, en bloc, to PN206,
PN213 and PN221; that the nominations be confirmed, en bloc, the
motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc, and that no
further motions be in order.
The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:

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;

[[Page 9880]]

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.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Richard Rahul Verma, of Maryland, to be an Assistant
Secretary of State (Legislative Affairs).
Esther Brimmer, of the District of Columbia, to be an
Assistant Secretary of State (International Organization
Affairs).
Rose Eilene Gottemoeller, of Virginia, to be an Assistant
Secretary of State (Verification and Compliance).
Karl Winfrid Eikenberry, of Florida, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
Melanne Verveer, of the District of Columbia, to be
Ambassador at Large for Women's Global Issues.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

James N. Miller, Jr., of Virginia, to be Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Alexander Vershbow, of the District of Columbia, to be an
Assistant Secretary of Defense.

in the AIR FORCE

The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:

To be lieutenant general

Maj. Gen. Michael C. Gould

The following named officer for appointment in the Reserve
of the Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 12203:

To be brigadier geneal

Col. Debra A. Scullary

The following named officers for appointment in the Reserve
of the Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 12203:

To be major general

Brigadier General Roger A. Binder
Brigadier General David L. Commons
Brigadier General Anita R. Gallentine
Brigadier General Carl M. Skinner
Brigadier General Howard N. Thompson
Brigadier General Paul M. Van Sickle

The following named officers for appointment in the Reserve
of the Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 12203:

To be brigadier general

Colonel William B. Binger
Colonel Catherine A. Chilton
Colonel James A. Firth
Colonel Robert M. Haire
Colonel Stayce D. Harris
Colonel Thomas P. Harwood, III
Colonel Maryanne Miller
Colonel Pamela K. Milligan
Colonel Robert K. Millmann, Jr.
Colonel James J. Muscatell, Jr.
Colonel Dennis P. Ployer
Colonel Kevin E. Pottinger
Colonel Derek P. Rydholm
Colonel George F. Williams

in the army

The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 624:

To be major general

Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
sections 624 and 3064:

To be major general

Brig. Gen. James K. Gilman
Brig. Gen. Philip Volpe

The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
sections 624 and 3064:

To be brigadier general

Col. William B. Gamble
Col. Richard W. Thomas

IN THE MARINE CORPS

The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Marine Corps Reserve to the grade indicated under
title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:

To be brigadier general

Col. Paul W. Brier
Col. Frans J. Coetzee

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

John Berry, of the District of Columbia, to be Director of
the Office of Personnel Management for a term of four years.

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Karen Gordon Mills, of Maine, to be Administrator of the
Small Business Administration.

[NEW REPORTS]

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

W. Scott Gould, of the District of Columbia, to be Deputy
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Nominations Placed on the Secretary's Desk

IN THE AIR FORCE

PN94 AIR FORCE nomination of Kathy L. Fullerton, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 23, 2009.
PN95 AIR FORCE nominations (3) beginning EMIL B. KABBAN,
and ending STEPHEN H. WILLIAMS, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 23, 2009.
PN96 AIR FORCE nominations (29) beginning BRIAN D.
ANDERSON, and ending MARGARET M. WALSH, which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 23, 2009.
PN97 AIR FORCE nominations (21) beginning MARK T. ALLISON,
and ending PHILIP T. WOLD, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 23, 2009.
PN98 AIR FORCE nominations (3) beginning TINA M.
BARBERMATTHEW, and ending REGAN J. PATRICK, which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 23, 2009.
PN99 AIR FORCE nominations (32) beginning JAMES J. BALDOCK
IV, and ending BRENDA L. YI, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 23, 2009.
PN100 AIR FORCE nominations (67) beginning LISA L. ADAMS,
and ending RICHARD J. ZAVADIL, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 23, 2009.
PN101 AIR FORCE nominations (1179) beginning ARIEL O.
ACEBAL, and ending STEVEN M. ZUBOWICZ, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 23, 2009.
PN118 AIR FORCE nomination of Jonathon V. Lammers, which
was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 25, 2009.
PN119 AIR FORCE nominations (3) beginning GARY A. FOSKEY,
and ending CONNIE L. WARR, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 25, 2009.
PN120 AIR FORCE nominations (7) beginning BRYSON D. BORG,
and ending DEXTER W. LOVE, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 25, 2009.
PN155 AIR FORCE nominations (2) beginning GEORGE B.
GOSTING, and ending JOSEPH S. PARK, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of March 10, 2009.
PN158 AIR FORCE nominations (51) beginning RICHARD D.
BAKER, and ending GREGORY B. YORK, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of March 10, 2009.
PN159 AIR FORCE nominations (15) beginning JEFFREY L.
ANDRUS, and ending ROSE M. WOJCIK, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of March 10, 2009.
PN160 AIR FORCE nominations (16) beginning FEDERICO C.
AQUINO JR., and ending JUNKO YAMAMOTO, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of March 10, 2009.
PN161 AIR FORCE nominations (148) beginning JOSELITA M.
ABELEDA, and ending GABRIEL ZIMMERER, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of March 10, 2009.
PN162 AIR FORCE nominations (40) beginning THOMAS J. BAUER,
and ending STACEY E. ZAIKOSKI, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of March 10, 2009.
PN163 AIR FORCE nominations (286) beginning AMANDA J.
ADAMS, and ending DON L. ZUST JR., which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of March 10, 2009.
PN192 AIR FORCE nominations (3) beginning XAVIER A. NGUYEN,
and ending JENNIFER A. TAY, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
March 17, 2009.
PN193 AIR FORCE nominations (3) beginning JOHN M. BEENE II,
and ending ELIZABETH N. SMITH, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of March 17, 2009.
PN234 AIR FORCE nomination of Ryan G. McPherson, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of March 25, 2009.
PN235 AIR FORCE nomination of Mark J. Ivey, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of March 25, 2009.
PN238 AIR FORCE nominations (37) beginning CHRISTOPHER B.
BENNETT, and ending DAVID J. WESTERN, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of March 25, 2009.

IN THE ARMY

PN102 ARMY nomination of Peter C. Gould, which was received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 23, 2009.
PN103 ARMY nomination of Garrett S. Yee, which was received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 23, 2009.
PN104 ARMY nominations (6) beginning ROY L. BOURNE, and
ending STANLEY W. SHEFTALL, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 23, 2009.

[[Page 9881]]

PN121 ARMY nomination of Frank Rodriguez Jr., which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 25, 2009.
PN122 ARMY nomination of Edward E. Turski, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 25, 2009.
PN123 ARMY nomination of Joseph R. Krupa, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 25, 2009.
PN124 ARMY nomination of Kathleen P. Naiman, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 25, 2009.
PN125 ARMY nominations (2) beginning JUAN G. ESTEVA, and
ending THOMAS E. STARR, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 25, 2009.
PN126 ARMY nominations (2) beginning ROBERT F. DONNELLY,
and ending ANGELICA REYES, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 25, 2009.
PN127 ARMY nominations (3) beginning RICHARD H. DAHLMAN,
and ending DAVID A. STILLS, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 25, 2009.
PN128 ARMY nominations (4) beginning JULIE S. AKIYAMA, and
ending ANDREW L. HAGEMASTER, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 25, 2009.
PN129 ARMY nominations (3) beginning MICHAEL L. NIPPERT,
and ending JOHN K. GOERTMILLER, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 25, 2009.
PN130 ARMY nominations (3) beginning MARTIN L. BADEGIAN,
and ending MARK J. HODD, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 25, 2009.
PN131 ARMY nominations (5) beginning DEBRA H. BURTON, and
ending LEE D. SCHNELL, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of February
25, 2009.
PN132 ARMY nominations (10) beginning PAUL P. BRYANT, and
ending CHRISTOPHER R. WARD, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 25, 2009.
PN133 ARMY nominations (77) beginning ROBERT J. ABBOTT, and
ending PATRICK J. WOOLSEY, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 25, 2009.
PN134 ARMY nominations (22) beginning VANESSA A. BERRY, and
ending SCOTT F. YOUNG, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of February
25, 2009.
PN135 ARMY nominations (8) beginning EFREN E. RECTO, and
ending WILLIAM A. WOLKSTEIN, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 25, 2009.
PN136 ARMY nominations (14) beginning SUZANNE D. ADKINSON,
and ending BRANDON S. WATKINS, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 25, 2009.
PN156 ARMY nominations (7) beginning THOMAS M. CARDEN JR.,
and ending ANTHONY WOODS, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of March
10, 2009.
PN194 ARMY nomination of Laura K. Lester, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of March 17, 2009.
PN195 ARMY nomination of Brigitte Belanger, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of March 17, 2009.
PN196 ARMY nomination of Mitzi A. Rivera, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of March 17, 2009.
PN197 ARMY nomination of Catherine B. Evans, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of March 17, 2009.
PN198 ARMY nomination of Victor G. Kelly, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of March 17, 2009.
PN199 ARMY nomination of Ryan T. Choate, which was received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
March 17, 2009.
PN200 ARMY nominations (9) beginning RAFAEL A. CABRERA, and
ending CARL J. TADAKI, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of March 17,
2009.
PN201 ARMY nominations (43) beginning ROBERT A.
BORCHERDING, and ending MICHAEL C. WONG, which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of March 17, 2009.
PN241 ARMY nomination of Victor J. Torres-Fernandez, which
was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of March 25, 2009.
PN242 ARMY nominations (86) beginning JOSEPH ANGERER, and
ending MATTHEW J. YANDURA, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of March
25, 2009.
PN243 ARMY nominations (3) beginning TED R. BATES, and
ending PETER M. MENICUCCI, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of March
25, 2009.
PN244 ARMY nominations (3) beginning JOHN M. DIAZ, and
ending LAVORE L. RICHMOND JR., which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of March 25, 2009.
PN245 ARMY nominations (2) beginning LUISA SANTIAGO, and
ending YEVGENY S. VINDMAN, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of March
25, 2009.
PN246 ARMY nominations (124) beginning RANDALL W. COWELL,
and ending DANIEL M. ZERBY, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
March 25, 2009.
PN247 ARMY nominations (16) beginning ALBERT J. ADKINSON,
and ending WILLIAM E. WYNNS JR., which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of March 25, 2009.

IN THE MARINE CORPS

PN112 MARINE CORPS nominations (5) beginning DAVID G.
ANTONIK, and ending STEVEN D. PETERSON, which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 23, 2009.
PN113 MARINE CORPS nominations (132) beginning KELLY P.
ALEXANDER, and ending ANTHONE R. WRIGHT, which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 23, 2009.
PN137 MARINE CORPS nominations (773) beginning DEREK M.
ABBEY, and ending ROBERT B. ZWAYER, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 25, 2009.
PN138 MARINE CORPS nominations (464) beginning HARALD
AAGAARD, and ending MARK W. ZIPSIE, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Cressional Record
of February 25, 2009.

IN THE NAVY

PN55 NAVY nomination of Scott D. Shiver, which was received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
January 7, 2009.
PN107 NAVY nominations (2) beginning STEVEN A. KHALIL, and
ending DAVID B. ROSENBERG, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 23, 2009.
PN108 NAVY nomination of Miguel Gonzalez, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 23, 2009.
PN109 NAVY nomination of David M. Dromsky, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 23, 2009.
PN110 NAVY nomination of Jed R. Espiritu, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 23, 2009.
PN111 NAVY nominations (27) beginning CHARLES C. ADKISON,
and ending TRICIA L. TEAS, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 23, 2009.
PN164 NAVY nominations (2) beginning GREGORY G. GALYO, and
ending OLIVER C. MINIMO, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of March
10, 2009.
PN248 NAVY nominations (12) beginning CHRISTOPHER G.
CUNNINGHAM, and ending CHRISTOPHER A. WILLIAMS, which
nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the
Congressional Record of March 25, 2009.
PN249 NAVY nominations (3) beginning JANET L. JACKSON, and
ending TODD M. SULLIVAN, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of March
25, 2009.

department of agriculture

James W. Miller, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of
Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, vice
Mark Everett Keenum, resigned.
Kathleen A. Merrigan, of Massachusetts, to be Deputy
Secretary of Agriculture, vice Charles F. Conner, resigned.
Joe Leonard, Jr., of the District of Columbia, to be an
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, vice Margo M. McKay,
resigned.

NOMINATION OF KAREN GORDON MILLS

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today the Senate Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship unanimously reported the President's
nomination of Karen Gordon Mills to serve as Administrator for the
Small Business Administration. I would like to thank my ranking member,
Senator Snowe, who recommended Ms. Mills for this post and her staff
for their work on this nomination.
I am pleased that President Obama nominated Karen Mills. I believe
she has the right mix of experience and education and a willingness to
serve that will benefit her in this challenging position. As our new
SBA Administrator, Ms. Mills will be an extraordinary role model for
entrepreneurs across America--particularly for women entrepreneurs.
Ms. Mills graduated magna cum laude from Harvard with a degree in
economics. She then stayed at Harvard

[[Page 9882]]

to earn her MBA. She started out working as a product manager for
General Mills and then segued into what was to become her true
passion--growing new businesses. Ms. Mills is a founding partner and
was managing director of Solera Capital, a NY-based venture capital
firm run largely by women. She currently serves as President at MMP
Group, Inc., a private equity investment and advising firm.
Ms. Mills has balanced her role in private, for-profit enterprises
with active involvement in her community. This has been demonstrated in
the work she has done in Maine, serving on the boards of many
nonprofits that work to promote economic development. It also shows in
the work that she has done for organizations like the Council on
Foreign Relations.
From my meetings with Ms. Mills, it is clear that we share many of
the same priorities--for example, assisting women and minority
entrepreneurs and making sure small businesses can access credit in
these trying economic times.
The SBA is an agency at a crossroads. Under the previous
administration, the agency's funding was slashed by 28 percent--the
biggest cut of any Federal agency. In my view, the agency was relegated
to the back benches during important policy debates on health care,
trade and technology innovation, to name a few.
We need strong, capable leadership to return this agency to its
rightful place as a Federal advocate for small business interests. In
Ms. Mills, I am confident that we have it.

____________________

NOMINATION OF JANE HOLL LUTE TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF HOMELAND
SECURITY

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to Calendar No. 57, the nomination of Jane Holl Lute.
The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Jane Holl
Lute, of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my unqualified
endorsement of Jane Holl Lute to be Deputy Secretary for the Department
of Homeland Security.
Mrs. Lute has impressive educational credentials--including a Ph.D.
from Stanford, a J.D. from Georgetown, and 3 years as a professor at
West Point--an outstanding professional history, and broad national
security and management experience, all of which is more than ample
preparation for the position to which she has been nominated.
She had a distinguished career in the military, served as the
European specialist at the National Security Council during the first
Bush and Clinton administrations, and for the past several years has
worked in various positions with United Nations Peacekeeping
Operations.
Mrs. Lute joined the Army right out of college and spent the next 16
years serving in a variety of capacities, including as an action
officer in Operation Desert Storm, U.S. Army Central Command, Riyadh;
as company commander, U.S. Signal Command, a brigade signal officer;
and as director for european affairs on the National Security Council
for President George H.W. Bush and President Bill Clinton. Her military
experience with signals intelligence and on the National Security
Council has helped prepare her for the intelligence and
counterterrorism missions of DHS.
Since 2003, she has served in a variety of senior leadership
positions with the U.N., including as the Assistant Secretary-General
of Peacekeeping Operations, and most recently as the Assistant
Secretary General for Peacekeeping Support in the Executive Office of
the Secretary-General of the U.N.
As Assistant Secretary-General, Mrs. Lute has managed a very large
and complex Peacekeeping workforce, with responsibility for hundreds of
thousands of military and civilian personnel in over 30 countries,
including hotspots such as Kosovo, the Congo, and Darfur, to name just
a few. This was no small accomplishment. Her leadership helped to
ensure the security and welfare of people around the globe living in
unaccommodating and hostile circumstances.
She also managed multibillion-dollar budgets and welcomed oversight
and constructive criticism of her department, in an organization that
many have described as ``openly hostile'' to such transparency.
At the U.N., she managed support operations for the second largest
deployed military force in the world, and oversaw a multibillion
budget, which grew from $2 billion to nearly $8 billion annually. She
undertook a variety of initiatives to improve the management and
financial accountability of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations,
which included instituting a requirements review panel for acquisitions
and a mission startup monitoring process.
When she noticed that the U.N. was short on the procurement personnel
with the language skills and expertise needed for the complex
transactions they would work on, she helped institute a program to
identify, recruit, and train additional staff.
She also instituted advanced training programs for senior
administrative and management personnel, in response to deficiencies
she observed.
I am particularly impressed by Mrs. Lute's leadership and management
experience in a career dedicated to public service. In her testimony
before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last
week, it was apparent that her experiences have helped her develop into
the leader she is today: One who recognizes that, in her own words,
``people are the most important resource any . . . organization has.''
It is a testimony to Mrs. Lute and her work that the committee has
received numerous letters supporting her nomination. Letters have come
from the International Association of Emergency Managers, the National
Emergency Managers Association, the International Association of Fire
Chiefs, the Major Cities Chiefs, the National Sheriffs' Association,
Lee Baca, the Sheriff of L.A. County, Lee Hamilton, former congressman
and current President and Director, Woodrow Wilson International Center
for Scholars, HRH Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al-Hussein, Jordan's Ambassador to
the U.S., and many others.
Managing the Department of Homeland Security is no small task,
demanding a smart and steady hand. The Deputy Secretary post carries
with it diverse responsibilities that range from overseeing
preparations to respond to a nuclear terrorist attack to ensuring that
DHS employees have adequate office space.
DHS has at times struggled to gain solid footing over the course of
its six-year lifespan. Each year it becomes stronger, I am happy to
note. And I don't think there is any question that the country is safer
as a result of the Department's efforts.
But the Department has a difficult and varied mission and its work is
central to the security of all Americans. So we must continue to press
forward to improve upon its capabilities.
To that end, I am working to draft the Senate's first authorization
bill for the Department as a means of laying out what I believe should
be its priorities and to make the Department more efficient and
effective in its missions. Needless to say, we will be seeking input
from the administration.
One of the biggest problems the Department faces is its management of
acquisitions. Some of the Department's largest and most troubled
acquisition programs--Deepwater, SBINet, radiation detection portal
monitors--need stronger oversight and more decisive leadership than
they have gotten in the past.
Furthermore, the Department's heavy reliance on contractors to
perform basic services raises serious questions about whether DHS is
building sufficient internal capacity and institutional knowledge.
Right now, DHS still has insufficient capacity to develop requirements
and evaluate the technical feasibility of contractors' proposals.
In recent years the United States has seen serious threats to our
cyber networks and we have not yet developed

[[Page 9883]]

the tools to detect and defend against these threats. Due to the
vulnerabilities that still exist, we have experienced massive identity
theft, monetary loss, and leaks of sensitive information. Moreover, if
these vulnerabilities are ever fully exploited, there is the potential
to do significant damage to our Nation's critical infrastructure. The
Department of Homeland Security has the important responsibility of
leading Federal efforts to protect domestic cyber networks, both public
and private. The Department has made some progress in developing its
capabilities in this area, but much more work remains to be done. I
look forward to working with Mrs. Lute to bolster the nation's cyber
security.
Clearly, our southern border security has also become a central focus
for the Department and the Obama administration. Senator Collins and I
successfully amended the budget resolution this week to add $550
million for the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice to help
stem the flow of drugs and people moving north into the U.S. and guns
and money moving south into Mexico. I look forward to a close
collaboration with the Department in this area.
The Department faces many other challenges that must be met and
conquered if it is to succeed in its ultimate mission of protecting the
nation from terrorism and natural disasters. This committee has always
worked cooperatively with the Department and will continue to do so to
ensure its success.
If confirmed, Mrs. Lute will play a large part in setting the
Department on course to overcome these challenges. I want to thank her
for her many years of service and say that I believe she is
exceptionally qualified to take on DHS' challenges. I urge my fellow
Senators to support her confirmation.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, Jane Holl Lute has been nominated to
become the Deputy Secretary for Management at the Department of
Homeland Security, (DHS). If confirmed, she would be responsible for
the following at DHS: budget, appropriations, expenditure of funds,
accounting and finance; procurement; human resources and personnel;
information technology systems; facilities, property, equipment, and
other material resources; and performance measurements tracking.
After reviewing the parts of her U.N. record that had to be leaked
for any of us to know about it, it is clear that Ms. Lute is either not
qualified or not experienced to manage the DHS. When pressed to explain
the mismanagement, fraud, and corruption that took place under her
watch at U.N. Peacekeeping Operations, Ms. Lute consistently diverted
blame to other U.N. officials or departments--making it appear she
really didn't manage much of the U.N. If accurate, she is not
experienced. When pressed to explain how she is experienced enough to
manage DHS, Ms. Lute then claims she was at the center of Peacekeeping
Operations, managed the internal operations--making it appear that she
was responsible for everything. If accurate, this means she is also
responsible for the mismanagement and waste. Ms. Lute cannot have it
both ways.
An overall assessment of Peacekeeping Operations is that they are
saturated in fraud and abuse.
In 2007 and 2008, the U.N. Procurement Task Force, a branch of the
U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services, OIOS, issued several
reports that had to be leaked in order for anyone outside the U.N. to
know about them.
The reports were based on investigations related to U.N. peacekeeping
management and procurement that uncovered a significant amount of
corruption, fraud, waste, overpayments, abuse, negligence and
mismanagement in a number of high value contracts. This reflects a lack
of an internal control system within U.N. Peacekeeping procurement
under Ms. Lute's management.\1\
The findings of the U.N. audit reports are alarming.
For example, the reports found 43 percent of mostly U.N. peacekeeping
procurement tainted by fraud. Out of $1.4 billion in U.N. contracts
internally investigated, $610 million was tainted by 10 ``significant
fraud and corruption schemes.'' \2\ Since 43 percent of the procurement
contracts are tainted and the U.S. taxpayer contributes up to 26
percent of all U.N. funding, it is safe to say the entire U.S.
contribution in this case was tainted by corruption an waste.
``Total disregard for controls'' is how the task force described
senior U.N. officials involved in peacekeeping procurement fraud.\3\ In
an environment of no controls, Ms. Lute's Peacekeeping Operations
suffered from numerous problems that greatly increased the cost of
operations or lost resources altogether.
Specific examples listed in the report include criminal acts such as
bribery and kickback schemes, overpayments to vendors, lack of
competitive bidding, lack of acquisition plans, lack of qualified
procurement staff, splitting single contracts apart to avoid reporting
requirements, transactions with no contract in place, unauthorized
contracts issued, use of uneconomical contractors, unnecessary
expenditures, and dysfunctional asset and property management.
The task force found that significant Peacekeeping missions lacked
``indicators of achievement and performance measures'' for the
political and civilian affairs components of operations. Specifically,
roles and responsibilities were not formally established, and there
were no defined reporting lines and accountability.\4\
The task force reports that a major roadblock to its investigation is
due to ``limited cooperation'' from U.N. staff and vendors due to the
lack of a compulsory process for obtaining documents and testimony.\5\
Even after the task force exposed Peacekeeping mismanagement,
peacekeeping and procurement management were not ``consistent in
applying the standards to which they are supposed to hold staff
accountable.'' \6\
For each of its audits and investigations, the task force made
recommendations to Ms. Lute and her U.N. Peacekeeping team on how to
address the serious fraud and mismanagement issues. A number of
critical recommendations were not accepted.\7\
Regarding Peacekeeping procurement, Ms. Lute tries to have it both
ways by diverting blame but also claiming she still has procurement
experience.
When asked at her nomination hearing about the procurement corruption
under her watch, Ms. Lute claimed that the corruption and mismanagement
was not her fault but the fault of procurement staff in the field.
Since she indicated at the hearing that she had little or no
responsibility for the Peacekeeping procurement, Ms. Lute was asked in
her questions for the record what other procurement experience she had
that would qualify her for managing procurement at DHS. Her written
response reveals that Ms. Lute was much more responsible for
Peacekeeping procurement than she admitted at the hearing. She wrote in
her response that she had ``responsibility for oversight of personnel
responsible for directly engaging and supervising the provision of
contract services.''
Another indication that Ms. Lute has a much larger role and influence
on Peacekeeping procurement than she admitted at her hearing is how she
pushed through a no-bid contract for her mission to Darfur in 2007. In
2007, Lute personally steered a $250 million no-bid contract for U.N.
peacekeeping in Darfur to a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin.
At the time, the Officer-in-Charge of the U.N. Department of
Management where much of the U.N.'s procurement took place sent Ms.
Lute a memo responding to her charges that Peacekeeping procurement
problems was the fault of the U.N. Department of Management.
While the Department of Management has many faults and has an equally
tarnished record within the U.N., the comments in the memo are telling
in that they reinforce the findings of several OIOS and Procurement
Task Force reports.
According to the memo, Ms. Lute failed to plan for the Darfur
peacekeeping mission which led to sole

[[Page 9884]]

source contracting despite having 18 months to prepare. The memo also
indicates Ms. Lute failed the preparedness test by not having a
logistics concept in place to embark on a logistics delivery capability
at short notice that will also meet U.N. procurement rules. Finally,
the memo states that the delays in startup of the mission were due to
Ms. Lute constantly changing mission requirements. According to the
memo, these delays ``constitute a pattern, to which oversight bodies of
the U.N. may be less charitable towards and may well find the pattern
as troubling.''
In a 2008 OIOIS Procurement Task Force report, U.N. auditors
expressed concerns that based on prior audits and investigations that
Peacekeeping Operations will face a ``higher-risk exposure to
mismanagement, fraud and corruption'' as a result of the no-bid
contract requested by Ms. Lute.\8\
It is also important to point out that almost the entire U.N. shares
concerns about what Ms. Lute did with this contract. In 2007, the U.N.
General Assembly voted 142 to 1, sadly with only the United States
dissenting, to express concern about the no-bid contract \9\
Even though Ms. Lute claimed at her hearing that she had little
responsibility in contracting decisions or oversight, she clearly had
enough influence on the process to pressure her U.N. colleagues to
accept a no-bid contract. Why would she then be unable to use this same
influence to press for controls, transparency, and accountability in
order to protect her Peacekeeping Operations from being undermined by
cost overruns, waste, and illicit behavior?
If the assessment from the U.N. official in the Management Department
is correct, Ms. Lute failed the preparedness test when it came to rapid
deployment of resources and personnel to respond to new crises.
Preparedness is what she was responsible for at U.N. Peacekeeping, and
it will be what she is responsible for at DHS.
Another indication that Ms. Lute had more responsibility for
Peacekeeping procurement than what she admitted to at her hearing was
that she publicly defended the Peacekeeping procurement fraud when it
was made public in the media. In 2007, the Washington Post published
its report on the Peacekeeping procurement fraud after the U.N. audits
were leaked. Ms. Lute chose to respond on behalf of U.N. Peacekeeping.
In her op-ed, she makes excuses for the fraud, claims there is no
pattern of abuse in peacekeeping procurement, and misrepresented the
Washington Post article in order to discredit it. She claims the
article was misleading when it said that peacekeeping ``suffered losses
in the hundreds of millions.'' In reality, the article quoted directly
from the U.N. audits saying correctly that U.N. auditors found multiple
instances of fraud that tainted $610 million worth of contracts.\10\
If Ms. Lute was truly not responsible for the massive amount of
procurement fraud, it is odd that she would then choose to represent
peacekeeping procurement and rebut this article. Even if she had no
responsibility for the mismanagement and fraud, it would have been much
more productive if Ms. Lute chose instead to use this opportunity in
her op-ed to make the case for reforming Peacekeeping operations and
procurement, offer suggestions for cutting waste, and laying out a
better preparedness plan and logistics concept. Unfortunately, we have
no record of Ms. Lute speaking out about the problems that were
undermining U.N. Peacekeeping or offering reform ideas whether at a
press conference or in a report to the U.N. Security Council.
The Procurement Task Force released a report in July of 2007
regarding its investigation of ground fuel procurement in the U.N.
peacekeeping mission to Haiti, MINUSTAH.\11\ The conclusion of the
report indicated the ground fuel procurement process was not conducted
in a fair and transparent manner resulting in bid rigging and the
awarding of the contract to a company initially ranked as ``non-
compliant.'' U.N. staff from both Procurement and Peacekeeping
Departments was responsible. This report made several findings that
reflect on Ms. Lute's performance as manager of resources and field
deployment.
For example, it reports that Ms. Lute failed to staff MINUSTAH with
experienced fuel staff that could evaluate the technical and commercial
aspects of the fuel contracting.\12\
It also illustrates that Ms. Lute failed to act on the continual
supply chain inconsistencies. The report shows that Peacekeeping staff
reported problems including the discrepancy between how much fuel was
purchased and what was actually delivered, the contractor's use of
substandard fuel tankers, and other problems. Even after the problem
had been flagged, the contract was never pulled and reassigned.\13\
Making the U.N.'s risk exposure even worse, under Ms. Lute's watch,
MINUSTAH received its fuel supply with an expired contract. The initial
fuel contract expired, and while the long-term contract was being
prepared, the poor-performing contractor continued to supply fuel to
the mission without a written contract.\14\
Ms. Lute failed to step in when poor-performing contractor was given
long-term contract despite repeated reports of inconsistent fuel supply
and poor performance measurements.\15\ Bid rigging by U.N. Peacekeeping
and Procurement staff was again to blame.\16\
Since this took place towards the end of her time managing U.N.
Peacekeeping, it is telling that, even after five years managing
Peacekeeping Operations, Ms. Lute failed to have the proper controls in
place that would prevent this from occurring or from being overlooked
so many times.
Another U.N. audit report written towards the end of Ms. Lute's time
managing Peacekeeping revealed another mission she deployed without
proper controls in place. The Procurement Task Force released an audit
in May of 2007 regarding its assessment of procurement fraud indicators
in the mission to Liberia, UMIL.\17\ The audit was designed to test
whether UNMIL had the proper controls in place to protect against fraud
and corruption.
Regarding UNMIL's requisitioning office, which is under Ms. Lute's
management, the audit found that Ms. Lute failed to initiate good
business practice and internal control principles by not limiting the
number of persons that can raise requisitions.\18\ It also found that
Ms. Lute failed to staff the requisition office with qualified staff
that could ensure specifications on the requisition are accurate. This
could lead to inefficient procurement, wasteful purchases, and loss of
funds.\19\
Ms. Lute's record responding to Peacekeeper rape and sexual
exploitation of women and children is also troubling.
For years, U.N. watchdogs, human rights groups, and now U.N. auditors
have been documenting hundreds of allegations and confirmed instances
of sexual crimes against women and small children under U.N.
peacekeeping care and protection. The perpetrators include both
military and civilian Peacekeeping personnel. Allegations of misconduct
have been made in every major Peacekeeping operation including the
Democratic Republic of Congo, Bosnia, Burundi, Cambodia, Guinea, Haiti,
Ivory Coast, Kosovo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and the Sudan.\20\
Ms. Lute was responsible for the U.N. response to and prevention of
the rape and sexual exploitation. Despite claiming a ``zero tolerance''
policy and having systems in place to help prevent this abuse, Ms.
Lute's record suggests otherwise with abuse continuing to plague
peacekeeping operations and no known prosecution and imprisonment of a
single perpetrator.
In 2004, reports first began emerging of the rampant sexual
exploitation of children at the Republic of Congo, DRC, peacekeeping
mission. According to press reports, in June 2004, U.N. Peacekeeping
managers were informed by the head of the DRC Mission that there were
initially 50 allegations of sexual abuse, 42 involving minors, but
total allegations rose to 72 in a followup report.\21\ The report
detailed acts such as the rape of a minor in a U.N. armored personnel
carrier and a prostitution network of minors at the U.N. airport.

[[Page 9885]]

The media reports indicate that the investigation done by Ms. Lute
and the other managers of U.N. Peacekeeping Operations was fatally
flawed. There was no witness protection offered to the victims which
led to witnesses being bribed or threatened to change their testimony.
Investigators were reportedly ordered to only investigate claims in one
town while ignoring the numerous claims made throughout the DRC.
It is also reported that a high-ranking Peacekeeping official for the
U.N. Mission to the DRC was sexually exploiting minors as young as 13,
and eventually 150 cases were brought against Peacekeeping soldiers and
civilians ranging from abduction and rape of minors to the finding of
more than 250 images of child pornography involving Congolese children
on the laptop of a U.N. official.
The OIOS documented in January, 2005 at least 7 cases of underage
sexual abuse committed by U.N. peacekeepers, and all but one of them
were fully substantiated.
There were also press reports of abuses in the Sudan during this same
time period. According to The Daily Telegraph, in 2005, U.N. officials
knew of the sexual abuse of children as young as 12 that began in 2005
soon after the U.N. Peacekeeping mission in Southern Sudan, UNMIS, went
to work to rebuild the region.\22\ A leaked internal report compiled by
the U.N. children's agency, UNICEF, in July 2005 referred to the sexual
exploitation perpetrated by U.N. peacekeepers, military policy, and
civilian staff. According to the paper, this report was substantiated
by a preliminary report from a leading U.N. affiliated NGO that was
unwilling to be named for political reasons.
Allegedly hundreds of children have been abused, and the Telegraph
has independently documented at least 20 victims claiming U.N.
peacekeepers and civilian staff regularly picked up young children in
U.N. vehicles and raped them.
As Under Secretary General for Field Support, Ms. Lute was
responsible for responding to this issue and implementing policies to
prevent this abuse and bring the perpetrators to justice. Sadly, even
after implementing weak reforms--such as what amounts to sexual
harassment training for peacekeepers--the abuse continued and there are
no known prosecutions or imprisonments for the perpetrators.
In 2006, U.N. investigators at the OIOS substantiated reports that
U.N. peacekeepers in Liberia had sexually abused an under-age girl and
U.N. peacekeepers in the Sudan had sexually abused four women.\23\ In
2008, the NGO Save the Children reported that peacekeepers were
sexually abusing very young children in war zones and disaster areas in
the Ivory Coast, southern Sudan, and Haiti-- and going largely
unpunished.\24\ Save the Children reports, ``Children as young as six
are trading sex with aid workers and peacekeepers in exchange for food,
money, soap and, in very few cases, luxury items such as mobile
phones.''
According to Marianne Mollman of Human Rights Watch, the current
status of the U.N. response to peacekeeping abuses continues to be
poor.\25\ Mollman describes investigations of the abuse carried out by
Ms. Lute as follows: lack of speed of investigations, lack of
transparency and follow through of investigations, and lack of breadth
of investigations.
There are other instances of illicit behavior going largely
unpunished during Ms. Lute's tenure at Peacekeeping. In 2008, Human
Rights Watch issued a letter regarding several cases where Peacekeepers
were involved in other illicit activities such as gold-smuggling and
weapons trading. In these cases, like the sexual abuse case, Human
Rights Watch reports that ``the slow process in carrying out this
investigation and the continued lack of action raises important
questions on how the U.N. investigates itself.'' \26\
When I questioned Ms. Lute about the number of victims she provided
assistance to, the budget of her victims' assistance program, the
number of perpetrators she successfully had prosecuted, and other basic
information, she responded saying she knows of no reports that track
this information. This is a disturbing answer from someone claiming to
effectively deploy victims' assistance into the field while reports on
the ground claim there are many victims that have been waiting for over
4 years but still have not received assistance from Ms. Lute. This
certainly does not sound like a policy of ``zero tolerance.''
In her response, Ms. Lute also points out that she coordinated
meetings and discussions and conferences at the U.N. regarding
Peacekeeping abuse and victims' assistance. But she cannot produce any
evidence or information illustrating she carried out the victims'
assistance programs or whether any such programs were effective.
In my questions for the Record, in order to ascertain whether or not
Ms. Lute has the qualifications to manage DHS, I asked Ms. Lute whether
she had experience managing DHS issues and activities such as border
security, immigration, port security, counterterrorism, or other DHS-
specific portfolios. In her written response, Ms. Lute claims she had
``responsibilities for border security and management where stopping
the flow of illegal arms and narcotics is a central part of the
Mission's mandate.''
It is important to point out that we have no evidence or data that
suggests Ms. Lute has been successful in this endeavor. Using the
Peacekeeping Mission to Lebanon as an example, this one mission alone
illustrates Ms. Lute's poor performance at stopping the flow of illegal
arms as Hezbollah has, on multiple occasions, successfully armed and
rearmed on the Israeli border. There are also multiple reports of
illegal arms smuggling involving Peacekeepers in Africa supplying arms
to local militias.\27\
Ms. Lute also pointed out that she operated a port in the Congo along
a river. When I questioned her at the hearing regarding her
responsibility for the abuse that took place in the Congo on her watch,
she claimed that she had little ``on the ground'' management
responsibilities. Her story changes when asked to provide her
experience and qualifications to manage DHS.
In her response to my prehearing questions, Ms. Lute indicated that
she utilized several performance indicators to determine whether or not
her programs were effective. I then asked Ms. Lute whether there is any
record of these performance measures or any reports that audit her
operations based on these indicators. Ms. Lute responded that she
``cannot recall specifically which report or which measure'' were
tracking her performance. In other words, it appears Ms. Lute has not
received specific performance reports and lacks a working knowledge of
how she performed according to those standards. I believe it is
impossible to manage what you do not measure.
Unfortunately for Ms. Lute, the entire U.N. system, including
Peacekeeping Operations, lacks even the most basic transparency or
accountability. Without transparency, we cannot discover whether or not
there is evidence that Ms. Lute, during her tenure at U.N.
Peacekeeping, was able to turn her operations around, institute
controls, make policy reforms, and whether these efforts were
successful.
Every U.N. report that we were able to receive after they were first
leaked indicates that operations under Ms. Lute's management were
undermined by fraud, waste, corruption, and mismanagement. We have no
positive record of Ms. Lute's performance measurements. Several former
U.N. officials have written letters of endorsement for Ms. Lute, but
the endorsements were based on Ms. Lute's verbal commitment to address
the waste and fraud, and none of these officials actually investigated
what Ms. Lute did in response or whether her response was effective.
I believe that Ms. Lute is unqualified and inexperienced to manage
the Department of Homeland Security. Given her record that we are able
to document, I cannot in good conscience support her nomination.

ENDNOTES

\1\ Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services
Part two: peacekeeping operations,'' U.N. Office of Internal
Oversight

[[Page 9886]]

Services, February 23, 2007 and ``Report of the Office of
Internal Oversight Services on the activities of the
Procurement Task Force for the 18-month period ended 30 June
2007,'' U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services, October
5, 2007--http://tinyurl.com/9ext17; ``Report on the
activities of the Office of Internal Oversight Services for
the period from 1 January to 31 December 2007,'' U.N. Office
of Internal Oversight Services, February 25, 2008.
\2\ OIOS, October 5, 2007, pg 16.
\3\ OIOS, February 23, 2007, pg 2.
\4\ OIOS, February 25, 2008., pg 11.
\5\ OIOS, October 5, 2007, pg 2.
\6\ OIOS, February 23, 2007, pg. 8.
\7\ OIOS, February 23, 2007, pg. 17.
\8\ Pg 9-10, ``Report on the activities of the Office of
Internal Oversight Services for the period from 1 January to
31 December 2007,'' U.N. Office of Internal Oversight
Services, February 25, 2008.
\9\ Lee, Matthew Russel, ``UN's Jane Holl Lute Admits No-
Bid Lockheed Martin Deal Caused `Confusion,' Says No Conflict
of Interest In Iraq and Afghan Overlap with Husband's Role,''
Intercity Press, February 11, 2008--http://tinyurl.com/cvycq6
\10\ Lynch, Colum, ``U.N. Finds Fraud, Mismanagement in
Peacekeeping,'' Washington Post, December 18, 2007; Lute,
Jane Holl, ``Overstating Corruption at the U.N.,'' Washington
Post, December 26, 2007.
\11\ ``Report on the Ground Fuel Procurements at
MINUSTAH,'' Report no. PTF-R010/07, OIOS, July 16, 2007.
\12\ OIOS, July 16, 2007, pg. 10.
\13\ OIOS, July 16, 2007, pg. 22.
\14\ OIOS, July 16, 2007, pg. 24.
\15\ OIOS, July 16, 2007, pg. 33.
\16\ OIOS, July 16, 2007, pg. 44.
\17\ ``Audit Report: Procurement fraud indicators in
UNMIL,'' Assignment no. AP2006/626/02, OIOS, May 21, 2007.
\18\ OIOS, May 21, 2007, pg. 2.
\19\ OIOS, May 21, 2007, pg. 3.
\20\ Schaeffer, Brett, ``United Nations Peacekeeping: The
U.S. Must Press for Reform,'' Heritage Foundation, September
18, 2008--http://tinyurl.com/brazs6
\21\ Holt, Kate and Sarah Hughes, ``UN: When peacemakers
become predators,'' The Independent, January 11, 2005
\22\ Holt, Kate and Sarah Hughes, ``U.N. Staff Accused of
Raping Children in Sudan,'' The Daily Telegraph, January 4,
2007--http://tinyurl.com/ympgtn
\23\ ``Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services
Part two: peacekeeping operations,'' Office of Internal
Oversight, February 23, 2007.
\24\ Corinna Csaky, ``No One to Turn To: The Under-
Reporting of Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by Aid
Workers and Peacekeepers,'' Save the Children, 2008--http://
tinyurl.com/cun6zb
\25\ Phone interview with and email from Marianne Mollman,
Human Rights Watch, February 2, 2008.
\26\ Roth, Kenneth and Steve Crawshaw, ``UN: Hold
Peacekeepers Accountable for Congo Smuggling: Letter to Chief
of UN Peacekeeping Urges Follow-Through,'' Human Rights
Watch, July 22, 2007--http://tinyurl.com/dj36xb
\27\ Roth, Kenneth and Steve Crawshaw, ``UN: Hold
Peacekeepers Accountable for Congo Smuggling: Letter to Chief
of UN Peacekeeping Urges Follow-Through,'' Human Rights
Watch, July 22, 2007--http://tinyurl.com/dj36xb;
``Peacekeepers sell arms to Somalis,'' BBC News, May 23,
2008--http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7417435.stm.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Jane Holl Lute to be Deputy Secretary of
Homeland Security?
The nomination was confirmed.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President
be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume
legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate was poised today to confirm
three more superbly qualified nominees to fill top leadership positions
at the Department of Justice before adjourning for the 2-week April
recess. Instead, the Republican minority has returned to the tactics of
anonymous and unaccountable holds they employed when they were in the
majority to block scores of President Clinton's nominees.
Attorney General Holder needs his leadership team in place to rebuild
and restore the Department. Tony West, President Obama's nominee to
lead the Civil Division, Lanny Breuer, nominated to head the Criminal
Division, and Christine Varney, nominated to head the Antitrust
Division, have all chosen to leave lucrative private practices to
return to Government service.
None of these are controversial nominees. They all received numerous
letters of strong support, and endorsements from both Republican and
Democratic former public officials. They were all reported out of the
Judiciary Committee last week by unanimous consent. We should be
confirming them today, not holding them hostage to the tired partisan
playbook of Senate Republicans.
Tony West knows the Department of Justice well. He served in the
Department as a Special Assistant to Deputy Attorneys General Philip
Heymann and Jamie Gorelick. He then worked as a Federal prosecutor in
the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. His
commitment to public service continued when he became a Special
Assistant Attorney General in the California Department of Justice. He
has also worked in private practice. Mr. West is a graduate of Harvard
University and Stanford University Law School, where he served as
president of the Stanford Law Review.
His nomination has earned support from both sides of the aisle. The
former chairman of the California Republican Party, George Sundheim,
sent a letter to the committee stating that Mr. West is admired by
``both sides of the aisle'' for his ``integrity, honesty and decency,''
and that there is no one ``more qualified to assume a position of
leadership in the Department of Justice.'' The Federal prosecutors who
worked across the table from Mr. West during the high-profile
prosecution of John Walker Lindh witnessed Mr. West's ``extraordinary
professionalism,'' and ``smart advocacy . . . executed with the highest
degree of integrity.'' We should be confirming this outstanding leader
for the Civil Division today.
President Obama has said that Lanny Breuer has the ``depth of
experience and integrity'' to fulfill the highest standards of the
American people and the Department of Justice. I agree. Mr. Breuer
began his legal career as an assistant district attorney in the
Manhattan District Attorney's Office. He told us during his hearing
that his commitment to ensuring justice for all Americans stemmed from
his days working on the front lines of the fight against crime as a
Manhattan prosecutor. His call to public service continued while
serving in the White House Counsel's Office as a special counsel to
President Clinton. Mr. Breuer has also worked in private practice for
the prestigious Washington, DC, law firm of Covington & Burling. He is
a graduate of Columbia Law School and Columbia University.
Michael Chertoff, who led the Criminal Division at the Department of
Justice during the Bush administration, endorsed Mr. Breuer's
nomination, saying he has ``exceptionally broad legal experience as a
former prosecutor and defense attorney'' and has ``outstanding
judgment, a keen sense of fairness, high integrity and an even
temperament.'' Brad Berenson, a veteran of the Bush administration's
White House counsel's office, writes that Mr. Breuer is ``everything
one could hope for in a leader of the Criminal Division.''
Mr. Breuer's former colleagues from the Manhattan District Attorney's
Office have said that as a criminal prosecutor, he ``distinguished
himself as a tenacious but scrupulously fair trial lawyer, driven by
the unwavering goal of achieving justice.'' Former Deputy Attorney
General Larry D. Thompson and former Congressman and DEA Administrator
Asa Hutchinson have also written to the committee in support of Mr.
Breuer's nomination. I agree with all their comments and wish the
Republican minority was not stalling confirmation of Mr. Breuer's
nomination.
Christine Varney was confirmed to be a U.S. Federal Trade
Commissioner in 1994, after being nominated by President Clinton. As a
Federal Trade Commissioner, Ms. Varney gained valuable experience in
antitrust enforcement and in reducing anticompetitive measures that
harm American consumers. Her Government service work includes a high
level position in President Clinton's White House, where she served as
an assistant to the President and secretary to the Cabinet. She has
worked in private practice for the prestigious Washington, DC, law firm
of Hogan & Hartson. She also graduated from my alma mater, the
Georgetown University Law Center.

[[Page 9887]]

Her nomination is supported by individuals who served in the
Antitrust Division during both Democratic and Republican
administrations. John Shenefield and James Rill, both former heads of
the Antitrust Division, say that she is ``extraordinarily well
qualified to lead the Antitrust Division.'' Twenty former chairs of the
American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law have described Ms.
Varney as a ``highly accomplished, capable nominee who will serve
consumers and this country with distinction'' and who will have
``immediate credibility'' in her new position.
I agree. At a time when our economy is suffering, there is a
temptation to act anticompetitively. We need to make sure that we have
a strong and effective advocate for competition and the interests of
consumers in place. Now is not the time for delay.
Republican Senators delayed for weeks the confirmation of Harvard Law
School Dean Elena Kagan to be the Solicitor General of the United
States, before demanding an extended debate on her nomination. They
have yet to consent to a time agreement on the nomination of Dawn
Johnsen to lead the critical Office of Legal Counsel. And they are now
holding up three nominations today, including the nomination of
Christine Varney to head the Antitrust Division. I am concerned that
Republican delay tactics are creating a double standard for these
highly qualified women. Republicans did not apply the same standards or
make the same demands for extensive followup information and meetings
when supporting President Bush's nominations to the same posts.
Indeed, The New York Times and Roll Call yesterday each featured
reports suggesting that Senate Republicans intend to, and are planning
to, filibuster the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to serve as the Assistant
Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice
Department. I cannot remember a time when Democratic Senators
filibustered a Justice Department nomination. Speech after speech by
Republican Senators just a few short years ago about how it would be
unconstitutional to filibuster Presidential nominees appear now to be
just speeches that served a partisan political purpose at the time.
During last week's formal installation of the Attorney General,
President Obama reminded Americans and the world that what makes our
country unique is that ``we are bound together not by a shared
bloodline or allegiance to any one leader or faith or creed, but by an
adherence to a set of ideals.'' The men and women at the Department of
Justice have a special duty to uphold the rule of law because ``laws
are only as effective, only as compassionate, [and] only as fair as
those who enforce them.''
All of the nominees we should be considering and confirming today fit
the mold described by President Obama and the best traditions of the
Department of Justice. I urge Republican Senators to reconsider their
partisan obstructionist approach and return from recess ready to end
the delays and confirm these nominees.

____________________

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume legislative
session.

____________________

ORDER OF PROCEDURE--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

Mr. REID. Mr. President, as if in executive session, I ask unanimous
consent that on Monday, April 20, at 5:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to
executive session to consider the following nominations, and that once
reported, the Senate proceed to vote as follows:
Calendar No. 34, the nomination of Tony West; Calendar No. 35, the
nomination of Lanny Breuer; Calendar No. 36, the nomination of
Christine Anne Varney.
I further ask that prior to each vote, there be 2 minutes of debate
equally divided and controlled in the usual form; and after the first
vote in this sequence, the succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes
each; that upon confirmation of the nominations, the motions to
reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc; that no further motions be
in order; that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in
the Record, as if read, the President be immediately notified of the
Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

EXECUTIVE SESSION

______

NOMINATION OF CHRISTOPHER R. HILL TO BE AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 43, the
nomination of Christopher R. Hill, to be Ambassador to Iraq.
The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Christopher R.
Hill, of Rhode Island, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of
Iraq.

Cloture Motion

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of
Christopher R. Hill, of Rhode Island, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Iraq.
Harry Reid, John F. Kerry, Richard Durbin, Charles E.
Schumer, Jon Tester, Tom Udall, Dianne Feinstein,
Edward E. Kaufman, Mark Begich, Frank R. Lautenberg,
Bill Nelson, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jack Reed, Bernard
Sanders, Christopher J. Dodd, Patty Murray, Benjamin L.
Cardin.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon
disposition of the nominations specified in a previous order for
Monday, April 20, there be 20 minutes of debate, equally divided and
controlled between the leaders or their designees prior to the cloture
vote on the Hill nomination, and that the mandatory quorum be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate
resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

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

____________________

HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES

Corporal Michael Ouellette

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I wish to express my sympathy over the
loss of Marine Cpl Michael W. Ouellette, a 29-year-old native of
Manchester, NH. Corporal Ouellette died on March 22, 2009, as a result
of injuries sustained from an improvised explosive device while on foot
patrol in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan. Another marine was
killed in the attack and two others were injured.
Corporal Ouellette graduated from Memorial High School in Manchester
in 1999. He joined the Marines in June 2005 and was trained as an
infantryman. He served two terms in Iraq, deploying there in March 2006
and again in July 2007. He began his third tour overseas when he
deployed to Afghanistan in November 2008. Ouellette was assigned to the
3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine
Expeditionary Force out of Camp Lejeune, NC.
Corporal Ouellette served with honor and distinction throughout his
highly

[[Page 9888]]

decorated military career. He received a number of awards for his duty,
including the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Combat Action Ribbon, the
Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on
Terrorism Service Medal, the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, the Iraq
Campaign Medal, and the National Defense Service Medal.
New Hampshire is proud of Corporal Oullette's service to and
sacrifice for our country. He, and the thousands of brave men and women
of the U.S. Armed Forces serving today, deserve America's highest honor
and recognition.
Corporal Ouellette is survived by his parents, Donna and Leonard
Ouellette, as well as a brother, Alan, and a sister, Stephanie. He will
be missed dearly by all those who knew him.
I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring U.S.
Marine Cpl Michael Ouellette.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart and a deep
sense of gratitude to pay tribute to Cpl Michael Ouellette of
Manchester, NH, for his service and the sacrifice he paid for his
country.
Michael exhibited willingness and enthusiasm to serve and defend his
country after visiting hurricane-ravaged New Orleans in 2005. He
subsequently joined the U.S. Marine Corps and served two tours of duty
in Iraq before deploying to Afghanistan. Tragically, on March 22, 2009,
Michael paid the ultimate sacrifice. In support of his brothers in arms
and the country he loved, Michael was killed by an improvised explosive
device in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Corporal Ouellette will live
on as a decorated hero and the epitome of a patriot.
Michael graduated from Manchester Memorial High School in 1999. A
beloved member of the Manchester community, Michael was the embodiment
of selflessness. With the same sense of altruistic integrity that led
him to help an unfamiliar and unsuspecting Memorial High classmate fix
a flat tire; Michael answered the call to help his country.
In giving his life to protect our freedoms, Michael personified our
greatest attributes as citizens. His hard work and dedication was
paramount to his unit's success and places him among the great heroes
and citizens our state has known. Michael was regularly recognized for
his courageous actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, receiving the
Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Combat Action Ribbon, the Global War on
Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service
Medal, the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, the Iraq Campaign Medal, and
the National Defense Service Medal. He will always be remembered for
his courage, kindness, and unwavering devotion.
My thoughts, condolences, and prayers go out to Michael's family. I
offer them my deepest sympathies and heartfelt thanks for Michael's
service. We will keep his memory alive knowing that his efforts have
made us safer and have preserved the liberties we enjoy every day. God
Bless Michael Ouellette.

____________________

60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President. I wish today to recognize the 60th
anniversary of the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Sixty years ago this April, NATO was created to ensure the freedom
and security of western nations in the aftermath of the Second World
War. Since then, it has evolved into the most comprehensive
international security organization the world has ever known and has
become a reliable cornerstone of America's national security.
As many of my Senate colleagues know, I was an active proponent of
NATO expansion in 1999 and again in 2004. For me, the debate over
whether to expand NATO had deep personal resonance. For many of the
countries aspiring to join NATO at that time, freedom did not come to
every nation in Europe at the end of the Second World War. For those
countries caught behind the Iron Curtain, the end of the Second World
War marked the beginning of a long struggle for freedom and democracy.
Even after the Iron Curtain fell, their freedom and security was not
ensured. For many of those countries, joining NATO in the expansion
rounds in 1999 and 2004 provided true security for the first time.
For me, growing up as a Polish American in east Baltimore, I learned
about the burning of Warsaw. I knew about the occupation of Poland by
the Nazis. I learned about the burning of Warsaw at the end of World
War II, when the Germans burned it because of the Warsaw uprising,
Soviet troops stood on the other side of the Vistula River and watched
it burn. I learned about the Katyn massacre, where Russians murdered
more than 4,000 military officers and intellectuals in the Katyn Forest
at the start of the Second World War, so there would not be an
intellectual force in Poland, ever, to lead it to democracy. I learned
that these terrible events must never be permitted again. When the
Senate voted to ratify the accession of Poland, the Czech Republic, and
Hungary into NATO, I knew that Poland could finally emerge from the
shadow of the Cold War to join the family of Western nations.
In the 60 years since it was created, NATO has been an unprecedented
success in deterring conflict and promoting peace and stability. To
remain relevant and successful in the future, NATO must keep its doors
open to those European democracies ready to bear the responsibilities,
as well as the burdens, of membership. We must all remember that for
many nations that have been occupied and oppressed over the last 100
years, NATO represents an institution that will guard against a repeat
of the despicable and inhumane practices of the old century.

____________________

LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA FROM CUBAN PATRIOTS

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to share with my colleagues a
recent letter from 17 courageous activists within Cuba who are calling
for democracy for their country. These individuals represent peaceful
local movements across the nation. They represent Cuba's future more
than the aged military elite now ruling that country alongside Raul
Castro. They are asking for the support of the United States, including
a policy that does not ``sacrifice the moral leadership of the United
States in the face of commercial temptations.''
Though Cubans have suffered oppression under the Castro regime for
more than 50 years, this is an especially appropriate time to raise
awareness of the ongoing plight of the Cuban people. In recent weeks,
the Cuban regime has tightened its grip on the reins of power and
installed hard-line military officers in top government posts.
Ironically, at a time with increasing harassment and imprisonments
taking place in Cuba, there are efforts within this Congress to adjust
U.S. policy in a way that would essentially reward the Cuban regime.
Before any Member of this body or the President considers loosening
the sanctions we have on Cuba, I commend the following letter to their
reading:
The material follows:

[Informal Translation]

Dear President Obama, Your election is a formidable symbol
of what civic determination can do to institute
transcendental social and political change. By assuming and
conducting your important Presidential duties, you honor the
millions of Americans who have fought for liberty, social
justice, civil rights and human dignity.
In Cuba, there is a movement representing a broad racial
and religious spectrum, formed by women, men, workers, and
young people that--despite being the object of terrible
repression by the regime in power--is conducting a peaceful
civic struggle for democracy and human rights.
Our movement includes the desire for CHANGE by thousands of
Cubans who have defied the repression, the intimidation and
have overcome the fear to sign their names in petitions for
constitutional reforms and academic freedom. Thousands more
have refused to join in the attacks or ``actos de repudio''
ordered by the political police against those who aspire for
peaceful political change. We are sustained by the
inspiration of the more than 1.4 million Cubans that
boycotted the elections of a single party and candidate
organized by the regime in January and February 2008. Every
day, in subtle

[[Page 9889]]

and not so subtle ways, in visible and invisible ways, the
Cuban people increasingly deny their support to the regime in
power through acts of civil disobedience.
A great majority of Cubans, including many within the
government, yearn for deep democratic changes in Cuba.
The great example of the civil rights movement in the
United States is a ray of hope that the full dignity of every
Cuban will be restored. We want to determine our future
through democratic means.
It is our understanding that your administration will
redirect the policy of the United States on Cuba and the
regime. We ask that you do not put commercial considerations
ahead of political freedom for our people. The regime's
repression has increased considerably during the last year,
and the militarization at high levels of government is a
clear signal of the government's lack of will to initiate
real changes. Today, hundreds of political prisoners languish
in terrible conditions in Castro's jails. Their only crime
has been to fight for the same freedoms that Americans such
as Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave their
lives for. Have no doubt Mr. President Obama that their fight
is our fight now.
We ask that you consider an international, multilateral
strategy that would compel the regime to open itself to its
own people by freeing the political prisoners, restoring the
civil rights of the Cuban people and organizing free
elections with international supervision. Such a policy would
reinforce and strengthen the work of many groups of Cubans
dedicated to the peaceful political change.
This movement for change seeks to peacefully and deeply
transform the political scene of Cuba.
We invite you to not sacrifice the moral leadership of the
United States in the face of commercial temptations. Your
presidency is a tribute to everything that can be conquered
when a cause is just and correct. We dedicate our lives to
the movement for the freedom of Cuba and expect--one day--to
have a democratically-elected Cuban president who would
welcome you to Havana.
Do not forget us. We need your support. We, too, ``have a
dream'' of freedom.
Attentively,
1. Jorge Luis Garcia Perez ``Antunez'', Presidio Politico
Pedro Luis Boitel
2. Nestor Rodriguez Lobaina, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes
por la Democracia, La Habana
3. Rolando Rodriguez Lobaina, Alianza Democratica Oriental,
Guantanamo
4. Idania Yanez Contreras, Coalicion Central Opositora,
Villa Clara
5. Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva, Consejo de Relatores de
Derechos Humanos, La Habana
6. Iris Perez Aguilera, Movimiento Feminista de Derecho
Civiles Rosa Parks, Villa Clara
7. Alejandro Tur Valladares, Jagua Press, Cienfuegos
8. Ana Margarita Perdigon Brito, Presidio Politico Pedro
Luis Boitel, Sancti Spiritus
9. Joaquin Cabezas de Leon, Movimiento Cubano Reflexion,
Villa Clara
10. Ricardo Pupo Sierra, Plantados hasta la Libertad y la
Democracia, Cienfuegos
11. Enyor Diaz Allen, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes por la
Democracia, Guantanamo
12. Cristian Toranzo, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes por la
Democracia, Holguin
13. Marta Diaz Rondon, Movimiento Feminista de Derecho
Civiles Rosa Parks, Holguin
14. Margarito Broche Espinosa, Consejo de Relatores de
Derechos Humanos de Cuba, Villa Clara
15. Maria de la Caridad Noa Gonzalez, Comision de Derechos
Humanos y Reconciliacion Familiar, Villa Clara
16. Virgilio Mantilla Arango, Fundacion Cubana de Derechos
Humanos, Camaguey
17. Yorledis Duvalon Gibert, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes
por la Democracia, Santiago de Cuba

____________________

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, since I last came to the floor to discuss a
proposal for a Commission of Inquiry, Americans have learned disturbing
new facts that underscore the need for such a nonpartisan review. In
the last 8 years, expansive views of Presidential authority and
misguided policies have dominated the question of how best to preserve
and protect national security. As Senators, we each take an oath to
``support and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' In the
months and years following 9/11, driven by an inflated view of
executive power, the Bush-Cheney administration compromised many of the
very laws and protections that are the heart of our democracy. Their
policies, which condoned torture, extraordinary renditions, and the
warrantless wiretapping of Americans, have left a stain on America's
reputation in the world.
In recent weeks, we have also seen a few more opinions previously
issued by the Office of Legal Counsel after 9/11 that had been kept
secret until now. I commend the new Attorney General on their release.
I have asked that more be released, and it is my hope that they will be
soon. These opinions sought to excuse policies that trample upon the
Constitution and our duly enacted legal protections. These opinions
arise from an arrogant rationale that the President can do anything he
wants to do, that the President is above the law. The last President to
make that claim was Richard Nixon. We saw the results of that policy in
Watergate. It was through efforts like the Church Committee that we
revised our laws and moved forward. In my view, it is time to do so
again.
Perhaps the most persuasive new revelation that demonstrates why we
cannot just turn the page without reading it is Mark Danner's account
of a leaked copy of a report on the treatment of detainees at
Guantanamo Bay. The report, compiled by the International Committee of
the Red Cross, is nothing short of chilling. One detainee interviewed
describes: ``Two black wooden boxes were brought into the room outside
my cell. One was tall, slightly higher than me and narrow .The other
was shorter, perhaps only [3\1/2\ feet] in height. I was taken out of
my cell and one of the interrogators wrapped a towel around my neck,
they then used it to swing me around and smash me repeatedly against
the hard walls of the room. . . . I was then put into the tall black
box for what I think was about one and a half to two hours. . . . They
put a cloth or cover over the outside of the box to cut out the light
and restrict my air supply. It was difficult to breathe.''
The report continues to describe how these men were kept naked,
shackled to a chair for weeks in freezing cold temperatures, forced
with cold water to stay awake for days on end, bombarded with loud
music, starved, and beaten over and over again. In one interview, a man
describes how he was waterboarded: He was ``dragged from the small box,
unable to walk properly and put on what looked like a hospital bed, and
strapped down very tightly with belts.'' As they poured water on him,
he said ``I struggled against the straps, trying to breathe, but it was
hopeless. I thought I was going to die.''
The report concludes that from those descriptions, this was torture.
And there is mounting evidence to suggest it was a Bush administration
policy. Media reports suggest that the CIA briefed high-level
administration officials on the interrogation plan. Vice President
Cheney admitted in an interview with ABC News that he supported the
plan that authorized these measures, including waterboarding. In fact
he continues to claim, without any basis, that the Bush
administration's interrogation tactics, including torture, were
appropriate and effective.
This past Sunday, a Washington Post article described how the
waterboarding of Abu Zubaida failed to produce any useful intelligence.
Of course, Zubaida is a detainee who many Bush administration officials
had long claimed provided useful intelligence only after he was
subjected to harsh interrogation techniques. According to Post
interviews of former senior government officials, ``not a single
significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured
confessions . . . Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh
measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from
Abu Zubaida . . . was obtained before waterboarding was introduced.''
Jack Goldsmith refers to the August 2002 ``Bybee memo'' as the
``golden shield,'' because it redefined torture in order to shield
decisionmakers from liability for these tactics. The release of related
memos is needed. Whether they end up shielding decisionmakers from
prosecution, they should not shield them from accountability.
Accountability does not only happen in a courtroom. We need to know
what was done. Transparency and accountability can help restore our
reputation around the world. Most importantly, to reestablish the trust
of the American public in their government, they deserve to know and
understand what happened.
Just last week, we heard about the Bush administration's attempt to
silence Binyam Mohammed, a British

[[Page 9890]]

citizen held for years as an enemy combatant at the detention facility
at Guantanamo Bay. He claims that he was tortured during the course of
his detention. Bush administration officials apparently demanded that
he sign a secret plea bargain which would have prohibited him from ever
suing the United States over his alleged torture in order to be sent
back to the United Kingdom. He did not and now Britain is investigating
his allegations. When asked about the involvement of a particular
British intelligence agent, Mr. Mohammed said, ``I feel very strongly
that we shouldn't scapegoat the little people. We certainly shouldn't
blame `Witness B,' he was only following orders.''
One of my concerns in proposing the Commission of Inquiry is that we
not scapegoat or punish those of lesser rank. Such a commission's
objective would be to find the truth to provide accountability for the
past. People would be invited to come forward and share their knowledge
and experiences, not for purposes of constructing criminal indictments,
but to assemble the facts, to know what happened and to make sure
mistakes are not repeated. We have had successful oversight in some
areas, but on issues including harsh interrogation tactics,
extraordinary rendition and executive override of the laws, the last
administration successfully kept many of us in the dark about what
happened and who ordered it.
One month ago, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing to explore my
proposal. A bipartisan panel of respected witnesses explained why we
need such a commission. Since that time, this idea has received a wide
range of support from people all across this country. I am not
interested in a panel comprised of partisans intent on advancing
partisan conclusions. I regret that Senate Republicans have approached
this matter to date as partisans. That was not my intent or focus.
Indeed, it will take bipartisan support in order to move this forward.
I continue to talk about this prospect with others in Congress, and
with outside groups and experts. I continue to call on Republicans to
recognize that this is not about partisan politics. It is about being
honest with ourselves as a country. We need to move forward together.
I recently heard from the Nobel Prize recipient Bishop Desmond Tutu
about this proposal. Bishop Tutu, respected throughout the world for
his efforts for peace and justice in his own country of South Africa,
offered his support for what we are trying to do.
The legacy of the last administration left us facing crises in more
areas than just the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the
worst recession since the Great Depression. There is no question that
those are all pressing issues. But we cannot ignore the failures of
government forever. We do so at our peril.
We are tackling tough issues in these difficult and uncertain times.
The Judiciary Committee has a full legislative agenda, having reported
bipartisan legislation to fight fraud, public corruption and to aid the
economy through patent reform. But the fact remains that under the most
remarkably broad expansion of executive authority in my lifetime, we
have seen policies on detention and interrogation that undermined our
values, our reputation and, many believe, our efforts to ensure
national security.
The country will need to have an honest discourse about what happened
and what went wrong. I continue to feel strongly that a Commission of
Inquiry would provide us the best nonpartisan setting in which to
undertake that study and national conversation. I think we should
proceed sooner rather than later. I am continuing to reach out and to
work on the proposal. But a conversation is not something I can
undertake unilaterally. As strongly as I feel, it will take the
cooperation and commitment of others for this proposal to serve its
intended purpose so that we can join together to move past the mistakes
of the recent past.

____________________

RECOGNIZING HOSTELLING INTERNATIONAL USA

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize
Hostelling International USA for 75 years of service to intercultural
understanding and youth travel.
Since 1934, Hostelling International USA has hosted 22 million
visitors in its 70 hostels across the country. These visitors came from
across the country and around the world. Hostels made their trips
affordable and gave them the opportunity to see more of our country. My
State of New Mexico is the proud home of 10 hostels that give visitors
the opportunity to see our beautiful landscape and experience our
unique culture.
HI-USA works because of the many volunteers who help educate
travelers, find sites for new hostels, and promote youth travel.
Please join me in celebrating 75 years of Hostelling International
USA.

____________________

DENOUNCING THE IMPRISONMENT OF MIKHAIL KHODORKOVSKY

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, last October marked the fifth anniversary
of the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former head of Yukos,
Russia's largest oil company. The Council of Europe, Freedom House, and
Amnesty International, among others, have concluded he was charged and
imprisoned in a process that did not follow the rule of law and was
politically influenced. This miscarriage of justice in 2003 is
significant because it was one of the early signs that Russia was
retreating from democratic values and the rule of law.
Last month, Russian authorities decided to go to trial with a second
set of charges first introduced in 2007 when Khodorkovsky was to become
eligible for parole. Despite credible reports that he was a model
prisoner, parole was denied on apparently flimsy and contrived
technical grounds. Yet the Russian judiciary recently saw fit to grant
parole to Colonel Yuri Budanov, who was serving a sentence for raping
and murdering a Chechen girl. I would also like to note that it was
Stanislav Markelov, a courageous attorney who was instrumental in
putting Budanov behind bars. But Budanov is now free and Markelov was
gunned down, along with Anastasia Baburova a journalist for Russia's
premier independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta, in broad daylight in
central Moscow last January. The message this sends is loud and clear
and profoundly disturbing.
Based on the observations of many independent international lawyers
and organizations, there was no compelling evidence that Khodorkovsky
or any of his associates were guilty of the crimes for which they were
originally charged or that the legal process reflected the rule of law
or international standards of justice. Even Russian officials have
acknowledged that Khodorkovsky's arrest and imprisonment were
politically motivated. As reported by the Economist, Igor Shuvalov,
First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, admitted that Khodorkovsky was
in a Siberian prison camp ``for political reasons.'' He added that
``Once you behead someone, you give a good example (to other Russian
tycoons) of how to behave.'' In other words, freedom for Russia's
businessmen is determined by the Kremlin's political expediency. As
reported by The Washington Post and the Boston Globe, Shuvalov has
called the trial and continued imprisonment of Khodorkovsky a
``showflogging'' intended to serve as an example to others on the
political consequences of challenging the Kremlin's economic ambitions.
The current charges against Khodorkovsky amount to legal hooliganism
and highlight the petty meanness of the senior government officials
behind this travesty of justice.The charges and verdicts have been
inexplicable to Russian and Western lawyers, leading international
organizations, courts, and human rights groups to condemn the trial as
politically inspired. The second set of charges against Khodorkovsky
should be dropped and the new trial should be abandoned.
I strongly support President Obama's call to reset the U.S.-Russian
relationship and welcome the statement that

[[Page 9891]]

emerged from his meeting in London with Russian President Medvedev. We
have many common interests with Russia and must seek to improve the
atmosophere and substance of our ties with Moscow. But the Helsinki
process is predicated on the idea that domestic politics and inter-
state relations are linked. I hope that President Medvedev, a trained
jurist from whom many hope to see evidence of a reformist approach,
will make that connection. The case of Mikhail Khodorsky is a good
place to start.

____________________

IDAHOANS SPEAK OUT ON HIGH ENERGY PRICES

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

Due to the price of gas, my husband might get laid off. He
shuttles the railroad employees around Idaho. At this time I
do not have a job due to being laid off from St. Al's, so gas
prices have and will continue to affect our family until
something is done about it!
Sarah.
____

In short, the fuel prices are making small farming
extremely difficult. I have been retired for seven years, and
have a small farm to help supplement our income. I have
empathy for all citizens in this fine country who are
struggling. The time is far spent; our resources need to be
utilized now. The environmental hacks and the tree huggers as
well as the nuke protestors [have caused harm to our
country]. America is hurting because of political gaming. My
grandchildren desire to see my wife and me; however, we can
no longer afford the fuel for long trips. I am thankful for
being able to plant two gardens with intentions of helping
less fortunate with food items as they struggle to make ends
meet. I have discontinued use of any recreational outings to
help stave off the discomfort of tight budgets. A sad
commentary after working and saving for over 45 years, and
this is the kind of retirement that has been foisted upon
millions of us seniors.
Ralph, Mountain Home.
____

Thank you for asking: Here is the data--I spend $85 a week
or $340 a month driving to work. I spend an equal amount for
health care; or that amounts to two paychecks in a month
leaving me and family two paychecks for food and housing.
Simple math makes one question--in whose interests are our
elected leaders working?
Floyd, Pocatello.
____

When we talk about energy, most people think of two things;
Gasoline and the power and gas for their homes. When I hear
you politicians talk about weaning ourselves off of fossil
fuels, it makes me cringe. How far are from having the
technology to produce electric engines that will fly an
airplane and what will it cost to produce them? Right now we
are at least 50 years from become free of fossil fuels unless
I am not up to speed on things, (which is possible). Let us
not forget also all the other petroleum-based products we use
in our everyday lives. Plastics, foam, etc., are all going to
still be wanted and they are also going up in price. I like
where you stand on nuclear energy, but until we can quiet the
environmental extremists on this point, we will not soon get
there. As long as this country is held hostage by special
interest environmental groups we will continue to slide
economically. I hope [conservatives have not] moved so far
left already to start curbing some of this.
My husband and I live in Oakley, which is a small farming
community located 20 miles from the nearest town of Burley.
Our farmers are getting hit extremely hard due to the cost of
diesel, which also raises the cost of shipping. We owned a
trucking company that we were forced to close due to the
rising costs of fuel. My husband is also a disabled Viet Nam
veteran and must drive to the VA hospital every week for
various treatments. That is a distance of 200 miles. Since we
are on a very small fixed income, we are soon going to be
unable to afford to pay our basic living expenses. Our
elderly parents live on the coast, and we have had to cancel
all plans to visit them this summer. Please stop this runaway
inflation. I am in favor of using domestic energy sources but
congress has been ignoring it. It will soon be too late for
most of us.
Unsigned.
____

Yes, I am spending more on gas this year. Yet, I believe we
need to put more of our government money into conservation
and alternative energies not increasing energy exploitation
in the U.S. We have the technology and the innovation as
Americans to be creative about this problem. I would love a
tax break to purchase a hybrid vehicle or a vehicle that uses
biodiesel. Please represent us well and keep our pristine,
beautiful environment in Idaho and the coastal U.S. any
further.
Jennifer, Victor.
____

My husband is a dentist and earns a good living, but we
have felt a need to curtail our usual driving habits because
of fuel prices. My husband drives a diesel pickup to and from
work and we also use it to pull our boat. He has been
considering buying a scooter/m.bike to ride because of the
high diesel price, but I really do not want him crossing busy
roads on a vehicle that is harder for another driver to see.
I have curtailed my trips to town which cuts down on my
consumerism. Not a bad idea, but it will likely be what
others are doing which is not good for the local economy. Our
own dental practice feels the crunch of conservative
spending. Our grown children that live away from this area
are cutting back on their visits. I do not like not being
able to see my grandchildren as often. Higher gas prices
limits the lifestyle of everyone. We are so spread out in
this country that it is an investment to go anywhere. Let us
get drilling!!!
Renee, Twin Falls.
____

I am in the insurance business and use my vehicle for work.
The high fuel prices are really eating into my margins and
are making it increasingly hard to stay on top of my personal
and business finances. The way I see it is we need to: First,
increase our refinery capacity. Build new refineries. Second,
increase drilling for more crude. But this will not help
until we have the refinery capacity to process it. Third
build nuclear power plants for inexpensive electricity.
Of course, all of the above are extremely difficult with
the left wing environmentalists fighting us but somehow we
have got to get it done! I am just not sure alternative fuels
are the answer because of the cost of production.
Kent, Paul.
____

I have supported you because you have always listened and
tried your best to solve the problems of all of your
constituents. Now you ask for stories about how the high
price of oil has affected Idaho families. I would like to
give you rather than a story is a solution, albeit a simple-
minded one.
As gasoline prices keep racing towards $5 per gallon, I
think it is time to rethink some of our policies. OPEC feels
it has a stranglehold on the West and continues to tighten.
Now a real simplistic approach to this problem from a purely
capitalist point of view would be to look at what goods these
countries cannot produce themselves and increase prices there
until they feel the pressure to release oil at a more
reasonable cost per barrel. You know it is supply versus
demand. Last time I checked, they cannot grow enough grain or
other food products to sustain life in that region and yet we
continue to give away everything. I know this does not breed
friendship abroad but they are not our friends anyway, they
have proved that time and again.
We also need to release all the energy alternatives that
oil companies have been withholding from this country to
continue [their] stranglehold on the United States for their
profits. This would allow us to relinquish our addiction to
foreign oil and strengthen our economy, rather than making
continually throwing money at our enemies. Then and only then
can we become the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave once
again.
Just my opinion, Thank you for your time and allowing me to
vent these ideas to you.
Jeff, Nampa.
____

My wife and I like many Idahoans and Americans are feeling
the pinch with energy costs rising. There are many issues
that attribute to the problem and I feel helpless as an
individual that any of these issues will be resolved but we
must try, we have no alternatives but to try. If I could
prioritize a list of things that I feel we should to do help
immediately relieve some of the pain, I would say do the
following in order of priority:
(1) Stop the big oil companies from getting so much profit
by putting controls on their profits and not help them get
such big profits;
(2) Use domestic energy sources;

[[Page 9892]]

(3) Nuclear power; and
(4) Renewable and alternative sources of energy.
Now the number one priority in my opinion will be the
toughest because I believe like so many other Americans that
most government officials will not allow this to happen
either because of special interest or under the table money
they are receiving from big oil companies. The problem is our
government officials are doing nothing illegal in most cases
because it is not against the law for special interest groups
to contribute to or otherwise [provide a political benefit to
their supporters]. As long as this is going on, our rising
energy problems will never be solved. We need to get this
under control otherwise the big oil companies will pillage us
Americans as long as they can.
Other obvious fixes are to use domestic energy sources and
nuclear power as much as possible. But as long as the oil
companies have free reign, our skyrocketing energy costs will
never get under control. We need to pass laws against extreme
profits and against allowing big oil companies to lobby our
Senators and Congreesman.
Dirck and Cindy.
____

Promoting the transition to a hydrogen economy (fuel cell-
powered cars) benefits Idaho in two ways: (1) It reduces our
dependence on oil and (2) It will fuel the expansion of Idaho
National Lab's nuclear research efforts. The two best
contenders to replace fossil fuels are batteries or fuel
cells. Fuel cells are more compact and better suited for
cars, but energy to charge a car battery is much more readily
available.
The Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) being developed at
INL (among other national labs) will produce hydrogen at low
cost with no carbon emissions. By promoting the growth of the
hydrogen economy, Congress will steer research in the
direction of NGNP as a replacement to current oil-derived
hydrogen.
To make hydrogen viable, the government needs to make more
hydrogen available. This means subsidizing hydrogen ``gas
stations'' in high-commuter areas and pushing the NGNP
concept through DOE funding. Idaho is a big part of the
solution, but the federal government needs to start tapping
its valuable scientific resources now.
Aaron.
____

We live in Parma. There is nothing here, a little store and
a gas station, but nothing else. To do any serious shopping
we have to go into Caldwell or Nampa or Boise, at a cost of
over $50 for one trip. We do not go shopping often and paying
for the gas makes it so expensive we have to cut down on
other purchases. We are eating a lot of beans and cornbread,
grinding our own wheat and raising a garden because I cannot
afford both fuel and food for my little family.
What's going to happen this winter? Where are the programs
for underwriting the cost of propane and natural gas? How
about helping with the purchase of wood? Have you considered
a quick program that would insulate the homes, or help
purchase new windows and doors?
There is a new solar energy development from NanoSolar that
no one will make available to homeowners. We could have solar
power for a few cents a foot on our roofs. Solar is free and
clean, unlike the deadly option like nuclear power. If we do
not know how to take care of the garbage from nuclear, then
we should not have nuclear power in the first place.
If action is not taken in a big way to save what we have
and get into renewable power, the country is not going to
survive and this winter will be deadly.
Ann, Parma.
____

I first want to thank Mike Crapo for taking an interest in
what we the people are worried about. Finally, someone in our
government that is listening to the people and their
concerns. I hope that these concerns do not fall on deaf ears
and can promise each of you if they do, you will not remain
in office long. We as Americans will not tolerate being
ignored.
I work in a hospital and help people in need every day by
using my field of expertise. (I expect the same from our
government representation.) However when I see people holding
off until they have no choice but to come in for major
medical issues because of financial concerns and when I see
many who die because they did not get help soon enough, I
feel it time for someone to stand up for them and say enough
is enough. It is time for a change.
I do not make a ton of money but know that I am in much
better shape than those who work so hard in housekeeping,
maintenance, and other lower paying areas in our hospital. I
feel the crunch pretty hard with five kids, a mortgage and
such and have tried not to drive but walk or ride my bike
when I can. However, with the winters, we have and the
distance we have to travel in our great state, this is often
not possible. So I have to drive. When I get down to a half a
tank of fuel, I fill up. Why? Well, it costs me $72 for a
half a tank of diesel and I fear that I would have a stroke
on the spot if I had to fill it from empty. That gentleman is
ridiculous! I cannot even imagine how those in lower-paying
jobs can even make it! When I go to the store and see food
prices I am again appalled at what is happening. When I buy
clothing, still again I am shocked at the staggering prices.
Everything seems to be going up but our wages. Now we do not
have the best. We do not buy name brand. We have tightened
our belt, and there was not a lot of fat to trim before that.
Then we have tightened again. There is not much more to
tighten. And I would consider us to be a family in a very
modest home, with not much in the way of extras and we have
tried to keep our debt to home and car (and never a new car).
But with the price of fuel, both for cars and home, things
are getting out of hand in a hurry. Why? Greed and power
through fear!
Here is the deal. We sit on more oil then OPEC. And yet we
have closed at least three refineries in the last ten years.
We have never been able to refine oil as cleanly and
efficiently then we can now and yet our government chooses
not to build more refineries and sink more oil wells. Supply
and demand still runs any business and yet if we were to
increase supply, we could still make a healthy profit. Enough
to pay for the refineries in a hurry and to put more research
into alternative fuels. Not to mention lower dramatically the
prices not only at the pump, but everywhere else as well. We
might even start to help replenish our failing Social
security and pay down our national debt. Business sense is
what we need in Washington. Reagan Economics that helps to
build for the future, not run our great nation further into
the ground. We do not need more taxes; we need more
initiative in Washington. We need leaders that put the
interests of the people first and the world second. We need
to use what we have while developing new technology for the
future. We need some good old fashion farm boy ``fix it''--
live within your means, balance your own checkbook logic.
Occam's Razor says that ``the simplest answer is usually the
best one''. We do not need bickering and fighting; we need
cooperation. We do not need pork bellies and hidden agendas;
we need playing well in the sandbox. We do not need
environmentalists dictating to us; we need people who look
out for the environment while utilizing in the best way we
can, the resources that we have. We need to tap into the
creative genius of a nation that has continued to wow the
world for over 200 years. We need God and we need to humble
ourselves enough to see the other person's ideas for what
they are, [accept] what we can use and build together the
nation we have had in the past. It is time to put away
selfishness and start working with each other toward a
stronger more sound America.
Remember that people cannot create and press forward when
they can hear nothing but their bellies growling and feel the
discomfort of not having their physical needs met. It is when
their physical needs are met that they can concentrate on
other higher creative thought processes.
Fuel has brought us down in a hurry of late and is a great
place to start to bring us back up. Roll up your sleeves and
get to work. Supply and demand is still what runs a business,
and it seems that we have more than enough supply of
professional politicians, saying one thing and doing another
or just plain ignoring what we the people say, each of you
know where that leads. Be the one to stand shoulder to
shoulder with those that have Americas best interest at heart
and make a change for the better. We sure do need it if we
are to survive.
Steven, Idaho Falls.
____

Thank you for giving the people the opportunity to be
involved. There is definitely a need for concern about the
energy crisis, economy and environmental impacts. These
problems are linked and have been around for a long time.
They are only going to get worse unless we take stronger
action now. There is a solution for the crisis and there
always has been. The solution is to unite the people for the
cause. ``For united we stand and divided we fall''.
The following are topics that can immediately be addressed:
(1) personal choices; (2) clean energy economy; (3) adoption
of renewables; (4) enhanced energy efficiencies; (5)
innovative leadership. Visit www.wecansolveit.org for more
details.
My story is to get involved and encourage others to get
involved! We can start with personal choices by using
products and technologies that enhance energy efficiencies
such as light bulbs, water saving and efficient toilets,
dishwashers, clothes washers, moisture controlled sprinkler
systems, biodegradable products, etc.
Fuel reformulators would increase fuel economy by as much
20% and decrease hydrocarbons in the atmosphere by at least
30%. A bridge over troubled waters? (If everyone participated
in this one, it would be like taking approximately
145,000,000 cars and trucks off the highway nationally or
175,000 in the state of Idaho alone!). Visit
www.forearthonline.com/EarthLink
Recycle materials and Vote for candidates who are for the
people, for the cause, for the earth!
Larry, Hailey.

[[Page 9893]]

____________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

______

REMEMBERING ANDREA MEAD LAWRENCE

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in
reflecting on the memory and deeds of a remarkable American, Andrea
Mead Lawrence, who passed away March 31 in the town of Mammoth Lakes in
Mono County.
Andrea was born in Vermont, where she developed a life-long love of
winter sports. At the age of 15, she participated in the 1948 Winter
Olympics in St. Moritz, Switzerland. In the 1952 Winter Olympics she
won two Gold Medals in the Olympic Special and Giant Slalom races in
Oslo, Norway. She also competed in the 1956 Olympics in Cortina
d'Ampezzo, Italy. She was inducted into the U.S. National Ski Hall of
Fame in 1958 at the age of 25. In 1960, she was the torch lighter at
the Winter Olympics in Squaw Valley, CA. She remains the only American
double-Gold Medalist in Alpine Skiing. Additional honors and her love
of winter sports continued the rest of her life.
In 1967, she moved to Mammoth Lakes in California's spectacularly
beautiful Eastern Sierra, a place that she fought to protect, for the
rest of her life. Serving 16 years on the Mono County Board of
Supervisors, she worked tirelessly to protect and restore Mono Lake and
as a member of the Great Basin Air Pollution Control District, she saw
that air pollution caused by the de-watering of Owens Lake was reduced.
She founded the Andrea Lawrence Institute for Mountains and Rivers in
2003 to work for environmental protection and economic vitality in the
region she loved so much.
Last summer, she testified before the Mono County Board of
Supervisors in favor of the Eastern Sierra Wild Heritage Act, a bill
that became law with the signature of President Barack Obama, the day
before she died. Andrea knew that this legislation to protect nearly
500,000 acres of her beloved Eastern Sierra had become law.
Andrea Mead Lawrence passed away surrounded by her children,
Cortlandt, Matthew, Dierdre, Leslie and Quentin, and leaves four
grandchildren. She was 76 years old. Andrea had a remarkable and
wonderful life and she will be sorely missed by all those who were
fortunate enough to know her. She leaves a rich legacy that will
continue to benefit present and future generations.

____________________

150TH ANNIVERSARY OF CARIBOU, MAINE

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is with pride and gratitude
that today I commemorate the 150th anniversary of Caribou, ME, which
happens to be my hometown.
The early settlers of Caribou were brave, self-reliant pioneers who
left the comfort and security of established communities behind to make
their own way in the wilderness of northern Maine. I am proud that my
ancestors, led by Samuel Wilson Collins, were among that intrepid
number, and grateful that for six generations my family has been a part
of this wonderful community.
I have great memories of growing up in Caribou, where my parents both
served as mayor, and where my brothers now run our fifth generation
family lumber business. I remember fondly starting the school year in
August so that we could take time off to pick potatoes, working at the
public library, and the fun we had going to high school basketball
teams, especially during the exciting 1969 State championship season.
But more than anything, I remember what it was like to grow up in a
place that had such a strong sense of community. We learned to care for
our friends and neighbors and to value our family members. We learned
to help those in need. And Caribou's farm and lumber roots taught us
the importance of hard work. The lessons I learned growing up in
Caribou have stayed with me my entire life and I know many others who
would say the same.
This sesquicentennial year is a time to honor those who turned a
remote settlement into a center of commerce, education, arts and
recreation. It is a time to honor the valiant young men who served in
many wars, beginning with the Civil War, and who have risen to our
Nation's defense ever since.
It is a time to honor the people of Caribou who celebrate each
others' joys and who share each others' burdens.
Mr. President, a couple of years ago, the television host and author
Larry King asked me to contribute to a book he was compiling of short
essays describing an all-important lesson the contributors learned
growing up. I was delighted by the request and had no trouble recalling
that defining moment.
One of my earliest childhood memories is of being taken to the
Caribou Memorial Day Parade by my Dad. A decorated World War II
veteran, with the modesty characteristic of all who serve our Nation in
uniform, he would hoist me onto his shoulders so I could better see the
parade. And what I was able to see was the entire street lined by the
people of Caribou, taking off their hats and putting their hands over
their hearts as our flag went by, their eyes shining with pride in
their country and with gratitude for those who serve her. A community
that joins together to honor its past and to face its future that is
Caribou. That is my hometown.
Mr. President, I am proud of what the people of Caribou, ME, have
accomplished in building a great American community. I am deeply
grateful for the many blessings that this community has given me, and
so many others.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO ADMIRAL ROBERT PEARY

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the
expedition of ADM Robert Peary and his discovery of the North Pole 100
years ago, on April 6, 1909.
While Robert Peary was born in Pennsylvania, he was educated in the
State of Maine, at Bowdoin College in Brunswick. He graduated in 1877.
He lived in Portland and Fryeburg, and built a home on Eagle Island,
which is now a State park.
A century ago, Admiral Peary and his men set sail for the North Pole
in the Maine-built SS Roosevelt. They sailed through the frigid, ice-
laden North Atlantic and froze the ship into a bay off northern
Ellesmere Island. After more than a month of dog sledging over the
moving sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean, Admiral Peary, Matthew
Henson, and four Inughuit men stood at the northernmost place on
Earth--the sea ice that marked the North Pole.
Peary's success had come after a number of previous failures and
lessons learned. Nations had competed to get there; countless men had
suffered trying to do so, and some had even perished.
The story of Robert Peary, his expeditions, and his attainment of
reaching the North Pole is a celebration of the triumph of leadership,
creativity and ingenuity.
Though traveling there has become significantly easier than it was in
1909, the North Pole remains a destination for scientists. The fact is,
however, the North Pole of today is not the same North Pole that
Admiral Peary discovered. The thick, multiyear sea ice that Admiral
Peary encountered has disappeared. In the last 30 years, the Arctic has
lost sea ice cover over an area ten times as large as the State of
Maine, and at this rate the Arctic Ocean will be ice free by 2050.
Global climate change is one of the most significant environmental
challenges facing our country, and it has renewed scientific interest
in the North Pole.
Today, visitors to the Peary-MacMillan Arctic Museum at Bowdoin
College can learn more about Admiral Peary's historic journey to the
top of the Earth. In special recognition of the 100th anniversary of
the expedition, the museum has brought together an impressive
collection of objects that were at the North Pole on April 6, 1909,
including an American flag that flew at the pole on that day, a page
from his diary where he reflects on his accomplishment, and one of his
sledges.
The people of Maine, and especially those at Bowdoin College, are
proud of

[[Page 9894]]

Robert Peary and of all of those involved in his epic journey. I am
pleased to honor the anniversary of this historic occasion.

____________________

20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE EITELJORG MUSEUM OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND
WESTERN ART

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this
opportunity to recognize a hallmark event taking place this year in
Indianapolis, IN--the 20th anniversary of the Eiteljorg Museum of
American Indians and Western Art.
The museum's facility first opened its doors on June 24, 1989, and
was one of the first cultural institutions to take residence in White
River State Park, which has in turn become a vibrant hub of
recreational and cultural activities in Indianapolis and greater
central Indiana. A popular attraction since its opening, the Eiteljorg
Museum continues to thrive. Recently, in 2005, it underwent an
important expansion that doubled its space by creating a variety of new
galleries, an education center, a cafe, and a resource center and
library.
But it is not only its facility and its existing collections that are
to be lauded, for the Eiteljorg is also actively engaged in supporting
new generations of artists and their work. This is perhaps best
highlighted through the museum's Eiteljorg Fellowship for Native
American Fine Art and its artists-in-residence program.
In honor of this year's special anniversary occasion, the museum has
planned a series of events for its patrons and the community. The
festivities officially began last month, on March 14, 2008, when the
new ``Facing West: Celebrating 20 Years of the Eiteljorg Museum''
exhibition was unveiled during a special opening day celebration.
Celebratory events will continue throughout this summer and fall,
however, and will include a lecture series, festival days at the museum
and the holding of an anniversary gala later this month.
Like so many of my fellow Hoosiers, I take pride in the Eiteljorg's
presence in our State and am thankful for its continued commitment to
its mission: ``to inspire an appreciation and understanding of the art,
history and cultures of the American West and the indigenous peoples of
North America.'' In the actualization of this mission, the Eiteljorg
has reached a wide patronage of both local residents and visitors alike
who have come to this unique and inspiring facility to take advantage
of its wonderful offerings.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO MIKE FIELD

Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I want to talk for a moment about
Mike Field, a man whose public service has done much to improve the
quality of life for people in our home State of Idaho.
Like many Western States, much of Idaho is made up of large swathes
of rural areas where it can be challenging to provide the housing,
infrastructure and economic opportunities for those residents. Having
grown up in the rural community of Grandview, Mike learned this
firsthand. Raised by loving and civic-minded parents, Oscar and
Francis, he saw the work ethic and generosity that was demonstrated
within his own family and by his neighbors. It became a foundation he
used as he built his career in extending the helping hand of the State
and Federal governments to Idahoans in our rural areas.
He started his work in this body, the U.S. Senate, where he served
under Senators Jim McClure and Larry Craig. Mike worked with fellow
Idahoans and helped them sort out their difficulties with Federal
agencies. Showing a deft touch with people, he became the Idaho State
director of USDA Rural Development and later the USDA Farm Service
Agency. In both roles, Mike naturally led and served Idaho's many
farmers and ranchers, in part based on his days growing up and working
with them. Mike then was appointed as a council member to the Northwest
Power Planning Council, where he worked to provide an infrastructure
for reliable and cost effective power that would reach many areas of
Idaho. He also dealt with natural resource issues that impacted the
livelihood of many in the rural parts of our State.
From there, he returned as the head of the USDA Rural Development
IDAHO, where he has served over the past 8 years. In that capacity he
has used his optimism and good nature to lead and motivate a team that
has brought hundreds of millions of dollars in improvements to our
State. He oversaw many positive changes in housing, drinking water and
jobs throughout our rural areas. Mike built a strong trust between the
different levels of government, tribes and agencies as he worked to
improving the quality of life for rural Idahoans.
I cannot imagine what Idaho, and particularly its rural areas, would
look like today without the efforts of Mike Field. Together, with his
wife Debbie, they have greatly improved the lives of Idahoans with
their dedicated public service.
I congratulate Mike for his many years of outstanding leadership and
service to his fellow Idahoans.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO AL SCHOCK

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Al Schock of
Sioux Falls, SD, for his years of extraordinary service to his
community as a member of the Downtown Lions Club. Mayor Dave Munson of
Sioux Falls will be recognizing his lifetime of accomplishments by
proclaiming April 14, 2009, to be Al Schock, Lion King Day.
Al Schock has been a dedicated member of the Downtown Lions Club
since 1949 and has worked to promote its humanitarian mission of
improving lives and communities around the world. He has served in
almost every capacity possible, including club president, district
governor, and member of the Lions International Board of Directors.
Since he first joined the Lions Club, he has shown tremendous
leadership by recruiting a total of over 100 new members to the
organization. He has also excelled in fundraising for the South Dakota
Lions Foundation, having sold over 50,000 tickets to community
fundraising events.
Schock has also contributed to the community of Sioux Falls through
his involvement with the Chamber of Commerce, the Sioux Falls
Development Foundation, Augustana College, the YMCA, the First Lutheran
Church, Luther Manor health care, and The Banquet. He and his brother,
Ozzie Schock, started the Shock Foundation, a nonprofit organization
that works to support local charitable organizations. Al Shock's
selfless devotion and faithful service to others and to his community
is truly commendable.
It gives me great pleasure to congratulate Al Schock for receiving
this honor, and to thank him for all his years of service to South
Dakota and our Nation.

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Mrs. Neiman, one of his secretaries.

____________________

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED

As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations and a treaty which were referred to the appropriate
committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE

______

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED

At 10:03 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker
has signed the following enrolled bill:

H.R. 1388. An act entitled ``The Edward M. Kennedy Serve
America Act, an Act to reauthorize and reform the national
service laws.''

The enrolled bill was subsequently signed by the President pro
tempore (Mr. Byrd).

[[Page 9895]]

____
At 11:58 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:

H.R. 1664. An act to amend the executive compensation
provisions of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of
2008 to prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and
compensation not based on performance standards.

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. 93. A concurrent resolution providing for a
conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives and a
conditional recess of adjournment of the Senate.

The message further announced that pursuant to section 841(b) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L. 110-181),
the Minority Leader appoints The Honorable Christopher Shays of
Connecticut to the Commission on Wartime Contracting to fill the
existing vacancy thereon.
____

At 5:06 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:

H.R. 1256. An act to protect the public health by providing
the Food and Drug Administration with certain authority to
regulate tobacco products, to amend title 5, United States
Code, to make certain modifications in the Thrift Savings
Plan, the Civil Service Retirement System, and the Federal
Employees' Retirement System, and for other purposes.

____________________

MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME

The following bill was read the first time:

____________________

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-1172. A communication from the Congressional Review
Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Import/Export User Fees'' (Docket
No. APHIS-2006-0144) received in the Office of the President
of the Senate on March 30, 2009; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-1173. A communication from the Acting Associate
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Specialty Crop Block Grant Program--Farm
Bill'' (RIN0581-AC88) received in the Office of the President
of the Senate on March 30, 2009; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-1174. A communication from the Acting Associate
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of
Southeastern California and Imported Table Grapes; Relaxation
of Handling Requirements'' ((Docket No. AMS-FV-08-0106)(FV09-
925-1 IFR)) received in the Office of the President of the
Senate on March 30, 2009; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-1175. A communication from the Director of the Policy
Issuances Division, Food Safety and Inspection Service,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Requirements for the Disposition
of Cattle that Become Non-Ambulatory Disabled Following Ante-
Mortem Inspection'', received in the Office of the President
of the Senate on March 26, 2009; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-1176. A communication from the Chairman, Federal
Financial Institutions Examination Council, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the Council's 2008 Annual Report to
Congress; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
EC-1177. A communication from the Director of the Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Exclusive
Economic Zone Off Alaska; Sablefish Managed Under the
Individual Fishing Quota Program'' (RIN0648-XN73) received in
the Office of the President of the Senate on April 2, 2009;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1178. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries Off West Coast
States; Pacific Groundfish Fishery; Amendment 15;
Correction'' (RIN0648-AW08) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on April 2, 2009; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1179. A communication from the Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Pacific
Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plan'' (RIN0648-AX44)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
April 2, 2009; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1180. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
Saugus River, Lynn, MA'' ((RIN1625-AA00)(Docket No. USCG-
2008-1026)) received in the Office of the President of the
Senate on April 1, 2009; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1181. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
Underwater Object, Massachusetts Bay, MA'' ((RIN1625-
AA00)(Docket No. USCG-2008-1272)) received in the Office of
the President of the Senate on April 1, 2009; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1182. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville; Offshore Cape
Canaveral, Florida'' ((RIN1625-AA00)(Docket No. USCG-2008-
0411)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on April 1, 2009; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1183. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Anchorage
Regulations; Port of New York'' ((RIN1625-AA01)(Docket No.
USCG-2008-0155)) received in the Office of the President of
the Senate on April 1, 2009; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1184. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Security
Zone; Coast Guard Base San Juan, San Juan Harbor, Puerto
Rico'' ((RIN1625-AA87)(Docket No. USCG-2008-0440)) received
in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 1,
2009; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1185. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
Coast Guard Air Station San Francisco Airborne Use of Force
Judgmental Training Flights'' ((RIN1625-AA00)(Docket No.
USCG-2009-0063)) received in the Office of the President of
the Senate on April 1, 2009; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1186. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
Baltimore Captain of the Port Zone'' ((RIN1625-AA00)(Docket
No. USCG-2008-0129)) received in the Office of the President
of the Senate on April 1, 2009; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1187. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
Naval Underwater Detonation; Northwest Harbor, San Clemente
Island, CA'' ((RIN1625-AA00)(Docket No. USCG-2009-0046))
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
April 1, 2009; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1188. A communication from the Project Counsel, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Consolidation of Merchant Mariner Qualification
Credentials'' ((RIN1625-AB02)(Docket No. USCG-2006-24371))
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
April 1, 2009; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1189. A communication from the Acting Director, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;

[[Page 9896]]

Final Rule To Identify the Western Great Lakes Populations of
Gray Wolves as a Distinct Population Segment and To Revise
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife'' (RIN1018-
AW41) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on April 1, 2009; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
EC-1190. A communication from the Acting Director, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to Identify
the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a
Distinct Population Segment and to Revise the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife'' (RIN1018-AW37) received
in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 1,
2009; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-1191. A communication from the Regulation Coordinator of
the Center for Medicaid and State Operations, Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Medicaid Program; Premiums and Cost
Sharing'' (RIN0938-AO47) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on March 31, 2009; to the Committee
on Finance.
EC-1192. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of
State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled
``Security-Related Assistance Provided by the United States
to the Countries of Central Asia''; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
EC-1193. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of
State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled
``United States Participation in the United Nations; A Report
by the Secretary of State to the Congress for the Year
2007''; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-1194. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of
State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to
U.S. support for Taiwan's participation as an observer at the
62nd World Health Assembly and in the work of the World
Health Organization; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-1195. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of
State, transmitting, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act,
the certification of a proposed technical assistance
agreement to include the export of technical data, defense
services, and defense articles in the amount of $50,000,000
or more with Mexico; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-1196. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of
State, transmitting, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act,
the certification of a proposed export of defense services
and defense articles in the amount of $100,000,000 or more to
Spain; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-1197. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of
State, transmitting, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act,
the certification of a proposed agreement for the export of
defense articles or defense services in the amount of
$100,000,000 or more with Japan; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
EC-1198. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of
State, transmitting, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act,
the certification of a proposed technical assistance
agreement for the export of defense articles, including
technical data, and defense services in the amount of
$100,000,000 or more to Turkey; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
EC-1199. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of
State, transmitting, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act,
the certification of a proposed technical assistance
agreement for the export of technical data, defense services,
and defense articles in the amount of $100,000,000 or more
with Italy and the United Kingdom; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
EC-1200. A communication from the Acting Director,
Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of two rules entitled ``Allocation of Assets in
Single-Employer Plans; Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-
Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing and Paying
Benefits'' (29 CFR Parts 4022 and 4044) and ``Annual
Financial and Actuarial Information Reporting; Pension
Protection Act of 2006'' (RIN1212-AB09) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on April 1, 2009; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-1201. A communication from the Acting Administrator,
Small Business Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law,
an annual report relative to the Federal Employee Anti-
Discrimination and Retaliation Act; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-1202. A communication from the Associate Attorney
General, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to
law, a report relative to agency compliance with the Freedom
of Information Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

____________________

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS

The following petition or memorial was laid before the Senate and was
referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated:

POM-16. A petition transmitted by a private citizen
relative to the Long-Term Care Security Act; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. LEVIN, from the Committee on Armed Services, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute:
S. 454. A bill to improve the organization and procedures
of the Department of Defense for the acquisition of major
weapon systems, and for other purposes.
By Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, with
amendments:
S. 515. A bill to amend title 35, United States Code, to
provide for patent reform.
By Mr. KERRY, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, with
amendments and with a preamble:
S. Con. Res. 11. A concurrent resolution condemning all
forms of anti-Semitism and reaffirming the support of
Congress for the mandate of the Special Envoy to Monitor and
Combat Anti-Semitism, and for other purposes.

____________________

EXECUTIVE REPORT OF COMMITTEE

The following executive report of a nomination was submitted:

By Mr. AKAKA for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
*W. Scott Gould, of the District of Columbia, to be Deputy
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be
confirmed subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to
requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted
committee of the Senate.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

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

By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mr. Vitter, Mrs.
Hutchison, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Lugar, Mr.
Chambliss, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Burr, and Ms.
Landrieu):
S. 781. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide for collegiate housing and infrastructure grants;
to the Committee on Finance.
By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Begich):
S. 782. A bill to provide for the establishment of the
National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 783. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act to permanently prohibit the conduct of offshore drilling
on the outer Continental Shelf in the Mid-Atlantic and North
Atlantic planning areas; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
S. 784. A bill to provide for the recognition of certain
Native communities and the settlement of certain claims under
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Begich):
S. 785. A bill to establish a grant program to encourage
retooling of entities in the timber industry in Alaska, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Inouye, and
Mr. Lieberman):
S. 786. A bill to authorize a grant program to provide for
expanded access to mainstream financial institutions; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Cardin,
Mr. Brown, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Carper, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
Durbin, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kohl, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Reed, Mr. Sanders, Mr.
Schumer, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Whitehouse,
and Mr. Wyden):
S. 787. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act to clarify the jurisdiction of the United States over
waters of the United States; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.

[[Page 9897]]

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Nelson of Florida):
S. 788. A bill to prohibit unsolicited mobile text message
spam; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 789. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct a study on the feasibility and suitability of
constructing a storage reservoir, outlet works, and a
delivery system for the Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule
River Reservation in the State of California to provide a
water supply for domestic, municipal, industrial, and
agricultural purposes, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Casey, Mr. Kohl, and
Mr. Udall of New Mexico):
S. 790. A bill to improve access to health care services in
rural, frontier, and urban underserved areas in the United
States by addressing the supply of health professionals and
the distribution of health professionals to areas of need; to
the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. BAUCUS:
S. 791. A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to
carry out programs and activities to improve highway safety;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. SANDERS:
S. 792. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
improve the National Program of Cancer Registries by
expanding data collection and allowing data sharing for
public health objectives, while preserving the
confidentiality of patients, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. BROWN:
S. 793. A bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
to establish a scholarship program for students seeking a
degree or certificate in the areas of visual impairment and
orientation and mobility; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
By Mr. BROWN:
S. 794. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
modify certain retirement pay and grade authorities for
service performed after eligibility for retirement, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Kohl, and
Ms. Snowe):
S. 795. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to enhance
the social security of the Nation by ensuring adequate
public-private infrastructure and to resolve to prevent,
detect, treat, intervene in, and prosecute elder abuse,
neglect, and exploitation, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 796. A bill to modify the requirements applicable to
locatable minerals on public domain land, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Baucus,
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Wyden, Mr.
Johnson, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Thune, Mr.
Tester, Mr. Begich, and Mr. Udall of New Mexico):
S. 797. A bill to amend the Indian Law Enforcement Reform
Act, the Indian Tribal Justice Act, the Indian Tribal Justice
Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000, and the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to improve the
prosecution of, and response to, crimes in Indian country,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Begich):
S. 798. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to permanently extend existing elective tax treatment for
Alaska Native Settlement Trusts; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Cantwell,
Mr. Cardin, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman,
Mr. Menendez, Mr. Reed, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Stabenow,
and Mr. Whitehouse):
S. 799. A bill to designate as wilderness certain Federal
portions of the red rock canyons of the Colorado Plateau and
the Great Basin Deserts in the State of Utah for the benefit
of present and future generations of people in the United
States; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Casey):
S. 800. A bill to require the President to update and
modify the website recovery.gov; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Burr, Mr. Tester, Mr.
Burris, and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 801. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
waive charges for humanitarian care provided by the
Department of Veterans Affairs to family members accompanying
veterans severely injured after September 11, 2001, as they
receive medical care from the Department and to provide
assistance to family caregivers, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. JOHNSON:
S. 802. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow Indian tribes to transfer the credit for electricity
produced from renewable resources; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr. Udall
of New Mexico):
S. 803. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide a tax credit to employers for the costs of
implementing wellness programs, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 804. A bill to amend subpart 2 of part A of title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to
establish incentives for States to extend the minimum length
of the school year to 200 full days by 2014, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor , and
Pensions.
By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Mr.
Martinez):
S. 805. A bill to provide for a comprehensive study by the
National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences
to assess the water management, needs, and conservation of
the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River System; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
S. 806. A bill to provide for the establishment,
administration, and funding of Federal Executive Boards, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. NELSON of Nebraska:
S. 807. A bill to reduce fuel prices and improve national
energy security by increasing domestic supply, reducing
excessive speculation in the markets, and promoting long-term
security through alternative energy sources, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Akaka, Mrs.
Boxer, Ms. Collins, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kerry, Ms.
Klobuchar, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Whitehouse):
S. 808. A bill to amend the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act to reauthorize the Act, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
By Mr. CASEY:
S. 809. A bill to establish a program to provide tuition
assistance to individuals who have lost their jobs as a
result of the economic downturn; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. WHITEHOUSE:
S. 810. A bill to establish 4 regional institutes as
centers of excellence for research, planning, and related
efforts to assess and prepare for the impacts of climate
change on ocean and coastal areas and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 811. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
promote mental and behavioral health services for underserved
populations; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
S. 812. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to make permanent the special rule for contributions of
qualified conservation contributions; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. BROWN (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr.
Feingold):
S. 813. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to
apply the protections of the Act to teaching and research
assistants; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
By Mr. NELSON of Florida:
S. 814. A bill to provide for the conveyance of a parcel of
land held by the Bureau of Prisons of the Department of
Justice in Miami Dade County , Florida, to facilitate the
construction of a new educational facility that includes a
secure parking area for the Bureau of Prisons, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Menendez):
S. 815. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act
to exempt surviving spouses of United States citizens from
the numerical limitations described in section 201 of such
Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Tester, Mrs.
Lincoln, and Mr. Bennett):
S. 816. A bill to preserve the rights granted under second
amendment to the Constitution in national parks and national
wildlife refuge areas; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs.
Murray, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Wyden, Mr.
Merkley, and Mr. Begich):
S. 817. A bill to establish a Salmon Stronghold Partnership
program to conserve wild Pacific salmon and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.

[[Page 9898]]

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Burr, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Hatch, and Mrs. Murray):
S. 818. A bill to reauthorize the Enhancing Education
Through Technology Act of 2001, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Casey, and Mr.
Menendez):
S. 819. A bill to provide for enhanced treatment, support,
services, and research for individuals with autism spectrum
disorders and their families; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. SANDERS:
S. 820. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
enhance the automobile assistance allowance for veterans, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. SANDERS:
S. 821. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from collecting
certain copayments from veterans who are catastrophically
disabled, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. SANDERS:
S. 822. A bill to support the recruitment and retention of
volunteer firefighters and emergency medical services
personnel, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Hatch, Ms.
Stabenow, Mr. Ensign, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Cantwell, and
Mr. Nelson of Florida):
S. 823. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow a 5-year carryback of operating losses, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Begich):
S. 824. A bill to establish a Jobs Creation Coordinator in
the Department of Commerce to ensure that agencies in the
Department use resources in a manner that maximizes the
maintenance and creation of jobs in the United States, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 825. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to restore, increase, and make permanent the exclusion from
gross income for amounts received under qualified group legal
services plans; to the Committee on Finance.
By Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 826. A bill to promote renewable energy, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Roberts, and Mr.
Leahy):
S. 827. A bill to establish a program to reunite
bondholders with matured unredeemed United States savings
bonds; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Thune, and Mr.
Johnson):
S. 828. A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to
provide loan guarantees for projects to construct renewable
fuel pipelines, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.

____________________

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:
S. Res. 98. A resolution designating each of April 15,
2009, and April 15, 2010, as ``National TEA Party Day''; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Sanders, and Mr.
Bingaman):
S. Res. 99. A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate
that the Government of Uzbekistan should immediately enforce
its existing domestic legislation and fulfill its
international commitments aimed at ending state-sponsored
forced and child labor; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. Res. 100. A resolution expressing the support of the
Senate for the establishment of an Urban Youth Sport
Initiative in partnership with the United States Olympic
Committee; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Mr. BURR (for himself and Mrs. Hagan):
S. Res. 101. A resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate on the tragic events at the Pinelake Health and Rehab
Center in Carthage, North Carolina on Sunday, March 29, 2009;
considered and agreed to.
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. Bennett):
S. Res. 102. A resolution providing for members on the part
of the Senate of the Joint Committee on Printing and the
Joint Committee of Congress on the Library; considered and
agreed to.
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. McConnell):
S. Res. 103. A resolution to authorize testimony and
document production in Richard Bowen v. Department of the
Navy (MSPB); considered and agreed to.
By Mrs. GILLIBRAND (for herself and Mr. Specter):
S. Con. Res. 17. A concurrent resolution authorizing the
use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for
the unveiling of a bust of Sojourner Truth; to the Committee
on Rules and Administration.

____________________

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 27

At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Conrad) was added as a cosponsor of S. 27, a bill to
establish the Daniel Webster Congressional Clerkship Program.

S. 266

At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the name of the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. Begich) was added as a cosponsor of S. 266, a bill to amend
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to reduce the coverage gap in
prescription drug coverage under part D of such title based on savings
to the Medicare program resulting from the negotiation of prescription
drug prices.

S. 306

At the request of Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, the name of the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 306, a bill
to promote biogas production, and for other purposes.

S. 343

At the request of Mrs. Lincoln, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Tester) was added as a cosponsor of S. 343, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for Medicare coverage
services of qualified respiratory therapists performed under the
general supervision of a physician.

S. 384

At the request of Mr. Lugar, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 384, a bill to
authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to provide
assistance to foreign countries to promote food security, to stimulate
rural economies, and to improve emergency response to food crises, to
amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and for other purposes.

S. 423

At the request of Mr. Akaka, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Ms. Mikulski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 423, a bill to amend
title 38, United States Code, to authorize advance appropriations for
certain medical care accounts of the Department of Veterans Affairs by
providing two-fiscal year budget authority, and for other purposes.

S. 442

At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Tester) was added as a cosponsor of S. 442, a bill to impose a
limitation on lifetime aggregate limits imposed by health plans.

S. 454

At the request of Mr. Levin, the names of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Nelson) and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Udall) were added as
cosponsors of S. 454, a bill to improve the organization and procedures
of the Department of Defense for the acquisition of major weapon
systems, and for other purposes.

S. 467

At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of S. 467, a bill to amend the
National and Community Service Act of 1990 to establish Encore Service
Programs, Encore Fellowship Programs, and Silver Scholarship Programs,
and for other purposes.

S. 469

At the request of Mr. Voinovich, the name of the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Burris) was added as a cosponsor of S. 469, a bill to
amend chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code, to modify the
computation for part-time service under the Civil Service Retirement
System.

S. 475

At the request of Mr. Burr, the names of the Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. Wicker) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) were added as
cosponsors of S. 475, a bill to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act to

[[Page 9899]]

guarantee the equity of spouses of military personnel with regard to
matters of residency, and for other purposes.

S. 484

At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Mr. Begich) was added as a cosponsor of S. 484, a bill to amend title
II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension offset
and windfall elimination provisions.

S. 514

At the request of Mr. Akaka, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Burris) was added as a cosponsor of S. 514, a bill to amend title
38, United States Code, to enhance vocational rehabilitation benefits
for veterans, and for other purposes.

S. 515

At the request of Mr. Leahy, the names of the Senator from Minnesota
(Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) and the Senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein) were added as cosponsors of S. 515, a bill to amend title
35, United States Code, to provide for patent reform.

S. 534

At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the name of the Senator from
Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of S. 534, a bill to
amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to reduce cost-sharing
under part D of such title for certain non-institutionalized full-
benefit dual eligible individuals.

S. 535

At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the name of the Senator from
New Mexico (Mr. Udall) was added as a cosponsor of S. 535, a bill to
amend title 10, United States Code, to repeal requirement for reduction
of survivor annuities under the Survivor Benefit Plan by veterans'
dependency and indemnity compensation, and for other purposes.

S. 546

At the request of Mr. Reid, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Harkin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 546, a bill to amend title 10,
United States Code, to permit certain retired members of the uniformed
services who have a service-connected disability to receive both
disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs for
their disability and either retired pay by reason of their years of
military service or Combat-Related Special Compensation.

S. 584

At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 584, a bill
to ensure that all users of the transportation system, including
pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, children, older individuals,
and individuals with disabilities, are able to travel safely and
conveniently on and across federally funded streets and highways.

S. 599

At the request of Mr. Carper, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Ms. Landrieu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 599, a bill to amend
chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to create a presumption that
a disability or death of a Federal employee in fire protection
activities caused by any certain diseases is the result of the
performance of such employee's duty.

S. 605

At the request of Mr. Kaufman, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 605, a bill
to require the Securities and Exchange Commission to reinstate the
uptick rule and effectively regulate abusive short selling activities.

S. 614

At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, the name of the Senator from Kansas
(Mr. Brownback) was added as a cosponsor of S. 614, a bill to award a
Congressional Gold Medal to the Women Airforce Service Pilots
(``WASP'').

S. 622

At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from
Arizona (Mr. Kyl) was added as a cosponsor of S. 622, a bill to ensure
parity between the temporary duty imposed on ethanol and tax credits
provided on ethanol.

S. 633

At the request of Mr. Tester, the name of the Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. Udall) was added as a cosponsor of S. 633, a bill to establish a
program for tribal colleges and universities within the Department of
Health and Human Services and to amend the Native American Programs Act
of 1974 to authorize the provision of grants and cooperative agreements
to tribal colleges and universities, and for other purposes.

S. 661

At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the names of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin)
were added as cosponsors of S. 661, a bill to strengthen American
manufacturing through improved industrial energy efficiency, and for
other purposes.

S. 663

At the request of Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, the name of the Senator
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) was added as a cosponsor of S. 663, a
bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to establish the Merchant Mariner Equity Compensation
Fund to provide benefits to certain individuals who served in the
United States merchant marine (including the Army Transport Service and
the Naval Transport Service) during World War II.

S. 729

At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mr. Schumer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 729, a bill to amend the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to
permit States to determine State residency for higher education
purposes and to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment of
status of certain alien students who are long-term United States
residents and who entered the United States as children, and for other
purposes.

S. 731

At the request of Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, the name of the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) was added as a cosponsor of S. 731, a bill
to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for continuity of
TRICARE Standard coverage for certain members of the Retired Reserve.

S. 753

At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 753, a bill to
prohibit the manufacture, sale, or distribution in commerce of
children's food and beverage containers composed of bisphenol A, and
for other purposes.

S. 773

At the request of Mr. Bayh, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
773, a bill to ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the
United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber
communications, to provide for the continued development and
exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such
purposes, to provide for the development of a cadre of information
technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cybersecurity
defenses against disruption, and for other purposes.

S. 778

At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the name of the Senator from
Indiana (Mr. Bayh) was added as a cosponsor of S. 778, a bill to
establish, within the Executive Office of the President, the Office of
National Cybersecurity Advisor.

S. 780

At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the names of the Senator
from Indiana (Mr. Lugar), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez)
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) were added as cosponsors
of S. 780, a bill to amend the Andean Trade Preference Act to add
Paraguay to the list of countries that are eligible to be designated as
beneficiary countries and ATPDEA beneficiary countries.

S. RES. 72

At the request of Mr. Menendez, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Burris) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 72, a resolution
expressing the

[[Page 9900]]

sense of the Senate regarding drug trafficking in Mexico.

S. RES. 92

At the request of Mr. Menendez, the names of the Senator from
Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) were added as cosponsors of S. Res. 92, a resolution
honoring the accomplishments and legacy of Cesar Estrada Chavez.

AMENDMENT NO. 742

At the request of Mr. Inhofe, the names of the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Akaka), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski) were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 742 proposed to S.
Con. Res. 13, an original concurrent resolution setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 755

At the request of Mr. Casey, the names of the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. Bayh) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso) were added as
cosponsors of amendment No. 755 proposed to S. Con. Res. 13, an
original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget
for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 764

At the request of Mr. Carper, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Coburn) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 764 proposed to
S. Con. Res. 13, an original concurrent resolution setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 765

At the request of Mr. Barrasso, the names of the Senator from
Nebraska (Mr. Johanns) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune)
were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 765 proposed to S. Con. Res.
13, an original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting
forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through
2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 784

At the request of Mr. Johanns, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 784 intended to be proposed to S. Con. Res. 13, an
original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget
for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 785

At the request of Mr. Johanns, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 785 intended to be proposed to S. Con. Res. 13, an
original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget
for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 786

At the request of Mr. Johanns, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 786 intended to be proposed to S. Con. Res. 13, an
original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget
for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 787

At the request of Mr. Vitter, the name of the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Bennett) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 787 proposed to S.
Con. Res. 13, an original concurrent resolution setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 792

At the request of Mr. Alexander, the names of the Senator from Texas
(Mr. Cornyn) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) were added
as cosponsors of amendment No. 792 proposed to S. Con. Res. 13, an
original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget
for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 799

At the request of Mr. Johanns, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 799 proposed to S. Con. Res. 13, an original concurrent
resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014.
At the request of Mr. Bennet, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Tester) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 799 proposed to
S. Con. Res. 13, supra.

AMENDMENT NO. 803

At the request of Mr. Johanns, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 803 proposed to S. Con. Res. 13, an original concurrent
resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 808

At the request of Mr. Brown, the names of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer)
were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 808 proposed to S. Con. Res.
13, an original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting
forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through
2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 810

At the request of Mr. Brown, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 810 proposed to S.
Con. Res. 13, an original concurrent resolution setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 819

At the request of Mr. Johanns, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 819 proposed to S. Con. Res. 13, an original concurrent
resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 821

At the request of Mr. Enzi, the name of the Senator from Wyoming (Mr.
Barrasso) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 821 intended to be
proposed to S. Con. Res. 13, an original concurrent resolution setting
forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal
year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 825

At the request of Mr. Enzi, the name of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Johanns) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 825 intended to
be proposed to S. Con. Res. 13, an original concurrent resolution
setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government
for fiscal year 2010,

[[Page 9901]]

revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and
setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011
through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 838

At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the names of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Kaufman) were added
as cosponsors of amendment No. 838 proposed to S. Con. Res. 13, an
original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget
for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 841

At the request of Ms. Murkowski, the names of the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Bingaman) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar)
were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 841 proposed to S. Con. Res.
13, an original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting
forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through
2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 843

At the request of Mr. Johanns, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 843 intended to be proposed to S. Con. Res. 13, an
original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget
for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 852

At the request of Mr. Johanns, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 852 intended to be proposed to S. Con. Res. 13, an
original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget
for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 864

At the request of Mr. Ensign, the name of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Johanns) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 864 intended to
be proposed to S. Con. Res. 13, an original concurrent resolution
setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government
for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels
for fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 870

At the request of Mr. Thune, the name of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Bennet) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 870 proposed to
S. Con. Res. 13, an original concurrent resolution setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 872

At the request of Mr. Dodd, the names of the Senator from New York
(Mr. Schumer), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the Senator
from Delaware (Mr. Kaufman) were added as cosponsors of amendment No.
872 proposed to S. Con. Res. 13, an original concurrent resolution
setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government
for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels
for fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 873

At the request of Mrs. Lincoln, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Thune) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 873
proposed to S. Con. Res. 13, an original concurrent resolution setting
forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal
year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 875

At the request of Mr. Sanders, the name of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. Bunning) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 875 proposed to
S. Con. Res. 13, an original concurrent resolution setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 876

At the request of Mrs. Lincoln, the names of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) and the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu)
were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 876 proposed to S. Con. Res.
13, an original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting
forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through
2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 881

At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 881 proposed
to S. Con. Res. 13, an original concurrent resolution setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 890

At the request of Mr. Barrasso, the name of the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. Crapo) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 890 proposed to
S. Con. Res. 13, an original concurrent resolution setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 904

At the request of Mr. Lieberman, the names of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Thune), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich) and the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) were added as cosponsors of
amendment No. 904 proposed to S. Con. Res. 13, an original concurrent
resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 905

At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. Bond) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 905 intended to be
proposed to S. Con. Res. 13, an original concurrent resolution setting
forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal
year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 916

At the request of Mr. Tester, the names of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall)
were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 916 proposed to S. Con. Res.
13, an original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting
forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through
2014.

AMENDMENT NO. 920

At the request of Mr. Menendez, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 920 intended to
be proposed to S. Con. Res. 13, an original concurrent resolution
setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government
for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels
for fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

[[Page 9902]]

AMENDMENT NO. 921

At the request of Mr. Menendez, the names of the Senator from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg)
were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 921 proposed to S. Con. Res.
13, an original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting
forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through
2014.

____________________

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
S. 784. A bill to provide for the recognition of certain Native
communities and the settlement of certain claims under the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to allow
five Southeast Alaska communities to finally be allowed to form urban
corporations under the terms of 1971's Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act, the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition
and Compensation Act.
At the very beginning of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of
1971 there are a series of findings and declarations of congressional
policy that explain the underpinnings of this landmark legislation.
The first clause reads, ``There is an immediate need for a fair and
just settlement of all claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska,
based on aboriginal land claims.'' The second clause states, ``The
settlement should be accomplished rapidly, with certainty, in
conformity with the real economic and social needs of Natives.''
Mr. President, 37, going on 38, years have passed since the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act became law and still the Native peoples of
five communities in Southeast Alaska--Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg,
Tenakee and Haines--the five ``landless communities'' are still waiting
for their fair and just settlement.
The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act awarded $966 million and 44
million acres of land to Alaska Natives and provided for the
establishment of Native Corporations to receive and manage such funds
and lands. The beneficiaries of the settlement were issued stock in one
of 13 regional Alaska Native corporations--12 based in Alaska. Most
beneficiaries also had the option to enroll and receive stock in a
village, group or urban corporation.
For reasons that still defy clear explanation the Native peoples of
the ``landless communities,'' were not permitted by the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act to form village or urban corporations. These
communities were excluded from this benefit even though they did not
differ significantly from other communities in Southeast Alaska that
were permitted to form village or urban corporations under the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act. For example, Ketchikan had more Native
residents in 1970, the year of a member census, than Juneau, which was
permitted to form the Goldbelt urban corporation. This finding was
confirmed in a February 1994 report submitted by the Secretary of the
Interior at the direction of the Congress. That study was conducted by
the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of
Alaska.
The Native people of Southeast Alaska have recognized the injustice
of this oversight for more than 34 years. An independent study issued
more than 12 years ago confirms that the grievance of the landless
communities is legitimate. Legislation has been introduced in the past
sessions of Congress to remedy this injustice. Hearings have been held
and reports written. Yet legislation to right the wrong has inevitably
stalled out. This December marks the 38th anniversary of Congress'
promise to the Native peoples of Alaska, the promise of a rapid and
certain settlement. And still the landless communities of Southeast
Alaska are landless.
I am convinced that this cause is just, it is right, and it is about
time that the Native peoples of the five landless communities receive
what has been denied them for so long.
The legislation that I am introducing today would enable the Native
peoples of the five ``landless communities'' to organize five ``urban
corporations,'' one for each unrecognized community. These newly formed
corporations would be offered and could accept the surface estate to
23,040 acres of land--one township as granted all other village
corporations. Sealaska Corporation, the regional Alaska Native
Corporation for Southeast Alaska, would receive title to the subsurface
estate to the designated lands. The urban corporations would each
receive a lump sum payment to be used as start-up funds for the newly
established corporation. The Secretary of the Interior would determine
other appropriate compensation to redress the inequities faced by the
unrecognized communities.
It is long past time that we return to the Native peoples of
Southeast Alaska a small slice of the aboriginal lands that were once
theirs alone. It is time that we open our minds and open our hearts to
correcting this injustice that has gone on far too long and finally
give the Native peoples of Southeast Alaska the rapid and certain
settlement for which they have been waiting.
______

By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Begich):
S. 785. A bill to establish a grant program to encourage retooling of
entities in the timber industry in Alaska, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill that I
have introduced, the Southeast Alaska Timber Industry Retooling and
Restructuring Act, which is intended to stimulate employment in
Southeast Alaska, by helping firms that have focused on the region's
timber industry to modernize or branch out into new industries.
In 1954, the US Department of Agriculture encouraged the development
of a sawmill and pulp mill timber industry in the Tongass National
Forest in Southeast Alaska, which at 16.98 million acres is the largest
national forest in America. From the startup of the pulp mills in
Ketchikan and in Sitka in 1961 to passage of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980, the Tongass was producing
about 600 million board feet of timber a year, generating 3,500 direct
and 2,500 indirect jobs and providing the largest number of year-round
jobs in the region.
But following passage of ANILCA that created 14 wilderness areas
covering about 4.9 million acres and the follow up Tongass Timber
Reform Act of 1990 that placed another 727,762 acres into protected
non-roaded status and created another 12 wilderness areas containing
300,000 acres, the timber harvest and thus timber industry-related
employment plummeted in the region--an area nearly the size of Maine.
While the two pulp mills closed in the mid 1990's, sawmills have tried
to survive on the then anticipated 268 mmbf of allowable timber
harvest. But a litany of Federal forest policy changes from the
Clinton-era roadless policy, to changes in Forest Service sale and road
policies, to sale delays caused by litigation have resulted in harvest
levels falling to 28 million board feet from Federal lands and less
than 50 million from private lands in 2008. That harvest level is far
below the 192 mmbf reached in 2006 and about half of the 144 mmbf of
2007. Recent years have been drastically down from the 495 million
board feet harvested from all lands as recently as 1997.
Year round timber employment, according to U.S. Forest Service in
2007, the last year of current full data, was 402 jobs, just 13 percent
of the employment of a decade earlier. The impacts on the region's
economy have been clearly documented. According to a report by The
McDowell Group consultants, total timber-related payroll in 2007 hit
just $17 million, compared to $300 million in 1990. Currently,
according to the State of Alaska, unemployment in December 2008 has
reached 16.5 percent on Prince of Wales Island, the resource base for
traditional southern

[[Page 9903]]

timber operations, and 24.6 percent in the Hoonah and Angoon area, the
former resource base for central timber operations--three times the
rising national average.
This bill is a measure that calls on the Federal Government to
finally acknowledge its role in the reduction of economic activity in
the region. By the act, the Government would on a one-time basis, allow
the Secretary of Agriculture to provide grants to allow existing timber
facilities to retool either to adopt new timber production practices
that can operate profitably on far smaller harvests or to convert
timber plants to totally new types of manufacturing/business
operations, leaving timber-dependent work. Firms--sawmills, logging
companies and road construction companies involved in timber work for
at least a decade--that seek funding for ``retooling projects'' must
submit business plans and demonstrate the likelihood of success. More
importantly they must commit to the ``extent practicable'' to continue
to employ substantially the same number of employees for a
``reasonable'' period after completion of a retooling project. To limit
the impact of the aid, grants may only go to businesses hat operated in
the Tongass for not less than 10 years prior to Jan. 1, 2009. The
program sunsets within 2 years with the maximum authorization of aid
being $40 million subject to appropriation.
The bill would allow companies that used to build Forest Service
timber roads, for example, to buy more appropriate equipment to bid on
Federal highway work and water and sewer line work. It could help firms
move into sand and gravel operations. It could allow sawmills with
water access to be converted to marine repair facilities or into wood
treatment plants. And it might allow some mills to convert to higher
value-added products requiring less raw materials, like door and window
sash manufacturing.
The changes would ease environmental pressures on timber stands,
while aiding the economy by helping to replace the former year-round
jobs in a region now nearly solely dependent on fishing and tourism
income, besides government-sector spending, for employment. In a region
where non-government jobs are precious, it could stimulate job
retention and help create new employment. At a time when Congress is
contemplating spending nearly $1 trillion to stimulate employment, this
measure is a reasonable expenditure to help potentially transition
employees to 21st century jobs. The Federal Government was the leading
advocate for the establishment of a pulp-timber industry in the region
following World War II. It is more than fitting that it provide more
assistance to help the region transition to a new era of reduced timber
harvests--an era prompted by major environmental legislation that this
Congress passed in 1980 and 1990 that is largely responsible for the
sharp drop in timber harvests. I hope this body will give fair and
swift consideration to this measure.
______

By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Inouye, and Mr.
Lieberman):
S. 786. A bill to authorize a grant program to provide for expanded
access to mainstream financial institutions; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Improving
Access to Mainstream Financial Institutions Act of 2009. This bill
provides economic empowerment and educational opportunities for working
families by helping bank the unbanked and increasing access to
financial literacy opportunities. It will also encourage the use of
mainstream financial institutions for working families that need small
loans. I thank my cosponsors, Senators Schumer, Inouye, and Lieberman.
Too many Americans lack basic financial literacy. Americans of all
ages and backgrounds face increasingly complex financial decisions as
members of the nation's workforce, managers of their families'
resources, and voting citizens. Many find these decisions confusing and
frustrating because they lack the tools necessary that would enable
them to make wise, personal choices about their finances.
Without a sufficient understanding of economics and personal finance,
individuals will not be able to appropriately manage their finances,
effectively evaluate credit opportunities, successfully invest for
long-term financial goals in an increasingly complex marketplace, or be
able to cope with difficult financial situations. Unfortunately, today
too many working families are struggling as they are confronted with
increases in energy and food costs or the loss of a job.
We must work toward improving education, consumer protections, and
empowering individuals and families through economic and financial
literacy in order to build stronger families, businesses, and
communities. The bill that I am introducing today would help to
educate, empower and protect consumers.
Millions of working families do not have a bank or credit union
account. The unbanked rely on alternative financial service providers
to obtain cash from checks, pay bills, and send remittances. Many of
the unbanked are low- and moderate-income families that can ill afford
to have their earnings diminished by reliance on these high-cost and
often predatory financial services. Among those families who make up
the bottom 20 percent of earners, one in four does not have a
transaction account according to the Federal Reserve's Survey of
Consumer Finances. Indeed, the unbanked are often among the most
vulnerable. More than 15 percent of families headed by a single parent
are unbanked. The unbanked are unable to save securely to prepare for
the loss of a job, a family illness, a down payment on a first home, or
education expenses making it difficult for these individuals to better
their finances.
My bill authorizes grants intended to help low- and moderate-income
unbanked individuals establish bank or credit union accounts. Providing
access to a bank or credit union account can empower families with
tremendous financial opportunities. An account at a bank or credit
union provides consumers with alternatives to rapid refund loans, check
cashing services, and high cost remittances. In addition, bank and
credit union accounts provide access to saving and borrowing services.
Low- and moderate-income individuals are often challenged with a
number of barriers that limit their ability to open and maintain
accounts. Regular checking accounts may be too costly for some
consumers unable to maintain minimum balances or unable to afford
monthly fees. Poor credit histories may also hinder their ability to
open accounts. By providing Federal resources for product development,
administration, outreach, and financial education, banks and credit
unions will be better able to reach out and bank the unbanked.
The second grant program authorized by my legislation provides
consumers with a lower cost, short term alternative to payday loans.
More needs to be done to encourage mainstream financial service
providers to develop affordable small loan products. My legislation
will help support the development of affordable credit products at bank
and credit unions. Working families would be better off by going to
their credit unions and banks, mainstream financial services providers,
than payday loan shops. Payday loans are cash loans repaid by
borrowers' postdated checks or borrowers' authorizations to make
electronic debits against existing financial accounts. Payday loans
often have triple digit interest rates that range from 390 percent to
780 percent when expressed as an annual percentage rate. Loan flipping,
which is a common practice, is the renewing of loans at maturity by
paying additional fees without any principal reduction. Loan flipping
often leads to instances where the fees paid for a payday loan well
exceed the principal borrowed. This situation often creates a cycle of
debt that is hard to break.
There is a great need for working families to have access to
affordable small loans. My legislation would encourage banks and credit
unions to develop payday loan alternatives. Consumers who apply for
these loans would

[[Page 9904]]

be provided with financial literacy and educational opportunities.
Loans extended to consumers under the grant would be subject to the
annual percentage rate promulgated by the National Credit Union
Administration's, Loan Interest Rates. Several credit unions have
developed similar products.
I will work to enact this legislation so vital to empowering our
citizens. In our current, modern, complex economy, not having a bank or
credit union account severely hinders the ability of families to
improve their financial condition or help them navigate difficult
financial circumstances. Instead of borrowing money from payday lenders
at outrageous fees, we need to encourage people to utilize their credit
unions and banks for affordable small loans. Banks and credit unions
have the ability to make the lives of working families better by
helping them save,
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. 786

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Improving Access to
Mainstream Financial Institutions Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Alaska native corporation.--The term ``Alaska Native
Corporation'' has the same meaning as the term ``Native
Corporation'' under section 3(m) of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602(m)).
(2) Community development financial institution.--The term
``community development financial institution'' has the same
meaning as in section 103(5) of the Community Development
Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C.
4702(5)).
(3) Federally insured depository institution.--The term
``federally insured depository institution'' means any
insured depository institution (as that term is defined in
section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.
1813)) and any insured credit union (as that term is defined
in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C.
1752)).
(4) Labor organization.--The term ``labor organization''
means an organization--
(A) in which employees participate;
(B) which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of
dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of
work; and
(C) which is described in section 501(c)(5) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
(5) Native hawaiian organization.--The term ``Native
Hawaiian organization'' means any organization that--
(A) serves and represents the interests of Native
Hawaiians; and
(B) has as a primary and stated purpose, the provision of
services to Native Hawaiians.
(6) Payday loan.--The term ``payday loan'' means any
transaction in which a small cash advance is made to a
consumer in exchange for--
(A) the personal check or share draft of the consumer, in
the amount of the advance plus a fee, where presentment or
negotiation of such check or share draft is deferred by
agreement of the parties until a designated future date; or
(B) the authorization of the consumer to debit the
transaction account or share draft account of the consumer,
in the amount of the advance plus a fee, where such account
will be debited on or after a designated future date.
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Treasury.
(8) Tribal organization.--The term ``tribal organization''
has the same meaning as in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).

SEC. 3. EXPANDED ACCESS TO MAINSTREAM FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

(a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary is authorized
to award grants, including multi-year grants, to eligible
entities to establish an account in a federally insured
depository institution for low- and moderate-income
individuals that currently do not have such an account.
(b) Eligible Entities.--An entity is eligible to receive a
grant under this section, if such an entity is--
(1) an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and is exempt from taxation
under section 501(a) of such Code;
(2) a federally insured depository institution;
(3) an agency of a State or local government;
(4) a community development financial institution;
(5) an Indian tribal organization;
(6) an Alaska Native Corporation;
(7) a Native Hawaiian organization;
(8) a labor organization; or
(9) a partnership comprised of 1 or more of the entities
described in the preceding subparagraphs.
(c) Evaluation and Reports to Congress.--For each fiscal
year in which a grant is awarded under this section, the
Secretary shall submit a report to Congress containing a
description of the activities funded, amounts distributed,
and measurable results, as appropriate and available.

SEC. 4. LOW COST ALTERNATIVES TO PAYDAY LOANS.

(a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary is authorized
to award demonstration project grants (including multi-year
grants) to eligible entities to provide low-cost, small loans
to consumers that will provide alternatives to more costly,
predatory payday loans.
(b) Eligible Entities.--An entity is eligible to receive a
grant under this section if such an entity is--
(1) an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under
section 501(a) of such Code;
(2) a federally insured depository institution;
(3) a community development financial institution; or
(4) a partnership comprised of 1 or more of the entities
described in paragraphs (1) through (3).
(c) Terms and Conditions.--
(1) Percentage rate.--For purposes of this section, an
eligible entity that is a federally insured depository
institution shall be subject to the annual percentage rate
promulgated by the National Credit Union Administration's
Loan Interest Rates under part 701 of title 12, Code of
Federal Regulations (or any successor thereto), in connection
with a loan provided to a consumer pursuant to this section.
(2) Financial literacy and education opportunities.--Each
eligible entity awarded a grant under this section shall
offer financial literacy and education opportunities, such as
relevant counseling services or educational courses, to each
consumer provided with a loan pursuant to this section.
(d) Evaluation and Reports to Congress.--For each fiscal
year in which a grant is awarded under this section, the
Secretary shall submit a report to Congress containing a
description of the activities funded, amounts distributed,
and measurable results, as appropriate and available.

SEC. 5. PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS.

(a) Applications.--A person desiring a grant under section
3 or 4 shall submit an application to the Secretary, in such
form and containing such information as the Secretary may
require.
(b) Limitation on Administrative Costs.--A recipient of a
grant under section 3 or 4 may use not more than 6 percent of
the total amount of such grant in any fiscal year for the
administrative costs of carrying out the programs funded by
such grant in such fiscal year.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary,
such sums as are necessary to carry out the grant programs
authorized by this Act, to remain available until expended.

SEC. 7. REGULATIONS.

The Secretary is authorized to promulgate regulations to
implement and administer the grant programs authorized by
this Act.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Brown,
Ms. Cantwell. Mr. Carper, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Durbin, Mrs.
Gillibrand, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Sanders, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Stabenow, Mr.
Whitehouse, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 787. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
clarify the jurisdiction of the United States over waters of the United
States; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
restore Clean Water Act protections for the same waters that were
covered by the Act prior to two recent divisive U.S. Supreme Court
decisions. I want to thank Senators Boxer, Cardin, Brown, Cantwell,
Carper, Dodd, Durbin, Gillibrand, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy,
Levin, Lieberman, Menendez, Merkley, Reed, Sanders, Schumer, Shaheen,
Stabenow, Whitehouse, and Wyden for joining me in introducing this
important legislation.
For 35 years, the American people have relied upon the Clean Water
Act to protect and restore the health of the

[[Page 9905]]

Nation's waters. The primary goal of the act to make rivers, streams,
wetlands, lakes, and coastal waters safe for fishing, swimming and
other recreation, suitable for our drinking water supply and
agricultural and industrial uses, and available for wildlife and fish
habitat has broad public support not only as a worthy endeavor but also
as a fundamental expectation of Government providing for its citizens.
It is our responsibility to ensure that our freshwater resources are
able to enhance human health, contribute to the economy, and help the
environment.
We must remain committed to the Clean Water Act of 1972, and to that
end, Congress must enact legislation. Every day that Congress fails to
act, more and more rivers, streams, wetlands and other waters that have
long been protected by the Clean Water Act are being stripped of their
Clean Water Act protections and being polluted or destroyed altogether.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, over 20,000
determinations have been made since the court decisions on whether
specific water bodies are covered by the act. Congress should not delay
action until protections are stripped from more water bodies throughout
the country. The EPA estimates that the court decisions could
ultimately impact over half the stream miles and 20 percent of wetlands
in the lower 48 States. Lost protections for these waters means the
drinking water sources for over 110 million Americans are in jeopardy
of pollution.
The Clean Water Restoration Act must be enacted to restore historical
protections, using a surgical fix that reaffirms protections for the
same categories of waters identified in the over three-decade-old EPA
regulatory definition of ``waters of the United States.''
This is a serious problem, demanding serious debate and action. If we
do not act, we will be allowing the Clean Water Act to be rolled back.
That would mean increased uncertainty, confusion, litigation, and
permitting delays resulting from the court decisions and subsequent
agency guidelines. It also would pose a very real threat to Clean Water
Act protections for public water supplies, industrial and agriculture
uses, fish and wildlife, and recreation.
I am pleased to lead the effort to protect the Clean Water Act in the
Senate, and to have support from a range of interested parties,
including former EPA Administrators from both Republican and Democratic
administrations; governors; attorneys general; State agencies;
professional societies and associations; labor and business
professionals and unions; farming organizations; and over 400 hunting,
fishing, recreational, and conservation organizations.
In response to suggestions I received last Congress, I made several
revisions to the bill to make Congressional intent very clear.
My bill, the Clean Water Restoration Act, would continue to protect
only those waters historically protected by the Clean Water Act prior
to the Supreme Court decisions. This is the crux of my bill, Section 4.
In 1972, Congress granted Clean Water Act protections to ``navigable
waters'' and broadly defined those as ``the waters of the United
States, including the territorial seas'', in stark contrast to the 1899
Rivers and Harbors Act, which had only provided protections for the
commercially navigable waters. Since the 1970s, EPA and Corps
regulations, 40 CFR 122.2 and 33 CFR 328.3, have properly established
the scope of ``waters of the United States'' to be protected, including
all intrastate and interstate rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands. My
bill simply takes the longstanding, existing regulatory definition for
``waters of the United States'' and puts it into law, in lieu of
defining ``navigable waters'' as ``waters of the United States,'' as
the Act does now. This surgical fix is necessary because the Supreme
Court used the word ``navigable'' to create a more narrow definition
for ``waters of the United States'' than the definition used for over
30 years. The Court did not, however, limit protections more
drastically to only ``navigable-in-fact'' and continuously flowing
waters as some interests have called for. This might have been the law
in 1899 when the Rivers and Harbors Act focused on commercial
navigation, but it would be entirely inappropriate for the modern day
clean water protections provided by the Clean Water Act of 1972.
My bill also asserts appropriate constitutional authority to protect
the Nation's waters. Despite claims to the contrary, Congress has broad
constitutional authority, including under the Commerce Clause, Property
Clause, Treaty Clause, and Necessary and Proper Clause, to enact laws
protecting our nation's water quality. To prevent future courts from
narrowly applying Congress's constitutional authority, my bill includes
the phrase ``activities affecting those waters.''
My bill also maintains existing exemptions for farming, silviculture,
ranching, and other activities, and leaves unchanged the activities
that require a permit. The bill only ensures that the same types of
waters covered before the Supreme Court decisions continue to be
protected and does not affect the activities that require permits. In
short, if you have not needed a permit for the last thirty-five years
for an activity, you will not need one when this bill is enacted.
Importantly, in 1977, when the Act was modified, a significant
compromise was reached to exempt farming, silviculture, and forestry
activities from the Act. I stand by this understanding, and just to be
sure, the Clean Water Restoration Act explicitly states that the Act's
existing exemptions are maintained. As stated in the Act and left
unchanged by my bill, agricultural activities are largely exempt from
the Clean Water Act [the main permitting programs affecting agriculture
address point-source discharge, Section 402, not non-point, and the
dredging and filling of waters, Section 404. The following agricultural
activities are exempt: normal farming activities (which casts a wide
net for plowing, cultivating, harvesting, conservation practices,
etc.), agriculture run-off/stormwater discharges, return flows from
irrigation, maintenance and construction of farm roads, farm and stock
ponds, and irrigation ditches, and maintenance of drainage ditches.
There are additional EPA regulatory exemptions for prior converted
cropland, and wastewater treatment systems, including treatment lagoons
and ponds. Again, my bill does not affect these exemptions and the
findings make Congressional intent very clear in this regard.
In short, my bill will allow those waters always protected by the
Clean Water Act to continue to receive basic protections. I appreciate
the depth and breadth of support for reaffirming the Clean Water Act of
1972 and importantly, rejecting efforts to roll back the law.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, If there is one environmental issue that
divides us more than unites us, it's water, especially in the West.
Farmers, ranchers, cities, towns, all compete for limited supplies.
Salmon and other economically and culturally important fish depend on
its flow. If it is not water quantity, then it is water quality that
makes what gets passed on to the next water user the source of
contention.
The Clean Water Act has been enormously successful at making water
users clean up the water that they use before it is discharged back
into lakes, rivers, and streams, and, before it's used by the next
person downstream. It has also helped ensure the survival of fish and
wildlife.
Over the past 8 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has rendered two major
decisions that have restricted the scope of the Act. As it is now being
interpreted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps
of Engineers, the Act no longer prevents the discharge of pollution or
fill into many wetlands or intermittent streams, lakes and ponds. By
some estimates, more than half the streams in Oregon could be
classified as intermittent streams and no longer protected. Another
estimate concludes that over one million Oregonians get their drinking
water from sources that would no longer be fully protected by the Clean
Water Act. I think this is the wrong thing to do.

[[Page 9906]]

Last year, I cosponsored S. 1870--the Clean Water Restoration Act--
legislation which was intended to return the protections of the Clean
Water Act to the way they were before these two Supreme Court decisions
occurred. No more, and no less.
In my town hall meetings around Oregon, I have received questions and
complaints about this legislation. The biggest concern that many people
had was that this new bill was actually going to expand the reach of
the Federal Government over water regulation in ways that would
literally threaten the ability of farmers to farm and ranchers to
ranch. People were also concerned that this legislation would not only
regulate discharges into rivers and streams, but it would also regulate
the quantity of water they use.
I am no supporter of Federal water grabs. I would not have
cosponsored this legislation in the last Congress if it would threaten
Oregon farmers' ability to farm or our ranchers' ability to ranch. I
would have opposed it.
Ranchers and farmers and forest owners know how to be stewards of the
land they ranch and farm and manage because their livelihoods depend on
it, and if they are not careful about how they manage that land there
will be nothing to pass on to the next generation. The same is true for
how we must treat our rivers, streams and wetlands.
So over the past few months, my staff and I have worked with Senator
Feingold, the primary sponsor of the bill, to clarify that intent of
this legislation is to simply restore the interpretation of the Clean
Water Act to what it had been before these Supreme Court decisions. No
more, and no less.
Earlier this year, in response to my concerns about how the bill
would impact rural Oregon, Senator Feingold reiterated in a letter to
me his intent that the Clean Water Restoration Act not expand the scope
of the law. Sen. Feingold also revised the text of the bill in a way
that I believe makes it even clearer that the goal is not to expand the
scope of the Clean Water Act beyond what it was in 2001 before the
Supreme Court decisions.
First of all, the bill again includes a savings clause that clearly
continues the existing exemption for irrigation return flows from Clean
Water Act regulation. It continues the exemption for dredged or fill
materials from normal farming, silviculture and ranching activities. It
continues the exemption for construction and maintenance of farm or
stock ponds or irrigation ditches and drainage ditches. It continues
the exemption for construction and maintenance of farm roads or forest
roads.
Second, the bill now contains a much more detailed set of findings
that make it absolutely clear that the intent of Congress with
enactment of the bill is to restore the regulatory system for the Clean
Water Act to what it was before these two Supreme Court decisions.
These findings also make it clear that the bill is not regulating
ground water, only surface water, just as the Clean Water Act has
always done. The findings make it clear that exclusions for prior
converted cropland and manmade impoundments remain in place. They make
it clear that the intent is to regulate water quality, not quantity or
ownership.
If more changes are needed to ensure that the bill does what Sen.
Feingold and I say it does, than I am certainly open to making more
changes to make sure the Senate gets this crucial issue right.
Some people do not like the pre-2001 Clean Water Act regulatory
system. Some believe that the Supreme Court did the right thing by
removing many wetlands and intermittent streams and lakes from the
protections of the Clean Water Act. I disagree. I think those
protections are needed to protect our water supplies and our
environment and wildlife habitat. Farmers and ranchers need those
protections for their livelihoods. But I want to be absolutely clear,
that I will not support expanding Federal authority in this area beyond
what it was before 2001.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be placed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, January 8, 2009.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wyden: Thank you for your commitment to
reinstating longstanding Clean Water Act protections, which
have been unquestionably reduced and blurred by recent
Supreme Court decisions. I appreciate you contacting me on
behalf of your constituents with some important questions
about the intent and effect of my bill, the Clean Water
Restoration Act.
Like you, I am committed to restoring the scope of the
Clean Water Act of 1972 and strongly oppose efforts to roll
back the Act--which is happening and will continue to happen
until Congress acts. A recent investigation by the House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure found that the
2006 Rapanos case and subsequent agency guidance are directly
responsible for ``a drastic deterioration of [the
Environmental Protection Agency's] Clean Water Act
enforcement program . . . hundreds of violations have not
been pursued.'' The investigation revealed that top EPA
officials warned that ``the difficulty in interpreting and
applying the Rapanos decision and the Inter-Agency guidance
has created a drain on [EPA] resources, caused delays and
uncertainty in compliance determinations. . . .'' According
to the EPA, over 50 percent of U.S. streams, 20 million acres
of wetlands, and the drinking water for 110 million Americans
remain in jeopardy of being polluted or destroyed as a result
of the Supreme Court decisions.
Since Congress is the only branch of government that can
reinstate protections and prevent a significant roll-back of
the Act. I introduced the Clean Water Restoration Act to do
just that, and only that.
The bill will not increase permitting and does not change
the requirements for what activities need a permit. The Clean
Water Restoration Act would only modify one term in the Act
and does not alter any other sections of law, including those
identifying what activities need a permit. Nevertheless, when
the bill was reintroduced in the 110th Congress, we added a
savings clause to make it explicitly clear that the
exemptions for agriculture, ranching, and forestry are
maintained. The Act was amended in 1977 to add these
permitting exemptions and my bill will not change those
exemptions, or existing exemptions in the regulations that do
not require permits for agricultural activities affecting
prior converted cropland or for wastewater treatment systems.
As you know, the Clean Water Act protects ``navigable
waters,'' which the Act broadly defines as ``waters of the
United States, including the territorial seas'' (though often
a source of confusion, the term ``navigable waters'' has a
very different meaning in the Clean Water Act than it does in
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, which extends only very
narrow protections to commercially navigable waters).
``Navigable waters'' and ``waters of the United States'' are
broadly defined, for purposes of the Clean Water Act, in the
Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' regulations to cover all waters necessary to
achieve the Act's water quality purposes. This includes such
so-called isolated wetlands as prairie potholes and playa
lakes, which have been jeopardized since the 2001 SWAIVCC
case, as well as intermittent streams, which remain
jeopardized by the 2006 Rapanos case and subsequent agency
guidance. In order to meet the intent and purpose of the
Clean Water Act of 1972, we must ensure all these waters
continue to be protected--which is why the Clean Water
Restoration Act defines ``waters of the United States'' using
the same list of waters.
In your letter, you asked about an exchange at a hearing on
the bill in 2008 where the former Administrator of the EPA,
Carol Browner, responded to a question about whether a
``puddle'' is a ``wetland.'' Though the question was likely
intended in jest, there is a longstanding, scientific process
for determining and delineating a wetland. Professional
determinations are made, for purposes of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, using the Corps regulatory definition of a
wetland. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs,
and similar areas (33 CFR 328.3(b)).
Lastly, the Clean Water Act does not regulate water
quantity, only water quality. Its purpose is to ``restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
the nation's waters'' (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). I am pleased
to lead the effort to protect the Clean Water Act in the
Senate, and to have your support, as well as that of a range
of interested parties, including former EPA Administrators
from both Republican and Democratic administrations;
governors; attorneys general; state agencies; professional
societies and associations; labor and business professionals
and unions; farming organizations; and over 400 hunting.
fishing, recreational, and conservation organizations.
Thanks for your efforts to educate others about the
importance of this legislation and the true purpose of the
Clean Water Restoration Act. As always. I am committed to

[[Page 9907]]

working with you and others to restore historical protections
to the waters of the United States.
Sincerely,
Russell D. Feingold.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Nelson, of Florida):
S. 788. A bill to prohibit unsolicited mobile text message spam; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Bill
Nelson, to introduce legislation that would curb a growing nuisance
that millions of wireless customers experience on a daily basis--
unsolicited text messages or mobile spam.
Spam has long been loathed by email users around the world. It is for
good reason--percent of all email sent worldwide is considered spam,
which means close to 200 billion spam messages are sent every day. The
vast majority of the spam sent on the Internet is done so illegally
through the use of botnets, which are ``networks'' of hijacked or
compromised computers. One botnet, Srizbi, which consists of more than
450,000 compromised PCs is able to send on average more than 60 billion
spam messages per day. Many of these spam messages include viruses,
malicious spyware, or are phishing attacks.
With more data functionality and improved user interfaces with
wireless devices, it is expected that mobile spam will grow over the
next several years. Those viruses and malware that are so prevalent on
a user's computer could and most likely will show up on their cell
phones through m-spam. So a very significant threat to wireless users
looms.
While the FCC and the FTC have adopted rules to prohibit sending
unwanted commercial e-mail messages to wireless devices without prior
permission, text messages are not covered by their rules so it is not
having the desired effect of deterring distribution of mobile spam, let
alone email spam. The m-SPAM Act would provide more government
attention to this growing problem and makes modifications to existing
law in order to improve efforts to restrain mobile spam--before it
becomes more than an annoyance.
More text and voice spam are steadily invading handsets. Wireless
users in the U.S. received more than 1.1 million spam text messages in
2007, up 38 percent from 2006. Mobile spam not only clutters a wireless
user's inbox, but it also unduly increases the monthly wireless bill--
wireless subscribers typically are charged for sending and receiving
text messages--sometimes as much as 20 cents per message.
Some telephone companies have been proactive in preventing spam--
wireless carriers already block up to 200 million unsolicited text
messages per month, but many times the senders cannot be located and
brought to justice without Government help. In May 2007, Verizon
Wireless sued telemarketers that had inundated the company with more
than 12 million mobile spam messages. The carrier was able to block
most of them but the inundation still hit consumers with unwanted
charges and the carrier with a congested network. So more can be done
to prevent this aggravating practice and relieve consumers of having to
resolve these charges on their bills. Even the wireless industry
recently has urged government to do more to catch and prosecute
spammers.
That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join Senator
Bill Nelson and me in supporting this critical legislation.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Casey, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Udall,
of New Mexico):
S. 790. A bill to improve access to health care services in rural,
frontier, and urban underserved areas in the United States by
addressing the supply of health professionals and the distribution of
health professionals to areas of need; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Robert Casey,
Herb Kohl, and Tom Udall to introduce the Health Access and Health
Professions Supply Act of 2009.
Health care reform is a national priority--far too many Americans do
not have access to meaningful, affordable health insurance. But even if
every person in the U.S. had health insurance, we do not have a
cohesive or coordinated strategy to address health workforce
emergencies and shortages, and problems with reliable access to
quality, affordable care. Over 20 percent of Americans are living in
health professions shortage areas without access to adequate medical,
dental, and mental and behavioral health services. This workforce
deficiency will worsen as the population ages and grows by an estimated
25 million individuals per decade and, could be severely exacerbated by
epidemics and disasters. It is estimated that without intervention, the
United States will experience shortages of as many as 200,000
physicians and one million nurses by 2020. It takes many years to
create a pipeline of health professionals. I am introducing the Health
Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009 to coordinate our
health workforce strategy, to build and maintain this pipeline, so that
health and safety of every American is protected. The legislation is
based on the most recent recommendations developed by Council on
Graduate Medical Education and other health workforce experts.
This legislation addresses these issues in an unprecedented and
comprehensive manner. It creates a Permanent National Health Workforce
Commission to assure that the Federal investment in the education of
health professionals is a public good that address the needs of the
American people. The Commission is tasked to design, revise, implement
and evaluate programs, grants, and regulations related to the nation's
health workforce.
The Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009 expands
the Medicare medical home demonstration project. This pilot program
would include 1,000 medical home primary care providers working in
interdisciplinary teams. These clinicians will provide the highest
quality medical care using the best health information technology, and
personalized, coordinated, and accessible care.
But new models are not enough. We have allowed our primary care
educational infrastructure to crumble. Without intervention, the
decline will likely continue, and access to care in underserved areas
will rapidly deteriorate. Family physicians represent 58 percent of the
rural physician workforce, 70 percent of non-federal physicians in
whole-county health professional shortage areas, and 78 percent of
primary care physician full-time equivalents in the National Health
Service Corps. Yet, the number of graduates from medical school in the
U.S. who choose to practice family medicine has plummeted 50 percent in
less than 10 years. Currently, less than 5 percent of graduates from
medical school specialize in primary care. This is despite the fact
that one of the most significant measures of the effectiveness and
efficiency of a healthcare system is the degree to which the population
has access to meaningful and coordinated primary care.
Experts tell us that the dearth of primary care providers may be
attributed to many factors including low reimbursement levels and a
lack of federal incentives to teaching institutions to promote primary
care. My legislation would allow the National Health Workforce
Commission to analyze these issues and recommend solutions including
changes in Federal reimbursement systems. For example, this bill calls
for improved transparency and accountability for Federal dollars spent
for medical education through direct Graduate Medical Education, GME,
and Indirect Medical Education, IME, and money paid in Disproportionate
Share, DSH, support for safety net services provided under the Medicare
and Medicaid programs.
This legislation also substantially increases funding for the
National Health Service Corps. This will help provide healthcare access
to the areas of our country that are in most desperate need. Also,
included are expanded loan forgiveness and grant programs to develop
new training programs in rural and other underserved communities to
help us train health professionals in areas where they are needed.

[[Page 9908]]

The Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009
establishes a U.S. Public Health Sciences Track to train physicians,
dentists, nurses, physician assistants, mental and behavior health
specialists, pharmacists, and public health professionals emphasizing
team-based service, public health, epidemiology, and emergency
preparedness and response in affiliated institutions. Students in this
program are accepted as Commission Corps officers in the U.S. Public
Health Service and will receive tuition remission and a stipend with a
two year service commitment for each year of school covered. This group
will form an elite cadre of healthcare professionals that can be
deployed when epidemics, natural or other disasters strike.
I am introducing the Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act
of 2009 with the understanding that our health workforce shortfall
cannot be solved using a piecemeal approach. We must address health
workforce issues in health care reform to guarantee access to quality
care for all Americans but we must also ensure that taxpayer dollars
used to support health professions education are spent wisely.
This legislation has received widespread support and is endorsement
by the: National Association of Community Health Centers, National
Rural Health Association, American Medical Students Association, Trust
for America's Health, American Psychological Association, American
Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, American Academy of Physician
Assistants, Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health
Service, National Rural Recruitment and Retention Network, American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, New Mexico Health
Resources, New Mexico Medical Society, New Mexico Chapter of the
American College of Physicians, and the Santa Fe Project Access.
I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in support of the
Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009.
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. 790

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Health
Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009'' or
``HAHPSA 2009''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.

TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT

Sec. 101. Permanent National Health Workforce Commission.
Sec. 102. State health workforce centers program.
Sec. 103. Medicare medical home service and training pilot program.
Sec. 104. Improvements to payments for graduate medical education under
medicare.
Sec. 105. Distribution of resident trainees in an emergency.
Sec. 106. Authority to include costs of training of psychologists in
payments to hospitals for approved educational activities
under Medicare.

TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT

Sec. 201. Expansion of National Health Service Corps programs.
Sec. 202. National health service corps scholarship program for
medical, dental, physician assistant, pharmacy,
behavioral and mental health, public health, and nursing
students in the United States public health sciences
track in affiliated schools.
Sec. 203. Federal medical facility grant program and program
assessments.
Sec. 204. Health professions training loan program.
Sec. 205. United States Public Health Sciences Track.
Sec. 206. Medical education debt reimbursement for physicians of the
Veterans Health Administration.

TITLE III--HEALTH PROFESSIONAL TRAINING PIPELINE PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

Sec. 301. Grants to prepare students for careers in health care.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

(a) Findings Related to Health Care Access in Rural,
Frontier, and Urban Underserved Areas of the United States.--
Congress finds the following:
(1) The United States does not have a cohesive or
coordinated approach to addressing health workforce shortages
and problems with reliable access to quality, affordable
health care.
(2) There are 50,000,000 citizens of the United States
living in areas that are designated under section
332(a)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act as health
professional shortage areas.
(3) The population of the United States will grow by
25,000,000 each decade.
(4) The number of individuals over 65 years of age in the
United States will double between 2000 and 2030, with such
individuals accounting for 20 percent of the total population
of the United States in 2030.
(5) Individuals over 65 years of age have twice as many
doctor visits as those individuals under 65 years of age,
resulting in an increase in the demand for physicians,
physician assistants, pharmacists behavioral and mental
health professionals, nurses, and dentists.
(6) The rates of chronic diseases (such as diabetes) are
increasing in the population of the United States.
(7) There are 47,000,000 citizens of the United States who
do not have health insurance, and over 130,000,000
individuals within the United States who do not have dental
insurance. Those individuals who are uninsured have limited
access to health care.
(8) Academic health centers, Federal medical facilities,
and teaching hospitals provide a substantial percentage of
safety net services in the United States to uninsured and
underinsured populations and to those individuals who have 1
or more chronic diseases. Such centers, facilities, and
teaching hospitals provide those safety net services while
concurrently providing for the training of health
professionals.
(9) The pipeline for the education of health
professionals--
(A) begins and often ends in urban areas;
(B) does not reliably include Federal support for
nonphysician training;
(C) does not incorporate modern training venues and
techniques, including community-based ambulatory sites; and
(D) discourages interdisciplinary, team, and care
coordination models as a result of restrictive regulations.
(10) Health reform must include measures to transform the
health delivery system to assure access, quality, and
efficiency by utilizing contemporary models and venues of
care.
(11) Reform of the health delivery system will require
modernization of the training of health professionals to
ensure that health professionals--
(A) practice in integrated teams in a variety of delivery
venues (including inpatient and ambulatory settings and long-
term care facilities) to utilize decision support and health
information systems;
(B) deliver patient-centered care;
(C) practice evidence-based health care;
(D) learn performance-based compensation systems,
comparative effectiveness, and costs of care across the
spectrum; and
(E) deliver culturally appropriate, personalized care.
(b) Findings Related to Access to Oral Health.--Congress
finds the following:
(1) Dental care is the number 1 unmet health care need in
children, and is 1 of the top 5 unmet health care needs in
adults.
(2) Over 130,000,000 citizens of the United States are
without dental insurance.
(3) Over 45,000,000 citizens of the United States live in
areas that are designated under section 332(a)(1)(A) of the
Public Health Service Act as dental health professional
shortage areas.
(4) Rural counties have less than half the number of
dentists per capita compared to large metropolitan areas (29
versus 62 for population of 100,000).
(5) In 2006, over 9,000 dentists were needed in such dental
health professional shortage areas.
(6) Between 27 and 29 percent of children and adults in the
United States have untreated cavities.
(7) The number of dental school graduates in the United
States decreased by 20 percent between 1982 and 2003 and the
average age of practicing dentists in the United States is
49.
(8) There were over 400 dental faculty vacancies in the
school year beginning in 2006.
(9) In 2007, the average debt of a dental student at
graduation was $172,627.
(c) Findings Related to Physician Shortages, Education, and
Distribution.--Congress finds the following:
(1) By 2020, physician shortages are forecasted to be in
the range of 55,000 to 200,000.
(2) Although 21 percent of the population of the United
States lives in rural areas, only 10 percent of physicians
work in rural areas and, for every 1 physician who goes into
practice in regions with a low supply of physicians, 4
physicians go into practice in regions with a high supply of
physicians.
(3) According to a 2004 report by Green et al. for the
Robert Graham Center of the American Academy of Family
Physicians, the number of applicants from rural areas

[[Page 9909]]

accepted to medical school has decreased by 40 percent in the
last 20 years while the number of such applications has
remained the same.
(4) In order to respond to forecasted shortages, experts
have recommended an increase between 15 and 30 percent in
class size at medical schools over the next 10 years.
(5) There are 55,000,000 citizens of the United States who
lack adequate access to primary health care because of
shortages of primary care providers in their communities.
(6) The number of graduates from medical school in the
United States who choose to practice family medicine has
plummeted 50 percent in less than 10 years. Without
congressional intervention, such decline will likely
continue, and access to care in underserved areas will
rapidly deteriorate. Family physicians represent 58 percent
of the rural physician workforce, 70 percent of non-Federal
physicians in whole-county health professional shortage
areas, and 78 percent of primary care physician full-time
equivalents in the National Health Service Corps.
(7) Current trends indicate that fewer resident trainees
from pediatric and internal medicine residencies pursue
generalist practice at graduation.
(8) Funding for medical education which is provided through
direct Graduate Medical Education (GME) and Indirect Medical
Education (IME) under the Medicare program is not transparent
or accountable, nor is it aligned to the types of health
professionals most needed or to the areas in which health
professionals are most needed.
(9) Physician supply varies 200 percent across regions and
there is no relationship between regional physician supply
and health needs.
(10) The Council on Graduate Medical Education's 18th
Report (issued in 2007), entitled ``New Paradigms for
Physician Training for Improving Access to Health Care'', and
19th Report (issued in 2007), entitled ``Enhancing
Flexibility in Graduate Medical Education'', each call for
changes to address the healthcare needs of the United States
by removing barriers to expanding and more appropriately
training the physician workforce.
(d) Findings Related to Nursing Shortages, Education, and
Distribution.--Congress finds the following:
(1) By 2020, nursing shortages are forecast to be in the
range of 300,000 to 1,000,000 and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the Department of Labor estimates that more
than 1,200,000 new and replacement registered nurses will be
needed by 2014.
(2) Nurse vacancy rates are currently 8 percent or greater
in hospitals and community health centers receiving
assistance under section 330 of the Public Health Service
Act, and for nursing faculty positions.
(3) Surveys indicate that 40 percent of nurses in hospitals
are dissatisfied with their work and, of nurses who graduate
and go into nursing, 50 percent leave their first employer
within 2 years.
(4) Nursing baccalaureate and graduate programs rejected
more than 40,000 qualified nursing school applicants in 2006,
with faculty shortages identified by such programs as a major
reason for turning away qualified applicants.
(5) More than 70 percent of nursing schools cited faculty
shortages as the primary reason for not accepting all
qualified applicants into entry-level nursing programs.
(6) The nursing faculty workforce is aging and retiring
and, by 2019, approximately 75 percent of the nursing faculty
workforce is expected to retire.
(7) The average age of nurses in the United States is 49
and the average age of an associate professor nurse faculty
member in the United States is 56.
(8) Geriatric patients receiving care from nurses trained
in geriatrics are less frequently readmitted to hospitals or
transferred from skilled nursing facilities and nursing
facilities to hospitals.
(e) Findings Related to Public Health Workforce
Shortages.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The United States has an estimated 50,000 fewer public
health workers than it did 20 years ago while the population
has grown by approximately 22 percent.
(2) Government public health departments are facing
significant workforce shortages that could be exacerbated
through retirements.
(3) Twenty percent of the average State health agency's
workforce will be eligible to retire within 3 years, and by
2012, over 50 percent of some State health agency workforces
will be eligible to retire.
(4) Approximately 20 percent of local health department
employees will be eligible for retirement by 2010.
(5) The average age of new hires in State health agencies
is 40.
(6) 4 out of 5 current public health workers have not had
formal training for their specific job functions.
(f) Findings Related to Physician Assistant Shortages.--
Congress finds the following:
(1) The purpose of the physician assistant profession is to
extend the ability of physicians to provide primary care
services, particularly in rural and other medically
underserved communities.
(2) Physician assistants always practice medicine as a team
with their supervising physicians, however, supervising
physicians need not be physically present when physician
assistants provide medical care.
(3) Physician assistants are legally regulated in all
States, the District of Columbia, and Guam. All States, the
District of Columbia, and Guam authorize physicians to
delegate prescriptive authority to physician assistants.
(4) In 2007, physician assistants made approximately
245,000,000 patient visits and prescribed or recommended
approximately 303,000,000 medications.
(5) The National Association of Community Health Centers,
the George Washington University, and the Robert Graham
Center for Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care
found that while the number of patients who seek care at
community health centers has increased, the number of primary
care providers, including physician assistants, has not. The
report estimates a need for 15,500 primary health care
providers to provide care at community health centers.
(g) Findings Related to Mental Health Professional
Shortages.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The National Institute of Mental Health estimates that
26.2 percent of citizens of the United States ages 18 and
older suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder.
Approximately 20 percent of children in the United States
have diagnosable mental disorders with at least mild
functional impairment.
(2) The Health Resources and Services Administration
reports that there are 3,059 mental health professional
shortage areas within the United States with 77,000,000
people living in those areas. More than 5,000 additional
mental health professionals are needed to meet demand.
(3) According to the Department of Health and Human
Services, minority representation is lacking in the mental
health workforce. Although 12 percent of the population of
the United States is African-American, only 2 percent of
psychologists, 2 percent of psychiatrists, and 4 percent of
social workers are African-American. Moreover, there are only
29 mental health professionals who are Hispanic for every
100,000 individuals who are Hispanic in the United States,
compared with 173 non-Hispanic White providers for every
100,000 individuals who are non-Hispanic White in the United
States.
(h) Findings Related to Health Professional Shortage
Areas.--
(1) In 2006, the National Health Service Corps had a total
of 4,200 vacant positions in health professional shortage
areas, but only 1,200 of those positions were funded. For
each National Health Service Corps award, there are 7
applicants.
(2) Community health centers receiving assistance under
section 330 of the Public Health Service Act have expanded to
serve 16,000,000 individuals in over 1,000 sites. Such
community health centers have high vacancy rates for family
physicians (13 percent), obstetricians and gynecologists (21
percent), dentists, nurses, and other health professionals.
(3) The Institute of Medicine of the National Academies has
recommended that medical education and public health issues
be more closely aligned, especially in relation to
preparedness for natural disasters, pandemic, bioterrorism,
and other threats to public health.
(4) The education of health professionals must be more
closely aligned with health care needs in the United States,
with special attention to underserved populations and areas,
health disparities, the aging population, and individuals
with 1 or more chronic diseases.
(5) There is some duplication, and little coordination,
between the Council on Graduate Medical Education (related to
the physician workforce), the National Advisory Committee on
Nursing Programs (related to the nursing workforce), the
Advisory Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine and
Dentistry, and other advisory committees and councils.
(6) The Association of Academic Health Centers calls for
making the health workforce of the United States a priority
domestic policy issue and creating a national health
workforce planning body that engages Federal, State, public,
and private stakeholders.

TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT

SEC. 101. PERMANENT NATIONAL HEALTH WORKFORCE COMMISSION.

(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established the
Permanent National Health Workforce Commission (in this
section referred to as the ``Commission'').
(b) Duties.--
(1) Review of federal policies and annual reports.--
(A) Review.--The Commission shall review Federal policies
with respect to the training, financing, and distribution of
the health professional workforce, particularly with respect
to such workforce in rural, frontier, and urban underserved
areas, including the specific topics described in paragraph
(2). Such review shall include a comprehensive analysis and
reporting of--

[[Page 9910]]

(i) the most recent COHPPERDDUST Annual Report;
(ii) the number of medical students and residents,
physician assistant students, pharmacy students and
residents, behavioral and mental health students and
residents, dental students and residents, nursing students
and advance practice nursing trainees, and other health
professionals in need of training, the rates of payment for
such training; and the methodologies for funding such
training;
(iii) how to align payments for direct graduate medical
education costs under section 1886(h) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)) and payments for the indirect costs
of medical education under section 1886(d)(5)(B) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(B)) with other
Federal and State subsidies and payments for health
professions education with desired outcomes for the health
professional workforce;
(iv) whether Federal medical facilities should be permitted
to train health professionals with support paid directly by
the entity sponsoring the health professional;
(v) whether the establishment of transparent, accountable
Federal payment policies for training health professionals
would ensure that the types of health professionals trained
and the distribution of such health professionals would meet
the health care needs of the population of the United States;
(vi) the feasibility of establishing a National Health
Professions Education Trust Fund to ensure an open and fair
system of Federal, State, and private support for providing
education for health professionals; and
(vii) any other issues related to such Federal policies as
the Commission determines appropriate.
(B) COHPPERDDUST annual reports.--Not later than each of
January 1 of each year (beginning with 2012) the Commission
shall submit to the Secretary and to Congress a report
containing--
(i) the results of the review conducted under subparagraph
(A); and
(ii) recommendations--

(I) with respect to the Health Professions Pipeline,
Education, Research, Diversity & Distribution to Underserved
Areas Utilizing Service/Training Models; and
(II) for such legislation or administrative action,
including regulations, as the Commission determines
appropriate.

(2) Specific topics described.--
(A) Payments for health professions education.--
Specifically, the Commission shall review, with respect to
the training, financing, and distribution of the health
professional workforce, the following:
(i) The regular update, revision, and standardization of
hospital-specific and sponsoring institution-specific base-
period per resident amounts and cost reporting periods for
payments for direct graduate medical education costs under
section 1886(h) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(h)) and payments for the indirect costs of medical
education under section 1886(d)(5)(B) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(B)).
(ii) The feasibility of the Secretary, subject to review by
the Commission, granting a waiver under the Medicare program,
such as the waiver granted to the Utah Medical Education
Commission, which would allow States flexibility to utilize
funding under titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social
Security Act for direct graduate medical education and
indirect graduate medical education to support coordinated
and comprehensive health workforce training innovations.
(iii) Replacement of the current methodology for making
payments for such direct graduate medical education costs and
such indirect costs of medical education with a workforce
adjustment payment, based on a Sustainable Growth Rate
formula or a prospective payment system, under which--

(I) payments would be made directly to the sponsoring
institution where such education is provided; and
(II) payments would be separated to reflect the costs to
the professional and facility components of such education.

(iv) The establishment of standards for the financing of
education for health professionals who are not physicians.
(v) The expansion of the definition, for purposes of making
payments for health professions education (including such
direct graduate medical education costs and such indirect
costs of medical education), of the term ``sponsoring
institution'', which traditionally has been a teaching
hospital or medical school, to include nonteaching hospital-
based entities (such as managed care organizations and public
and private healthcare consortia) that are capable of
assembling all of the resources necessary for effectively
providing the training and education required to address
healthcare access, quality, and costs and to meet workforce
needs.
(vi) The provision of health professions education by
nonteaching hospital-based entities (including rural health
clinics (as defined in subsection (aa)(2) of section 1861 of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x)), community health
centers (as defined in section 330 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b)), and Federally qualified health
centers (as defined in subsection (aa)(4) of such section
1861) that are not sponsoring institutions (as defined under
clause (v)) as affiliates of the sponsoring institution for
purposes of providing more limited, but highly valuable
clinical training.
(vii) The establishment of incentives to promote
interdisciplinary, team-based, and care coordination-based
education of health professionals, including incentives to
encourage the development of health information technology
(such as a repository of consumer health status information
in computer processable form) which can be used for
diagnosis, management, and treatment and includes price and
cost information.
(viii) Adjustment to the Medicare caps on graduate medical
education positions to increase the number of primary care
residents, general dentistry residents, geriatric fellowship
trainees, and other health professionals trained in Federal
medical facilities.
(ix) The development of pay-for-performance methodologies
for payments for health professions education (including such
direct graduate medical education costs, payments for such
indirect costs of medical education, and disproportionate
share payments under section 1886(d)(5)(F) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(F))) to--

(I) increase payments to sponsoring institutions and the
affiliates of such institutions that achieve desired
outcomes; and
(II) reduce payments to such institutions and such
affiliates that do not perform.

(x) The correlation between Federal policies with respect
to the training, financing, and distribution of the health
professional workforce and specific evidence-based,
measurable, and comparative outcomes across sponsoring
institutions and the affiliates of such institutions.
(xi) Disproportionate share payments under section
1886(d)(5)(F) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(5)(F)) made to service and training institutions
that provide safety net access, community-based outreach
programs, measurable and transparent community benefit, and
planned financial assistance to low-income patients, Medicare
beneficiaries, and underinsured (including uninsured)
individuals in rural, frontier, and urban underserved areas.
(xii) The establishment of a workforce adjustment payment
under the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social
Security Act, the Medicaid program under title XIX of such
Act, the State Children's Health Insurance Program under
title XXI of such Act, and other publicly funded health
insurance programs to support training programs for health
professionals in Federal medical facilities, under which such
workforce adjustment payment would be made directly to the
sponsoring institution. Such payment would, as the Secretary
determines appropriate, in consultation with the Commission,
replace or supplement the provisions under clause (iii).
(B) Data collection and review.--Specifically, the
Commission shall review, with respect to the adequacy,
supply, and distribution of undergraduate and graduate
education programs for health professionals, the following:
(i) Available data on the adequacy, supply, and
distribution of such education programs for physicians,
physician assistants, nurses, dentists, psychologists,
pharmacists, behavioral and mental health professionals (as
defined in section 331(a)(3)(E)(i) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254d(a)(3)(E)(i)), public health
professionals, and other health professionals, including data
collected under the State Health Workforce Centers Program
established under section 102.
(ii) Processes for improving the collection of data on
health professionals, including the collection of more
consistent, independent, and comprehensive data from entities
(such as State licensure boards) to inform health professions
workforce issues. In conducting such review, the Commission
shall determine the costs of implementing such data
collection.
(3) Conduct of hearings.--
(A) In general.--The Commission shall conduct hearings on
health professions education to assess performance, identify
barriers, speed approval of innovative programs, improve
flexibility, and reduce bureaucratic obstacles balancing
hospital training while emphasizing sustained affiliation
agreements with community-based, interdisciplinary, team, and
care management methodologies and education designed to
improve quality and efficiency of patient care across the
care delivery system.
(B) Testimony.--In conducting hearings under subparagraph
(A), the Commission shall solicit testimony from the
Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education,
Residency Review Committees, and other appropriate
organizations that accredit education programs for health
professionals.
(C) Information from federal agencies.--
(i) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from a
Federal agency such information as the Commission considers
necessary to carry out this section.
(ii) Provision of information.--The head of the agency
shall provide the information to the Commission at the
request of the Chairperson of the Commission.
(4) Reducing health professional isolation and building
community health professional training infrastructure.--

[[Page 9911]]

(A) Identification of programs.--The Commission shall
identify programs to reduce health professional isolation and
build community health professional training infrastructure
in rural, frontier, and urban underserved areas through
continuing education (including continuing education
utilizing information technology, such as telehealth and
health information technology), mentoring, and precepting
activities.
(B) Analysis.--The Commission shall examine--
(i) whether the establishment of regional or statewide
Health Advice Lines would reduce after-hours calls
responsibilities for overworked health professionals in
remote sites with few health professionals available to
fulfill such responsibilities; and
(ii) what support should be given to health professionals
fulfilling such responsibilities--

(I) in hospitals and emergency departments in areas
designated under section 332 of the Public Health Service Act
as health professional shortage areas;
(II) under practice relief programs that allow health
professionals practicing in such areas to have their practice
and calls covered when they are ill, pursuing continuing
education, or taking a vacation;
(III) with respect to field faculty development to become
supervisors, mentors, and preceptors for health professional
students and trainees;

(iii) support structures (such as Area Health Education
Centers) for health professionals; and
(iv) whether the establishment of Rural Health Education
Offices, based on the model of agricultural extension
offices, would--

(I) help build community health professional service and
training capacity; and
(II) spur local economic development.

(5) Development of guiding principles and accountability
standards.--The Commission shall develop guiding principles
and accountability standards for Federal, State, and private
sector education of health professionals. Such guidelines
shall be crafted to assure that the Federal investment in the
education of health professionals is a public good,
regardless of whether a portion of such education is funded
by other sources.
(6) Identification of state and regional health professions
education commissions.--The Commission shall identify State
and regional Health Professions Education Centers. The
Commission shall enter into agreements with such Centers
under which the Centers shall provide data and reports to the
Commission to provide a balanced and adequate assessment of
the entire Nation's healthcare workforce.
(c) Secretarial Responsibilities.--Not later than 18 months
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall,
in consultation with the Commission, and through negotiated
rulemaking, promulgate regulations to address the matters
reviewed under clauses (i) through (vii) of subsection
(b)(1)(A), as the Secretary determines appropriate to address
access and health professional shortages and needs identified
by the Commission with respect to titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI
of the Social Security Act.
(d) Membership.--
(1) Number of appointment.--The Commission shall be
composed of 20 members appointed by the Comptroller General
of the United States.
(2) Qualifications.--The membership of the Commission shall
include representatives of--
(A) dentists and dental hygienists who practice in urban
underserved and rural areas;
(B) primary care providers who practice in urban
underserved and rural areas;
(C) nurses and physician assistants who practice in urban
underserved and rural areas;
(D) psychologists and other behavioral and mental health
professionals (as defined in section 331(a)(3)(E)(i) of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254d(a)(3)(E)(i)) who
practice in urban underserved and rural areas;
(E) public health professionals;
(F) clinical pharmacists who practice in a Federal market
or are sole-community providers;
(G) national and specialty physician and nursing
organizations;
(H) schools of medicine, osteopathy, and nursing,
educational programs for public health professionals,
behavioral and mental health professionals (as so defined),
and physician assistants, public and private teaching
hospitals, and ambulatory health facilities, including
Federal medical facilities;
(I) health insurers;
(J) business;
(K) labor; and
(L) any other health professional organization or practice
site the Comptroller General determines appropriate.
(e) Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall provide for the appointment of an executive
director, deputy director, and such other additional
personnel as are necessary to enable the Commission to
perform the duties of the Commission.
(2) Compensation.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Comptroller General of the United States may fix the
compensation of the executive director, deputy director, and
other personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter
51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States
Code, relating to classification of positions and General
Schedule pay rates.
(B) Maximum rate of pay.--The rate of pay for the executive
director, deputy director, and other personnel shall not
exceed the rate payable for level V of the Executive Schedule
under section 5316 of title 5, United States Code.
(3) Detail of federal government employees.--
(A) In general.--An employee of the Federal Government may
be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement.
(B) Civil service status.--The detail of the employee shall
be without interruption or loss of civil service status or
privilege.
(4) Procurement of temporary and intermittent services.--
The Commission may procure temporary and intermittent
services in accordance with section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code, at rates for individuals that do not
exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of that title.
(f) Powers.--
(1) Hearings.--The Commission may hold such hearings, meet
and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and
receive such evidence as the Commission considers advisable
to carry out this section.
(2) Information from federal agencies.--
(A) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from a
Federal agency such information as the Commission considers
necessary to carry out this section.
(B) Provision of information.--On request of the
Chairperson of the Commission, the head of the agency shall
provide the information to the Commission.
(3) Postal services.--The Commission may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as other agencies of the Federal Government.
(4) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of
gifts or donations of services or property.
(g) Status as Permanent Commission.--Section 14 of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not
apply to the Commission.
(h) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) COHPPERDDUST annual report.--The term ``COHPPERDDUST
Annual Report'' means the annual report submitted by the
Commission under subsection (b)(1)(B).
(2) Federal medical facility.--The term ``Federal medical
facility'' means a facility for the delivery of health
services, and includes--
(A) a Federally qualified health center (as defined in
section 1861(aa)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395x(aa)(4)), a public health center, an outpatient medical
facility, or a community mental health center;
(B) a hospital, State mental hospital, facility for long-
term care, or rehabilitation facility;
(C) a migrant health center or an Indian Health Service
facility;
(D) a facility for the delivery of health services to
inmates in a penal or correctional institution (under section
323 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 250)) or a State correctional
institution;
(E) a Public Health Service medical facility (used in
connection with the delivery of health services under section
320, 321, 322, 324, 325, or 326 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 247e,
248, 249, 251, 252, or 253));
(F) a nurse-managed health center; or
(G) any other Federal medical facility.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.

SEC. 102. STATE HEALTH WORKFORCE CENTERS PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a
demonstration program (in this section referred to as the
``program'') under which the Secretary makes grants to
participating States for the operation of State Health
Workforce Centers to carry out the activities described in
subsection (c).
(b) Participating States.--A State seeking to participate
in the program shall submit an application to the Secretary
containing such information and at such time as the Secretary
may specify. The Secretary may only consider under the
preceding sentence 1 application submitted by each State
which has been certified by the Governor or the chief
executive officer of the State.
(c) Use of Funds.--Grants awarded under subsection (a) may
be used to support activities designed to improve the
training, deployment, and retention of critical health
professionals in underserved areas and for underserved
populations, including the following:
(1) Conducting assessments of key health professional
capacity and needs. Such assessments shall be conducted in a
coordinated manner that provides for the nationwide
collection of health professional data.
(2) Convening State health professional policymakers to
review education, education financing, regulations, and
taxation and compensation policies which affect the training,
deployment, and retention of health professionals. A
participating State may, taking

[[Page 9912]]

into consideration the results of such reviews, develop
short-term and long-term recommendations for improving the
supply, deployment, and retention of critical health
professionals in underserved areas and for underserved
populations.
(d) Funding.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $13,750,000 to carry out this section.
(2) Matching requirement.--The Secretary may require a
State, in order to be eligible to receive a grant under this
section, to agree that, with respect to the costs incurred by
the State in carrying out the activities for which the grant
was awarded, the State will make available (directly or
through donations from public or private entities) non-
Federal contributions in an amount equal to a percent of
Federal funds provided under the grant (as determined
appropriate by the Secretary).
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
(2) State.--The term ``State'' means--
(A) a State;
(B) the District of Columbia;
(C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and
(D) any other territory or possession of the United States.

SEC. 103. MEDICARE MEDICAL HOME SERVICE AND TRAINING PILOT
PROGRAM.

(a) Expansion of Medicare Medical Home Demonstration
Project.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall
expand the Medicare medical home demonstration project under
section 204 of Division B of the Tax Relief and Health Care
Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-432; 120 Stat. 2987) by adding a
Medicare medical home service and training pilot program (in
this section referred to as the ``pilot program'') to
redesign the methodologies for payments to primary care
providers for coordinating the care of applicable Medicare
beneficiaries. Such pilot program shall be in addition to,
and run concurrently with, the Medicare medical home
demonstration program. Except for any modifications under
this section, the Secretary shall carry out the pilot program
under similar terms and conditions as the Medicare medical
home demonstration program.
(2) Applicable medicare beneficiaries defined.--In this
section, the term ``applicable Medicare beneficiary'' means
an individual who--
(A) is entitled to, or enrolled for, benefits under part A
of title XVIII of the Social Security Act, or is enrolled
under part B of such title;
(B) has 1 or more chronic illnesses (such as diabetes,
hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma,
congestive heart failure, end stage liver disease, and end
stage renal disease); and
(C) is in the top 2 quartiles of cost under the Medicare
program under such title (as determined based on Medicare
claims data for the most recent 2 years for which data is
available).
(b) Details.--
(1) Duration; scope.--The pilot program shall operate
during the period beginning on January 1, 2011 and ending on
December 31, 2014 and shall include not more than 1,000
medical home primary care providers.
(2) Implementation.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may implement the pilot
program--
(i) under title XVIII of the Social Security Act; or
(ii) subject to subparagraph (B), under a combination of
such title and other public or private programs or
organizations.
(B) Special rule.--In the case where the Secretary
implements the pilot program under a combination of title
XVIII of the Social Security Act and other public or private
programs or organizations, the Secretary shall establish
procedures to ensure that any funding made available under
such title for the pilot program is only used to furnish
items and services to Medicare beneficiaries.
(3) Participation of primary care providers.--
(A) In general.--In no case shall participation in the
pilot program be limited to primary care providers in those
States participating in the Medicare medical home
demonstration project under section 204 of Division B of the
Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-432;
120 Stat. 2987). Any primary care provider in the United
States that meets the requirements and definitions under this
section and, if applicable, such section 204, shall be
eligible to participate in the pilot program. In selecting
primary care providers to participate in the pilot program,
the Secretary shall give preference to sites where clinical
services and health professional education are provided
concurrently, taking into consideration priorities of the
Permanent National Health Workforce Commission established
under section 101 of the Health Access and Health Professions
Supply Act of 2009.
(B) Definition of primary care providers.--In this section,
the term ``primary care provider'' means--
(i) a personal physician (as defined in subsection (c)(1)
of section 204 of Division B of the Tax Relief and Health
Care Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-432; 120 Stat. 2987), except
that, in applying such definition under this section, the
requirements described in subsection (c)(2)(B) of such
section 204 shall specify that the staff and resources of the
physician may include a team of health professionals (such as
nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified
nurse midwives, psychologists and other behavioral and mental
health professionals (as defined in section 331(a)(3)(E)(i)
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
254d(a)(3)(E)(i)), physician assistants, and other primary
care providers that meet requirements established by the
Secretary)); and
(ii) any other primary care provider (such as a nurse
practitioner or a physician assistant) that is subject to
State licensure laws and the requirements of the Secretary.
(C) Limitation on number of primary care providers
participating in the pilot program who are not personal
physicians.--The Secretary shall ensure that the total number
of independently practicing primary care providers who are
not personal physicians participating in the pilot program
reflects the percentage of such primary care providers in the
United States (as determined by the Secretary), not to exceed
10 percent of the total number of primary care providers
participating in the pilot program.
(4) Services performed.--A primary care provider shall
perform or provide for the performance of at least the
services described in subsection (c)(3) of such section 204
under the pilot program.
(c) Care Coordination Fee Payment Methodology.--Under the
pilot program, the Secretary shall provide for payment under
section 1848 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4)
of a per member per month care coordination fee to primary
care providers for the care of eligible Medicare
beneficiaries participating in the pilot program. The
Secretary shall appoint a committee to make recommendations
about the design and implementation of a methodology for
payment of the per member per month care coordination fee.
(d) Provision of Data and Technical Assistance.--The
Secretary shall provide--
(1) data to primary care providers participating in the
pilot program; and
(2) technical assistance to such primary care providers
that do not meet the criteria for the highest tier of the
pilot program (as defined by the Secretary).
(e) Reports by the Secretary.--
(1) Interim report.--Not later than January 1, 2013, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress an interim report on the
pilot program.
(2) Final report.--Not later than January 1, 2014, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a final report on the
pilot program. Such report shall include outcome measures
reported by the Secretary under the pilot program, including
at least the following:
(A) The total costs to the Medicare program per eligible
Medicare beneficiary participating in the pilot program.
(B) The performance of primary care providers participating
in the pilot program with regard to--
(i) quality measures developed by the Secretary; and
(ii) patient safety indicators developed by the Secretary.
(C) The experience of eligible Medicare beneficiaries and
primary care providers participating in the pilot program.
(D) An assessment of savings to the Medicare program per
eligible Medicare beneficiary participating in the pilot
program that are a result of such participation, as compared
to traditional Medicare fee-for-service payment
methodologies.
(f) GAO Assessment and Report.--
(1) Assessment.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall, at the completion of the pilot program, provide
for an overall assessment of the efficacy of the pilot
program.
(2) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2014, the
Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report
containing the results of the assessment under paragraph (1).

SEC. 104. IMPROVEMENTS TO PAYMENTS FOR GRADUATE MEDICAL
EDUCATION UNDER MEDICARE.

(a) Increasing the Medicare Caps on Graduate Medical
Education Positions.--
(1) Direct graduate medical education.--Section
1886(h)(4)(F) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(h)(4)(F)) is amended--
(A) in clause (i), by inserting ``clause (iii) and'' after
``subject to''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) Increase in caps on graduate medical education
positions for states with a shortage of residents.--

``(I) In general.--For cost reporting periods beginning on
or after January 1, 2011, the Secretary shall increase the
otherwise applicable limit on the total number of full-time
equivalent residents in the field of allopathic or
osteopathic medicine determined under clause (i) with respect
to a qualifying hospital by an amount equal to 15 percent of
the amount of the otherwise applicable limit (determined
without regard to this clause). Such increase shall be
phased-in equally over a period of 3 cost reporting periods
beginning with the first cost reporting period in which the
increase is applied under the previous sentence to the
hospital.

[[Page 9913]]

``(II) Qualifying hospital.--In this clause, the term
`qualifying hospital' means a hospital that agrees to use the
increase in the number of full-time equivalent residents
under subclause (I) to support community-based training which
emphasizes underserved areas and innovative training models
which address community needs and reflect emerging, evolving,
and contemporary models of health care delivery. A qualifying
hospital shall give priority to providing such training and
training models to health professionals in specialties which
the Secretary, in consultation with the Permanent National
Health Workforce Commission established under section 101(a)
of the Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of
2009, determines are in high-need (including family medicine,
general surgery, geriatrics, general internal medicine,
general surgery, and obstetrics and gynecology).
``(III) Increase in payments.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, in the case of full-time equivalent
residents added to a hospital's training program as a result
of such increase, the Secretary shall provide for an increase
in the amounts otherwise payable under this subsection with
respect to direct graduate medical education costs that would
otherwise apply with respect to such residents by 10 percent.
Such increased payments shall be made to the facility in
which the training is provided to such residents.''.

(2) Indirect medical education.--Section 1886(d)(5)(B) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(B)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(x) Clause (iii) of subsection (h)(4)(F) shall apply to
clause (v) in the same manner and for the same period as such
clause (iii) applies to clause (i) of such subsection.''.
(b) Application of Medicare GME Payments to Additional
Training Site Venues.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(in this subsection referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall,
by regulation, provide for the use of payments for direct
graduate medical education costs under section 1886(h) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)) and payments for
the indirect costs of medical education under section
1886(d)(5)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(5)(B)) to support the implementation of community-
based training and innovative training models under
subsections (h)(4)(F)(iii)(II) and (d)(5)(B)(x) of section
1886 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww).
(2) Use of model of care delivery.--In promulgating
regulations under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consider
the model of care delivery of the Institute of Medicine of
the National Academies.
(3) Consultation.--In promulgating such regulations, the
Secretary shall consult with the Permanent National Health
Workforce Commission established under section 101(a).
(c) Determination of Hospital-Specific Approved FTE
Resident Amounts.--Section 1886(h)(2) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(2)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subparagraph:
``(G) Flexibility in determination.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding the preceding provisions
of this paragraph, the approved FTE resident amount for each
cost reporting period beginning on or after January 1, 2011,
with respect to an applicable resident shall be determined
using a methodology established by the Secretary that allows
flexibility for payments to be made for costs in addition to
the costs of hospital-sponsored education. Such methodology
shall provide that nonteaching hospital-based entities (such
as managed care organizations and public and private
healthcare consortia) that are capable of assembling all of
the resources necessary for effectively providing graduate
medical education may receive payments for providing graduate
medical education, either as the sponsor of such graduate
medical education program or as an affiliate of such a
sponsor.
``(ii) Applicable resident.--In this subparagraph, the term
`applicable resident' means a resident--

``(I) in a specialty which the Secretary, in consultation
with the Permanent National Health Workforce Commission
established under section 101(a) of the Health Access and
Health Professions Supply Act of 2009, determines is in high-
need;
``(II) in a health professional shortage area (as defined
in section 332 of the Public Health Service Act);
``(III) in a medically underserved community (as defined in
section 799B of the Public Health Service Act), or with
respect to a medically underserved population (as defined in
section 330(b)(3) of the Public Health Service Act); and
``(IV) in a Federal medical facility.

``(iii) Federal medical facility.--In this subparagraph,
the term `Federal medical facility' means a facility for the
delivery of health services, and includes--

``(I) a community health center (as defined in section 330
of the Public Health Service Act), a public health center, an
outpatient medical facility, or a community mental health
center;
``(II) a hospital, State mental hospital, facility for
long-term care, or rehabilitation facility;
``(III) a migrant health center or an Indian Health Service
facility;
``(IV) a facility for the delivery of health services to
inmates in a penal or correctional institution (under section
323 of such Act) or a State correctional institution;
``(V) a Public Health Service medical facility (used in
connection with the delivery of health services under section
320, 321, 322, 324, 325, or 326 of such Act); or
``(VI) any other Federal medical facility.''.

SEC. 105. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENT TRAINEES IN AN EMERGENCY.

(a) Exclusion From 3-Year Rolling Average.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, in the case of a host hospital
participating in an emergency Medicare GME affiliation
agreement on or after the date of enactment of this Act and
training residents in excess of its cap, consistent with the
rolling average provisions applicable for closed programs as
specified in section 413.79(d)(6) of title 42, Code of
Federal Regulations, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall exclude from the 3-year rolling average FTE
residents associated with displaced residents during the
period in which such agreement is in effect.
(b) Assessment and Revision of GME Policies.--
(1) Review.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall review policies with respect to payments for direct
graduate medical education costs under section 1886(h) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)) and payments for
the indirect costs of medical education under section
1886(d)(5)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(5)(B)).
(2) Revision and report.--Not later than January 1, 2011,
the Secretary shall--
(A) as appropriate, revise such policies that constrain the
ability of the Secretary to respond to emergency situations
and situations involving institutional and program closure;
and
(B) in the case where the Secretary determines legislative
action is necessary to make such revisions, submit to
Congress a report containing recommendations for such
legislative action.

SEC. 106. AUTHORITY TO INCLUDE COSTS OF TRAINING OF
PSYCHOLOGISTS IN PAYMENTS TO HOSPITALS FOR
APPROVED EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES UNDER MEDICARE.

Effective for cost reporting periods beginning on or after
the date that is 18 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, for purposes of payment to hospitals under the
Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act
for costs of approved educational activities (as defined in
section 413.85 of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations),
such approved educational activities shall include a 1-year
doctoral clinical internship operated by the hospital as part
of a clinical psychology training program that is provided
upon completion of university course work.

TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT

SEC. 201. EXPANSION OF NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS
PROGRAMS.

(a) In General.--Section 338H of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 254q) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraphs (1) through
(5) and inserting the following:
``(1) for fiscal year 2009, $165,000,000;
``(2) for fiscal year 2010, $198,000,000;
``(3) for fiscal year 2011, $231,000,000;
``(4) for fiscal year 2012, $264,000,000;
``(5) for fiscal year 2013, $297,000,000; and
``(6) for fiscal year 2014, $330,000,000.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Expansion of Programs.--The Secretary shall use
amounts appropriated for each of fiscal years 2010 through
2014 under subsection (a), that are in excess of the amount
appropriated under such subsection for fiscal year 2009, to
address shortages of health professionals in rural, frontier,
and urban underserved areas through an expansion of the
number of scholarships and loan repayments under this subpart
to address health workforce shortages in health professional
shortage areas (as defined in section 332), in medically
underserved communities (as defined in section 799B), or with
respect to medically underserved populations (as defined in
section 330(b)(3)).''.
(b) Expansion of Other Programs.--The Director of the
Indian Health Service, the Secretary of Defense, and the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, shall expand existing loan
repayment programs to emphasize the provision of health
professions services to facilities that have health
professional shortages.
(c) No Tax Implications.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, any amount received under a health-related Federal
loan repayment program by a health professional providing
health-related services in a Federal medical facility shall
not be included in the gross income of such professional.
(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``Federal
medical facility'' means a facility for the delivery of
health services, and includes--
(A) a federally qualified health center (as defined in
section 330A of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
254c)), a public health center, an outpatient medical
facility, or a community mental health center;

[[Page 9914]]

(B) a hospital, State mental hospital, facility for long-
term care, or rehabilitation facility;
(C) a migrant health center or an Indian Health Service
facility;
(D) a facility for the delivery of health services to
inmates in a penal or correctional institution (under section
323 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 250)) or a State correctional
institution;
(E) a Public Health Service medical facility (used in
connection with the delivery of health services under section
320, 321, 322, 324, 325, or 326 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 247e,
248, 249, 251, 252, or 253));
(F) a nurse-managed health center; or
(G) any other Federal medical facility.
(d) Reduced Loan Support for Part Time Practitioners.--
Section 338C of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
254m) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart,
the Secretary shall develop procedures to permit periods of
obligated services to be provided on a part-time basis (not
less than 1,040 hours of such service per year). Such
procedures shall prohibit an individual from holding other
part-time employment while providing such part-time obligated
services. The Secretary may provide for a reduction in the
loan repayments provided to individuals who provide part-time
obligated services under the authority provided under this
subsection.''.
(e) Loan Support for Participating Preceptors, Mentors, and
Attendings to Supervise Students and Trainees On-Site.--
Section 338C of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
254m), as amended by subsection (d), is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(f) The Secretary shall develop procedures to permit up
to 20 percent of the service obligation of an individual
under this section to be provided by the individual through
precepting or mentoring activities, or by preparing
curriculum, for on-site students and trainees. The procedures
developed under subsection (e) shall provide for the
proportional application of this subsection with respect to
individual providing obligated service on a part-time
basis.''.

SEC. 202. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
FOR MEDICAL, DENTAL, PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT,
PHARMACY, BEHAVIORAL AND MENTAL HEALTH, PUBLIC
HEALTH, AND NURSING STUDENTS IN THE UNITED
STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCES TRACK IN
AFFILIATED SCHOOLS.

(a) Program Authorized.--
(1) In general.--Subpart III of part D of title III of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l et seq.) is
amended--
(A) in the heading by inserting ``, Scholarship Program for
Medical, Dental, Physician Assistant, Pharmacy, Behavioral
and Mental Health, Public Health, and Nursing Students in the
United States Public Health Sciences Track in Affiliated
Schools,'' after ``Scholarship Program''; and
(B) by inserting after section 338A the following:

``SEC. 338A-1. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS SCHOLARSHIP
PROGRAM FOR MEDICAL, DENTAL, PHYSICIAN
ASSISTANT, PHARMACY, BEHAVIORAL AND MENTAL
HEALTH, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND NURSING STUDENTS IN
THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCES TRACK
IN AFFILIATED SCHOOLS.

``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a program
to be known as the National Health Service Corps Scholarship
Program for Medical, Dental, Physician Assistant, Pharmacy,
Behavioral and Mental Health, Public Health, and Nursing
Students in the United States Public Health Sciences Track in
Affiliated Schools (in this section referred to as the `U.S.
Public Health Sciences Track Scholarship Program) to ensure,
with respect to the provision of high-needs health care
services, including primary care, general dentistry, nursing,
obstetrics, and geriatricians pursuant to section 331(a)(2),
an adequate supply of physicians, physician assistants,
pharmacists, behavioral and mental health professionals,
public health professionals, dentists, and nurses. The
purpose of this program is to train an additional 150 medical
students, 100 dental students, 100 physician assistant
students, 100 behavioral and mental health students, 100
public health students, and 250 nursing students during each
year. Of the 150 scholarships awarded to the medical students
as described under the preceding sentence, 10 shall be for
training at the Uniformed Services University of the Health
Sciences as members of the Commissioned Corps of the Public
Health Service.
``(2) Relationship to national health service corps
scholarship program.-- Scholarships provided under this
section are intended to complement, and not take the place
of, scholarships provided to students enrolled in courses of
study leading to a degree in medicine, osteopathic medicine,
dentistry, or nursing or completion of an accredited
physician assistant, pharmacy, public health, or behavioral
and mental health educational program under the National
Health Service Corps Scholarship Program authorized by
section 338A.
``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to participate in the
U.S. Public Health Sciences Track Scholarship and Grants
Program, an individual shall--
``(1) be accepted for enrollment as a full-time student--
``(A) in an accredited (as determined by the Secretary)
educational institution in a State; and
``(B) in a course of study, or program, offered by such
institution leading to a degree in medicine, osteopathic
medicine, dentistry, physician assistant, pharmacy,
behavioral and mental health, public health, or nursing;
``(2) be eligible for, or hold, an appointment as a
commissioned officer in the Regular or Reserve Corps of the
Service or be eligible for selection for civilian service in
the Corps;
``(3) submit an application to participate in the U.S.
Public Health Sciences Track Scholarship and Grants Program;
and
``(4) sign and submit to the Secretary, at the time of
submittal of such application, a written contract to accept
payment of a scholarship and to serve (in accordance with
this subpart) for the applicable period of obligated service
in an area in which the need for public health-related
services may be demonstrated.''.
(2) No tax implications.--For purposes of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, any amount received under the National
Health Service Corps Scholarship Program for Medical, Dental
and Nursing Students in the United States Public Health
Sciences Track in Affiliated Schools under section 338A-1 of
the Public Health Service Act, as added by paragraph (1), by
a medical student, dental student, or nursing student shall
not be included in the gross income of such student.
(b) Grants to Increase the Number of Available Slots for
Newly Admitted Medical, Dental, Physician Assistant,
Pharmacy, Behavioral and Mental Health, Public Health, and
Nursing Students and to Increase Participation in the U.S.
Public Health Sciences Track Scholarship Program.--Part C of
title VII of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 293k et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 749. GRANTS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF AVAILABLE SLOTS
FOR NEWLY ADMITTED MEDICAL, DENTAL, PHYSICIAN
ASSISTANT, PHARMACY, BEHAVIORAL AND MENTAL
HEALTH, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND NURSING STUDENTS AND
TO INCREASE PARTICIPATION IN THE U.S. PUBLIC
HEALTH SCIENCES TRACK SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.

``(a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary may make grants to
medical, dental, public health, and nursing schools and
physician assistant, pharmacy, and behavioral and mental
health programs for the following purposes:
``(1) To increase the capacity of the recipient medical,
dental, public health, or nursing school or physician
assistant, pharmacy, or behavioral and mental health program,
to accept additional medical, dental, public health, nursing,
physician assistant, pharmacy, or behavioral and mental
health students each year.
``(2) To develop curriculum.
``(3) To acquire equipment.
``(4) To recruit, train, and retain faculty.
``(5) To provide assistance to students who have completed
a course of study at the recipient medical, dental, public
health, or nursing school or physician assistant, pharmacy,
or behavioral and mental health program during the period in
which such students are completing a residency or internship
program affiliated with the recipient institution.
``(b) Application.--A medical, dental, public health, or
nursing school or physician assistant, pharmacy, or
behavioral and mental health program seeking a grant under
this section shall submit an application to the Secretary at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information as
the Secretary may require.
``(c) Definition of Medical School.--In this section, the
term `medical school' means a school of medicine or a school
of osteopathic medicine.''.

SEC. 203. FEDERAL MEDICAL FACILITY GRANT PROGRAM AND PROGRAM
ASSESSMENTS.

(a) Federal Medical Facility Grant Program.--Title VII of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating part F as part G; and
(2) by inserting after part E, the following:

``PART F--START-UP EXPENSES LOAN AND GRANT PROGRAMS FOR FEDERAL MEDICAL
FACILITIES AND HOSPITALS STARTING HIGH NEEDS RESIDENCY PROGRAMS IN
SHORTAGE AREAS

``SEC. 781. FEDERAL MEDICAL FACILITY GRANT PROGRAM.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award grants to
eligible facilities to increase interdisciplinary, community-
based health professions training in high-needs specialties
for physicians, nurses, dentists, physician assistants,
pharmacy, behavioral and mental health professionals, public
health professionals, and other health professionals as
determined appropriate by the Secretary, in consultation with
the Permanent National Health Workforce Commission
established under section 101(a) of the Health Access and
Health Professions Supply Act of 2009.
``(b) Eligible Facilities; Application.--
``(1) Definition of eligible facility.--In this section,
the term `eligible facility'--

[[Page 9915]]

``(A) means a facility which--
``(i) is located in a health professional shortage area (as
defined in section 332);
``(ii) is located in a medically underserved community (as
defined in section 799B), or with respect to a medically
underserved population (as defined in section 330(b)(3));
``(iii) is a Federal medical facility;
``(iv) is an area health education center, a health
education and training center, or a participant in the
Quentin N. Burdick program for rural interdisciplinary
training, that meet the requirements established by the
Secretary; or
``(v) is establishing new residency programs in a specialty
which the Secretary, in consultation with the Permanent
National Health Workforce Commission established under
section 101(a) of the Health Access and Health Professions
Supply Act of 2009, determines is in high-need; and
``(B) includes Medicare certified Federally Qualified
Health Centers, community health centers, health care for the
homeless centers, rural health centers, migrant health
centers, Indian Health Service entities, urban Indian
centers, health clinics and hospitals operated by the Indian
Health Service, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and
urban Indian organizations (as defined in section 4 of the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act), and other Federal
medical facilities).
``(2) Application.--An eligible facility desiring a grant
under subsection (a) shall submit to the Secretary an
application at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may require.
``(c) Use of Funds.--An eligible facility shall use amounts
received under a grant under subsection (a) to promote--
``(1) the training of health professionals in
interdisciplinary, community-based settings that are
affiliated with hospitals and other health care facilities
and teaching institutions;
``(2) community development programs that assure a diverse
health professions workforce through emphasis on individuals
from rural and frontier areas and underrepresented minority
groups;
``(3) the development of a reliable health professions
pipeline that provides an emphasis on health-related careers
in schools (such as schools participating in the Health
Careers Opportunities Program) and centers of excellence, and
that encourage individuals in underrepresented minorities
(including Hispanic, African American, American Indian, and
Alaska Native individuals) to pursue health professions
careers;
``(4) the reduction of health professional isolation in
rural, frontier, and urban underserved areas through the
provision of continuing education, mentoring, and precepting
activities, field faculty development, and the utilization of
technology such as telehealth and electronic health records;
``(5) the establishment and operation of regional or
statewide health advice telephone lines to reduce after-hours
call responsibilities for overworked health professionals who
provide services in remote areas that have few health
professionals taking such after-hours calls;
``(6) an increase in the number of professionals taking
after-hours calls in hospitals and emergency departments in
health professional shortage areas (as defined in section
332), in medically underserved communities (as defined in
section 799B), or with respect to medically underserved
populations (as defined in section 330(b)(3));
``(7) the establishment and operation of relief programs
that provide health professionals practicing in health
professional shortage areas (as defined in section 332) with
patient and call coverage when such professionals are ill,
are pursuing continuing education, or are taking a vacation;
and
``(8) the exposure of health professions residents to
systems of health care that represent the contemporary
American healthcare delivery program (such as `P4' Prepare
the Personal Physician for Practice and the `Health Commons'
programs).
``(d) Subgrants.--An eligible facility may use amounts
received under a grant under this section to award subgrants
to States and other entities determined appropriate by the
Secretary to carry out the activities described in subsection
(c).
``(e) Set Aside.--In awarding grants under this section,
the Secretary shall ensure that a total of $500,000 is
awarded annually for the activities of the National Rural
Recruitment and Retention Network, or a similar entity.
``(f) Definition of Federal Medical Facility.--In this
section, the term `Federal medical facility' means a facility
for the delivery of health services, and includes--
``(1) a federally qualified health center (as defined in
section 330A), a public health center, an outpatient medical
facility, or a community mental health center;
``(2) a hospital, State mental hospital, facility for long-
term care, or rehabilitation facility;
``(3) a migrant health center or an Indian Health Service
facility;
``(4) a facility for the delivery of health services to
inmates in a penal or correctional institution (under section
323) or a State correctional institution;
``(5) a Public Health Service medical facility (used in
connection with the delivery of health services under section
320, 321, 322, 324, 325, or 326)); or
``(6) any other Federal medical facility.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section,
$623,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, $666,000,000 for fiscal
year 2010, $675,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, $700,000,000
for fiscal year 2012, and $725,000,000 for fiscal year
2013.''.
(b) Assessments.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services (referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'')
shall establish program assessment rating tools for each
program funded through titles VII and VIII of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292 and 296 et seq.).
(2) Criteria.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Administrator of the Health Resources and Services
Administration and other appropriate public and private
stakeholders, shall, through negotiated rulemaking, establish
criteria for the conduct of the assessments under paragraph
(2).
(3) Annual assessments.--The Secretary shall annually enter
into a contract with an independent nongovernmental entity
for the conduct of an assessment, using the tools established
under paragraph (1) and the criteria established under
paragraph (2), of not less than 20 percent, nor more than 25
percent, of the programs carried out under titles VII and
VIII of the Public Health Service Act, so that every program
under such titles is assessed at least once during every 5-
year period.

SEC. 204. HEALTH PROFESSIONS TRAINING LOAN PROGRAM.

Part F of title VII of the Public Health Service Act (as
added by section 203) is amended by adding at the end the
following

``SEC. 782. ESTABLISHMENT.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a program
under which the Secretary shall award interest-free loans
to--
``(1) eligible hospitals to enable such hospitals to
establish training programs in high-need specialties; and
``(2) eligible non-hospital community-based entities to
enable such entities to establish health professions training
programs.
``(b) Eligibility.--
``(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a loan under
subsection (a)--
``(A) a hospital shall--
``(i) be located in a health professional shortage area (as
such term is defined in section 332);
``(ii) comply with the requirements of paragraph (2); and
``(iii) submit to the Secretary an application at such
time, in such manner, and containing such information as the
Secretary may require; or
``(B) a non-hospital community-based entity shall--
``(i) comply with the requirements of paragraph (2); and
``(ii) submit to the Secretary an application at such time,
in such manner, and containing such information as the
Secretary may require.
``(2) Requirements.--To be eligible to receive a loan under
subsection (a), a hospital or non-hospital community-based
entity shall--
``(A) on the date on which the entity submits the loan
application, not operate a residency with respect to a high-
needs specialty (as determined by the Secretary in
consultation with the Permanent National Health Workforce
Commission established under section 101(a) of the Health
Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009) or provide
a health professions training program, as the case may be;
``(B) have received appropriate preliminary accreditation
from the relevant accrediting agency (American Council for
Graduate Medical Education, American Osteopathic Association,
or Dental, Physician Assistant, Pharmacy, Behavioral and
Mental Health, Public Health, and Nursing accrediting
agencies), as determined by the Secretary; and
``(C) execute a signed formal contract under which the
hospital or entity agree to repay the loan.
``(c) Use of Loan Funds.--Amounts received under a loan
under subsection (a) shall be used only for--
``(1) the salary and fringe benefit expenses of residents,
students, trainees, and faculty, or other costs directly
attributable to the residency, educational, or training
program to be carried out under the loan, as specified by the
Secretary; or
``(2) facility construction or renovation, including
equipment purchase.
``(d) Priority.--In awarding loans under subsection (a),
the Secretary shall give priority to applicants that are
located in health professional shortage areas (as defined in
section 332) or in medically underserved communities (as
defined in section 799B), or that serve medically underserved
populations (as defined in section 330(b)(3)).
``(e) Loan Provisions.--
``(1) Loan contract.--The loan contract entered into under
subsection (b)(2) shall contain terms that provide for the
repayment of the loan, including the number and amount of
installment payments as described in such contract. Such
repayment shall begin on the date that is 24 months after the
date on which the loan contract is

[[Page 9916]]

executed and shall be fully repaid not later than 36 months
after the date of the first payment.
``(2) Interest.--Loans under this section shall be repaid
without interest.
``(f) Limitation.--The amount of a loan under this section
with respect to each of the uses described in subsection
(c)(1) or (c)(2) shall not exceed $2,000,000.
``(g) Failure to Repay.--A hospital or non-hospital
community-based entity that fails to comply with the terms of
a contract entered into under subsection (b)(2) shall be
liable to the United States for the amount which has been
paid to such hospital or entity under the contract.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to carry
out this section.''.

SEC. 205. UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCES TRACK.

Title II of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 202 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``PART D--UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCES TRACK

``SEC. 271. ESTABLISHMENT.

``(a) United States Public Health Services Track.--
``(1) In general.--There is hereby authorized to be
established a United States Public Health Sciences Track
(referred to in this part as the `Track'), at sites to be
selected by the Secretary, with authority to grant
appropriate advanced degrees in a manner that uniquely
emphasizes team-based service, public health, epidemiology,
and emergency preparedness and response. It shall be so
organized as to graduate not less than--
``(A) 150 medical students annually;
``(B) 100 dental students annually;
``(C) 250 nursing students annually;
``(D) 100 public health students annually;
``(E) 100 behavioral and mental health professional
students annually;
``(F) 100 physician assistant or nurse practitioner
students annually; and
``(G) 50 pharmacy students annually.
``(2) Locations.--The Track shall be located at existing
and accredited, affiliated health professions education
training programs at academic health centers located in
regions of the United States determined appropriate by the
Surgeon General, in consultation with the Permanent National
Health Workforce Commission.
``(b) Number of Graduates.--Except as provided in
subsection (a), the number of persons to be graduated from
the Track shall be prescribed by the Secretary. In so
prescribing the number of persons to be graduated from the
Track, the Secretary shall institute actions necessary to
ensure the maximum number of first-year enrollments in the
Track consistent with the academic capacity of the affiliated
sites and the needs of the United States for medical, dental,
and nursing personnel.
``(c) Development.--The development of the Track may be by
such phases as the Secretary may prescribe subject to the
requirements of subsection (a).
``(d) Integrated Longitudinal Plan.--The Surgeon General
shall develop an integrated longitudinal plan for health
professions continuing education throughout the continuum of
health-related education, training, and practice. Training
under such plan shall emphasize patient-centered,
interdisciplinary, and care coordination skills. Experience
with deployment of emergency response teams shall be included
during the clinical experiences.
``(e) Faculty Development.--The Surgeon General shall
develop faculty development programs and curricula in
decentralized venues of health care, to balance urban,
tertiary, and inpatient venues.

``SEC. 272. ADMINISTRATION.

``(a) In General.--The business of the Track shall be
conducted by the Surgeon General with funds appropriated for
and provided by the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Permanent National Health Workforce Commission shall
assist the Surgeon General in an advisory capacity.
``(b) Faculty.--
``(1) In general.--The Surgeon General, after considering
the recommendations of the Permanent National Health
Workforce Commission, shall obtain the services of such
professors, instructors, and administrative and other
employees as may be necessary to operate the Track, but
utilize when possible, existing affiliated health professions
training institutions. Members of the faculty and staff shall
be employed under salary schedules and granted retirement and
other related benefits prescribed by the Secretary so as to
place the employees of the Track faculty on a comparable
basis with the employees of fully accredited schools of the
health professions within the United States.
``(2) Titles.--The Surgeon General may confer academic
titles, as appropriate, upon the members of the faculty.
``(3) Nonapplication of provisions.--The limitations in
section 5373 of title 5, United States Code, shall not apply
to the authority of the Surgeon General under paragraph (1)
to prescribe salary schedules and other related benefits.
``(c) Agreements.--The Surgeon General may negotiate
agreements with agencies of the Federal Government to utilize
on a reimbursable basis appropriate existing Federal medical
resources located in the United States (or locations selected
in accordance with section 271(a)(2)). Under such agreements
the facilities concerned will retain their identities and
basic missions. The Surgeon General may negotiate affiliation
agreements with accredited universities and health
professions training institutions in the United States. Such
agreements may include provisions for payments for
educational services provided students participating in
Department of Health and Human Services educational programs.
``(d) Programs.--The Surgeon General may establish the
following educational programs for Track students:
``(1) Postdoctoral, postgraduate, and technological
institutes.
``(2) A graduate school of nursing.
``(3) Other schools or programs that the Surgeon General
determines necessary in order to operate the Track in a cost-
effective manner.
``(e) Continuing Medical Education.--The Surgeon General
shall establish programs in continuing medical education for
members of the health professions to the end that high
standards of health care may be maintained within the United
States.
``(f) Authority of the Surgeon General.--
``(1) In general.--The Surgeon General is authorized--
``(A) to enter into contracts with, accept grants from, and
make grants to any nonprofit entity for the purpose of
carrying out cooperative enterprises in medical, dental,
physician assistant, pharmacy, behavioral and mental health,
public health, and nursing research, consultation, and
education;
``(B) to enter into contracts with entities under which the
Surgeon General may furnish the services of such
professional, technical, or clerical personnel as may be
necessary to fulfill cooperative enterprises undertaken by
the Track;
``(C) to accept, hold, administer, invest, and spend any
gift, devise, or bequest of personal property made to the
Track, including any gift, devise, or bequest for the support
of an academic chair, teaching, research, or demonstration
project;
``(D) to enter into agreements with entities that may be
utilized by the Track for the purpose of enhancing the
activities of the Track in education, research, and
technological applications of knowledge; and
``(E) to accept the voluntary services of guest scholars
and other persons.
``(2) Limitation.--The Surgeon General may not enter into
any contract with an entity if the contract would obligate
the Track to make outlays in advance of the enactment of
budget authority for such outlays.
``(3) Scientists.--Scientists or other medical, dental, or
nursing personnel utilized by the Track under an agreement
described in paragraph (1) may be appointed to any position
within the Track and may be permitted to perform such duties
within the Track as the Surgeon General may approve.
``(4) Volunteer services.--A person who provides voluntary
services under the authority of subparagraph (E) of paragraph
(1) shall be considered to be an employee of the Federal
Government for the purposes of chapter 81 of title 5,
relating to compensation for work-related injuries, and to be
an employee of the Federal Government for the purposes of
chapter 171 of title 28, relating to tort claims. Such a
person who is not otherwise employed by the Federal
Government shall not be considered to be a Federal employee
for any other purpose by reason of the provision of such
services.

``SEC. 273. STUDENTS; SELECTION; OBLIGATION.

``(a) Student Selection.--
``(1) In general.--Medical, dental, physician assistant,
pharmacy, behavioral and mental health, public health, and
nursing students at the Track shall be selected under
procedures prescribed by the Surgeon General. In so
prescribing, the Surgeon General shall consider the
recommendations of the Permanent National Health Workforce
Commission.
``(2) Priority.--In developing admissions procedures under
paragraph (1), the Surgeon General shall ensure that such
procedures give priority to applicant medical, dental,
physician assistant, pharmacy, behavioral and mental health,
public health, and nursing students from rural communities
and underrepresented minorities.
``(b) Contract and Service Obligation.--
``(1) Contract.--Upon being admitted to the Track, a
medical, dental, physician assistant, pharmacy, behavioral
and mental health, public health, or nursing student shall
enter into a written contract with the Surgeon General that
shall contain--
``(A) an agreement under which--
``(i) subject to subparagraph (B), the Surgeon General
agrees to provide the student with tuition (or tuition
remission) and a student stipend (described in paragraph (2))
in each school year for a period of years (not to exceed 4
school years) determined by the student, during which period
the student is enrolled in the Track at an affiliated or
other participating health professions institution pursuant
to an agreement between the Track and such institution; and
``(ii) subject to subparagraph (B), the student agrees--

[[Page 9917]]

``(I) to accept the provision of such tuition and student
stipend to the student;
``(II) to maintain enrollment at the Track until the
student completes the course of study involved;
``(III) while enrolled in such course of study, to maintain
an acceptable level of academic standing (as determined by
the Surgeon General);
``(IV) if pursuing a degree from a school of medicine or
osteopathic medicine, dental, public health, or nursing
school or a physician assistant, pharmacy, or behavioral and
mental health professional program, to complete a residency
or internship in a specialty that the Surgeon General
determines is appropriate; and
``(V) to serve for a period of time (referred to in this
part as the `period of obligated service') within the
Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service equal to 2
years for each school year during which such individual was
enrolled at the College, reduced as provided for in paragraph
(3);

``(B) a provision that any financial obligation of the
United States arising out of a contract entered into under
this part and any obligation of the student which is
conditioned thereon, is contingent upon funds being
appropriated to carry out this part;
``(C) a statement of the damages to which the United States
is entitled for the student's breach of the contract; and
``(D) such other statements of the rights and liabilities
of the Secretary and of the individual, not inconsistent with
the provisions of this part.
``(2) Tuition and student stipend.--
``(A) Tuition remission rates.--The Surgeon General, based
on the recommendations of the Permanent National Health
Workforce Commission established under section 101(a) of the
Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009,
shall establish Federal tuition remission rates to be used by
the Track to provide reimbursement to affiliated and other
participating health professions institutions for the cost of
educational services provided by such institutions to Track
students. The agreement entered into by such participating
institutions under paragraph (1)(A)(i) shall contain an
agreement to accept as payment in full the established
remission rate under this subparagraph.
``(B) Stipend.--The Surgeon General, based on the
recommendations of the Permanent National Health Workforce
Commission, shall establish and update Federal stipend rates
for payment to students under this part.
``(3) Reductions in the period of obligated service.--The
period of obligated service under paragraph (1)(A)(ii)(V)
shall be reduced--
``(A) in the case of a student who elects to participate in
a high-needs speciality residency (as determined by the
Permanent National Health Workforce Commission), by 3 months
for each year of such participation (not to exceed a total of
12 months); and
``(B) in the case of a student who, upon completion of
their residency, elects to practice in a Federal medical
facility (as defined in section 781(e)) that is located in a
health professional shortage area (as defined in section
332), by 3 months for year of full-time practice in such a
facility (not to exceed a total of 12 months).
``(c) Second 2 Years of Service.--During the third and
fourth years in which a medical, dental, physician assistant,
pharmacy, behavioral and mental health, public health, or
nursing student is enrolled in the Track, training should be
designed to prioritize clinical rotations in Federal medical
facilities in health professional shortage areas, and
emphasize a balance of hospital and community-based
experiences, and training within interdisciplinary teams.
``(d) Dentist, Physician Assistant, Pharmacist, Behavioral
and Mental Health Professional, Public Health Professional,
and Nurse Training.--The Surgeon General shall establish
provisions applicable with respect to dental, physician
assistant, pharmacy, behavioral and mental health, public
health, and nursing students that are comparable to those for
medical students under this section, including service
obligations, tuition support, and stipend support. The
Surgeon General shall give priority to health professions
training institutions that train medical, dental, physician
assistant, pharmacy, behavioral and mental health, public
health, and nursing students for some significant period of
time together, but at a minimum have a discrete and shared
core curriculum.
``(e) Elite Federal Disaster Teams.--The Surgeon General,
in consultation with the Secretary, the Director of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other
appropriate military and Federal government agencies, shall
develop criteria for the appointment of highly qualified
Track faculty, medical, dental, physician assistant,
pharmacy, behavioral and mental health, public health, and
nursing students, and graduates to elite Federal disaster
preparedness teams to train and to respond to public health
emergencies, natural disasters, bioterrorism events, and
other emergencies.
``(f) Student Dropped From Track in Affiliate School.--A
medical, dental, physician assistant, pharmacy, behavioral
and mental health, public health, or nursing student who,
under regulations prescribed by the Surgeon General, is
dropped from the Track in an affiliated school for deficiency
in conduct or studies, or for other reasons, shall be liable
to the United States for all tuition and stipend support
provided to the student.

``SEC. 274. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
part, section 338A-1, and section 749, such sums as may be
necessary.''.

SEC. 206. MEDICAL EDUCATION DEBT REIMBURSEMENT FOR PHYSICIANS
OF THE VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
carry out a program under which eligible physicians described
in subsection (b) are reimbursed for the education debt of
such physicians as described in subsection (c).
(b) Eligible Physicians.--An eligible physician described
in this subsection is any physician currently appointed to a
physician position in the Veterans Health Administration
under section 7402(b)(1) of title 38, United States Code, who
enters into an agreement with the Secretary to continue
serving as a physician in such position for such period of
time as the Secretary shall specify in the agreement.
(c) Covered Education Debt.--The education debt for which
an eligible physician may be reimbursed under this section is
any amount paid by the physician for tuition, room and board,
or expenses in obtaining the degree of doctor or medicine or
of doctor of osteopathy, including any amounts of principal
or interest paid by the physician under a loan, the proceeds
of which were used by or on behalf of the physician for the
costs of obtaining such degree.
(d) Frequency of Reimbursement.--Any reimbursement of an
eligible physician under this section shall be made in a lump
sum or in installments of such frequency as the Secretary
shall specify the agreement of the physician as required
under subsection (b).
(e) Liability for Failure to Complete Obligated Service.--
Any eligible physician who fails to satisfactorily complete
the period of service agreed to by the physician under
subsection (b) shall be liable to the United States in an
amount determined in accordance with the provisions of
section 7617(c)(1) of title 38, United States Code.
(f) Treatment of Reimbursement With Other Pay and Benefit
Authorities.--Any amount of reimbursement payable to an
eligible physician under this section is in addition to any
other pay, allowances, or benefits that may be provided the
physician under law, including any educational assistance
under the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Professional
Educational Assistance Program under chapter 76 of title 38,
United States Code.

TITLE III--HEALTH PROFESSIONAL TRAINING PIPELINE PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

SEC. 301. GRANTS TO PREPARE STUDENTS FOR CAREERS IN HEALTH
CARE.

(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to support the
development and implementation of programs designed to
prepare middle school and high school students for study and
careers in the healthcare field, including success in
postsecondary mathematics and science programs.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Children from low-income families.--The term ``children
from low-income families'' means children described in
section 1124(c)(1)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6333(c)(1)(A)).
(2) Eligible recipients.--The term ``eligible recipient''
means--
(A) a nonprofit healthcare career pathway partnership
organization; or
(B) a high-need local educational agency in partnership
with--
(i) not less than 1 institution of higher education with an
established health profession education program; and
(ii) not less than 1 community-based, private sector
healthcare provider organization.
(3) High-need local educational agency.--The term ``high-
need local educational agency'' means a local educational
agency or educational service agency--
(A) that serves not fewer than 10,000 children from low-
income families;
(B) for which not less than 20 percent of the children
served by the agency are children from low-income families;
(C) that meets the eligibility requirements for funding
under the Small, Rural School Achievement Program under
section 6211(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7345(b)); or
(D) that meets the eligibility requirements for funding
under the Rural and Low-Income School Program under section
6221(b)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7351(b)(1)).
(4) Nonprofit healthcare career pathway partnership
organization.--The term ``nonprofit healthcare career pathway
partnership organization'' means a nonprofit organization
focused on developing career and educational pathways to
healthcare professions, that shall include representatives
of--
(A) the local educational agencies;
(B) not less than 1 institution of higher education (as
defined in section 101(a) of the

[[Page 9918]]

Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a))) with an
established health profession education program; and
(C) not less than 1 community-based, private sector
healthcare provider organization or other healthcare industry
organization.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
(c) Grants Authorized.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to award
grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible recipients to
enable the recipients to develop and implement programs of
study to prepare middle school and high school students for
postsecondary education leading to careers in the healthcare
field.
(2) Minimum funding level.--Grants shall be awarded at a
minimum level of $500,000 per recipient, per year.
(3) Renewability.--Grants may be renewed, at the discretion
of the Secretary, for not more than 5 years.
(d) Application.--Each eligible recipient desiring a grant
under this section shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may require, which shall include
an assurance that the recipient will meet the program
requirements described in subsection (f)(2).
(e) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to--
(1) applicants that include a local educational agency that
is located in an area that is designated under section
332(a)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
254e(a)(1)(A)) as a health professional shortage area;
(2) applicants that include an institution of higher
education that emphasizes an interdisciplinary approach to
health profession education; and
(3) applicants whose program involves the development of a
uniquely innovative public-private partnership.
(f) Authorized Activities/use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--Each eligible recipient that receives a
grant under this section shall use the grant funds to develop
and implement programs of study to prepare middle school and
high school students for careers in the healthcare field
that--
(A) are aligned with State challenging academic content
standards and State challenging student academic achievement
standards; and
(B) lead to high school graduation with the skills and
preparation--
(i) to enter postsecondary education programs of study in
mathematics and science without remediation; and
(ii) necessary to enter healthcare jobs directly.
(2) Program requirements.--A program of study described in
paragraph (1) shall--
(A) involve a review and identification of the content
knowledge and skills students who enter institutions of
higher education and the workforce need to have in order to
succeed in the healthcare field;
(B) promote the alignment of mathematics and science
curricula and assessments in middle school and high school
and facilitate learning of the required knowledge and skills
identified in subparagraph (A);
(C) include an outreach component to educate middle school
and high school students and their parents about the full
range of employment opportunities in the healthcare field,
specifically in the local community;
(D) include specific opportunities for youth to interact
with healthcare professionals or industry representatives in
the classroom, school, or community locations and how these
experiences will be integrated with coursework;
(E) include high-quality volunteer or internship
experiences, integrated with coursework;
(F) provide high-quality mentoring, counseling, and career
counseling support services to program participants;
(G) consider the inclusion of a distance-learning component
or similar education technology that would expand
opportunities for geographically isolated individuals;
(H) encourage the participation of individuals who are
members of groups that are underrepresented in postsecondary
education programs in mathematics and science;
(I) encourage participants to seek work in communities
experiencing acute health professional shortages; and
(J) collect data, and analyze the data using measurable
objectives and benchmarks, to evaluate the extent to which
the program succeeded in--
(i) increasing student and parent awareness of occupational
opportunities in the healthcare field;
(ii) improving student academic achievement in mathematics
and science;
(iii) increasing the number of students entering health
care professions upon graduation; and
(iv) increasing the number of students pursuing secondary
education or training opportunities with the potential to
lead to a career in the healthcare field.
(3) Planning grant set aside.--Each eligible recipient that
receives a grant under this section shall set aside 10
percent of the grant funds for planning and program
development purposes.
(g) Matching Requirement.--Each eligible recipient that
receives a grant under this section shall provide, from the
private sector, an amount equal to 40 percent of the amount
of the grant, in cash or in kind, to carry out the activities
supported by the grant.
(h) Reports.--
(1) Annual evaluation.--Each eligible recipient that
receives a grant under this section shall collect and report
to the Secretary annually such information as the Secretary
may reasonably require, including--
(A) the number of schools involved and student participants
in the program;
(B) the race, gender, socio-economic status, and disability
status of program participants;
(C) the number of program participants who successfully
graduated from high school;
(D) the number of program participants who reported
enrollment in some form of postsecondary education with the
potential to lead to a career in the healthcare field;
(E) the number of program participants who entered a paid
position, either part-time or full-time, in the healthcare
field following participation in the program; and
(F) the data and analysis required under subsection
(f)(2)(J).
(2) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress an interim report on the results of the evaluations
conducted under paragraph (1).
(i) Authorization and Appropriation.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
$100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to
carry out this section.
(2) Administrative costs.--For the costs of administering
this section, including the costs of evaluating the results
of grants and submitting reports to the Congress, there are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2013.
______

By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Kohl, and Ms.
Snowe):
S. 795. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to enhance the social
security of the Nation by ensuring adequate public-private
infrastructure and to resolve to prevent, detect, treat, intervene in,
and prosecute elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today, Senator Blanche Lincoln, Senator
Herb Kohl, Senator Olympia Snowe and I will be introducing the Elder
Justice Act. The Elder Justice Act we are introducing today was
reported by the Senate Finance Committee during the last Congress. In
fact, this legislation has been introduced consistently since the 107th
Congress. Additionally, it has been reported unanimously by the Finance
Committee during the last three Congresses.
I want to express my gratitude to Senator Blanche Lincoln, the other
lead sponsor of the Elder Justice Act. Senator Lincoln's strong
commitment to reducing elder abuse has made a tremendous difference. It
has been a pleasure to work with her on this important legislation.
In addition, I want to acknowledge the other original cosponsors of
this bill, Senator Herb Kohl and Senator Olympia Snowe. Over the years,
Senator Kohl has been strong supporter of this legislation and, as
Chairman of the Select Committee on Aging, his support has been greatly
appreciated by me. Senator Snowe has been a strong supporter of the
Elder Justice Act for many years.
The Elder Justice Coalition, headed by Bob Blancato, also has been a
great ally of the Elder Justice Act. The coalition, which has close to
560 members, is dedicated to eliminating elder abuse, neglect, and
exploitation in our country. Over the years, coalition members have
worked hard to educate Congress about the Elder Justice Act.
I also must acknowledge the work of former Senator John Breaux on
this important legislation. Senator Breaux was the original sponsor of
the Elder Justice Act.
In fact, Senator Breaux and I first introduced this legislation in
the 107th Congress.
Even though Senator Breaux is no longer in the Senate, he has still
fought for passage of this legislation and currently serves as the
Honorary Chairman of the Elder Justice Coalition.
As far as the Elder Justice Act is concerned, one of the most
significant provisions of this bill is the creation of an Elder Justice
Coordinating Council

[[Page 9919]]

and an Advisory Board on elder abuse, neglect and exploitation.
The Coordinating Council, which would be chaired by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, would be made up of Federal agency
representatives who would be responsible for overseeing programs
related to elder abuse.
Advisory Board members would include citizens who have extensively
studied issues surrounding elder abuse.
Together, the Council and Advisory Board would be responsible for
coordinating public and private activities and programs related to
elder abuse.
Today, that goal is unattainable because quite simply, the approach
to addressing elder abuse is disjointed among Federal agencies.
Therefore, the major goal of the Elder Justice Act would be to
encourage a comprehensive and coordinated response by these Federal
agencies to elder abuse.
I also want to take a minute to address a concern that has been
raised by some who believe that the Elder Justice Act is duplicative
because federal programs already exist to address elder abuse.
I respectfully disagree with that assessment. In fact, last Congress,
we spent a lot of time with agency officials to address some of the
concerns raised about the bill. It is my hope that we will continue
those discussions this year.
That being said, I truly believe that our government needs to do more
when it comes to elder abuse. As more and more baby boomers retire over
the next 3 decades, we can no longer ignore the reality that elder
abuse is prevalent within our society and we must do something to
address it. Enacting the Elder Justice Act is the first step.
Senior citizens cannot wait any longer for this legislation to pass.
Getting this bill signed into law continues to be one of my top
priorities. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Elder
Justice Act and support the passage of this legislation.
Our seniors deserve no less.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I wish today to express my support for the
Elder Justice Act of 2009. As in previous years, I am proud to be an
original cosponsor. I wish to thank my colleague, Senators Hatch,
Lincoln, and Snowe for their leadership to address the often-hidden
scourge of elder abuse. For years, Congress has failed to take concrete
action to address the consequences of elder abuse, and that must
change.
The Elder Justice Act takes several important steps to help protect
our vulnerable elders. First, it boosts funding for the long-term care
ombudsman program, which is the chief source of advocacy for
individuals who live in nursing homes and assisted living facilities.
The bill would advance the understanding of how to prosecute and
address elder abuse by providing funds to focus on and develop the
forensics of elder abuse. In addition, it elevates the importance of
elder justice issues by creating a coordinating council of Federal
agencies that will make policy recommendations and submit reports to
Congress every 2 years. The legislation provides funding for adult
protective services programs and improves training and working
conditions for long-term care professionals.
We must also act to prevent abuse of our elders whenever and wherever
possible. The Patient Safety and Abuse Prevention Act, which I recently
reintroduced with my colleague, Senator Collins, would do much to
prevent physical, emotional and financial abuse by providing States
with the resources they need to significantly improve background check
screening processes for vulnerable populations, including frail elders
and individuals with disabilities. We know from the results of a 3-year
pilot program that thousands of predators can be eliminated from the
long-term care workforce that serves elders simply by improving and
tightening screening standards.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to support both the Elder Justice
Act and the Patient Safety and Abuse Prevention Act. Thousands of
individuals with a history of substantiated abuse or a criminal record
are hired every year to work closely with exposed and defenseless
seniors within our Nation's nursing homes and other long-term care
facilities. Because the current system of State-based background checks
is haphazard, inconsistent, and full of gaping holes, predators can
evade detection throughout the hiring process, securing jobs that allow
them to assault, abuse, and steal from defenseless elders.
I thank Senators Hatch, Lincoln, and Snowe for their commitment to
the cause of elder justice. I look forward to working with my
colleagues to enact the legislation we are introducing today.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 796. A bill to modify the requirements applicable to locatable
minerals on public domain land, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hardrock
Mining and Reclamation Act of 2009. This legislation would reform the
antiquated Mining Law of 1872, a law that governs the mining of
hardrock minerals, such as gold, silver, and copper, from our Federal
lands.
When the Mining Law was enacted in 1872, in the aftermath of the
California gold rush, Congress sought to encourage settlement of the
West. Congress did this by offering free minerals and land to those who
were willing to go West and mine. Congress put in place a system
whereby miners could enter the public lands and locate claims for
valuable mineral deposits, and mine the minerals with no further
payment to the government. In the 1872 law, Congress also provided that
the Federal Government would patent, or transfer title in fee simple,
to the mining claims on the public domain for $2.50 or $5.00 an acre.
In 1920, Congress enacted the Mineral Leasing Act, and removed oil,
gas, coal, and certain other minerals from the operation of the Mining
Law. In so doing, Congress enacted a management regime that requires
the leasing of these minerals. In addition, Congress required payment
of per-acre rentals and ad valorem royalties based on the value of
production of the oil, gas and coal, providing a return to the public
for the production of publicly-owned resources.
However, as we all know, the Mining Law of 1872 continues to govern
the disposition of hardrock minerals from Federal lands. While Congress
has stepped in and prevented the patenting of lands through annual
appropriations riders, patenting provisions allowing the transfer of
mineralized Federal lands for $2.50 or $5.00 per acre are still on the
books. In addition, to this day under the Mining Law, billions of
dollars of hardrock minerals can be mined from Federal lands without
payment of a royalty. General land management and environmental laws
apply, but there are no specific statutory provisions under the Mining
Law setting surface management or environmental standards.
Efforts to comprehensively reform the Mining Law have been ongoing
literally for decades, but results have thus far been elusive. Congress
came close to enacting comprehensive reform in 1994, and Congress has
enacted moratoria on patent issuance and has imposed claim maintenance
fees through the appropriations process. The House passed reform
legislation last Congress and several of us in the Senate had
discussions regarding how we could address this issue.
There is a growing number of people saying that finally this Congress
may be the time to achieve this long-awaited reform. Chairman Rahall, a
champion of reform in the House of Representatives, has again
introduced mining reform legislation. The bill that I introduce today
differs in many significant ways from the House legislation, and builds
on discussions in the Senate last Congress. My bill, like other reform
proposals, reflects a view that the law needs to be amended to ensure
that the public gets a fair return for its resources, that
environmental and land use requirements are modernized, and that
certainty is provided to the mining industry.

[[Page 9920]]

I note that my bill includes a range for both the royalty rate and
the reclamation fee which will be set by the Secretary through a
rulemaking process. This ensures that the Secretary will have the
benefit of comments and information from interested parties and the
public in setting the royalty and fee. We must look comprehensively at
the subject of royalties and fees to ensure that we continue to
maintain a healthy domestic hardrock mining industry with the benefits
that the nation derives from that industry, including jobs and
strategic minerals. At the same time, we want to ensure that the public
gets the fair return on these resources that the American people
deserve. I hope to receive additional input on this issue of royalties
and fees during consideration of the bill.
Another part of this legislation warrants special attention--that is
the provisions relating to abandoned hardrock mine reclamation. While
estimates vary, a recent survey of States indicated that there are as
many as 500,000 abandoned hardrock mine sites nationwide with most of
these in the West. These abandoned mines pose serious public health and
safety risks. They also degrade our environment and pose special
threats to our most precious resource: water.
As we discuss the size and shape of legislation to reform the 1872
law, there appears to be substantial support for enacting a robust
hardrock abandoned mine land program. My legislation would enact a
reclamation fee to fund this effort. In 1977, Congress enacted a coal
AML program as part of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
to address the serious problem of abandoned coal mines. This program
was funded by a fee levied on coal production. We are overdue to enact
a similar program to deal with abandoned hardrock mines.
Mr. President, the bill I introduce today reforms the Mining Law of
1872 in important ways. The key provisions of this bill are outlined.
The bill eliminates patenting of Federal lands, but grandfathers
patent applications filed and meeting all requirements by September 30,
1994.
The bill makes modest increases in the annual claim maintenance fee,
from $125 to $150, and claim location fee, from $30 to $50. The
legislation requires the mine operator to pay a fee in exchange for the
use of Federal land that is included within the mine permit area. The
bill provides that fees collected are to be used for the administration
of hardrock mining on Federal lands. Any excess funds are deposited
into the Hardrock Minerals Reclamation Fund.
The bill provides that the production of all locatable minerals is
subject to a royalty to be determined by the Secretary by regulation of
not less than 2 percent and not more than 5 percent of the value of
production, not including reasonable transportation, beneficiation, and
processing costs. The royalty may vary based on the particular mineral
concerned. No royalty will be collected from lands under permit that
are producing in commercial quantities on the date of enactment.
Royalty revenues will be deposited into the Hardrock Minerals
Reclamation Fund.
The bill includes a provision for royalty reductions for all or part
of a mining operation where the person conducting the mineral
activities shows by clear and convincing evidence that without the
reduction, production would not occur.
The bill states that permits are required for all mineral activities
on Federal land except for ``casual use'' that ordinarily results in no
or negligible disturbance. Mining permits are for a term of 30 years
and so long thereafter as production occurs in commercial quantities.
The operator must provide evidence of approved financial assurances
sufficient to ensure completion of reclamation if performed by the
Secretary concerned.
Financial assurances attributable to the cost of water treatment will
not be released until the discharge has ceased for at least 5 years or
the operator has met all applicable water quality standards for at
least 5 years. The operator may be required to establish a trust fund
or other long-term funding mechanism to provide financial assurances
for long-term treatment of water or other long-term post-mining
maintenance or monitoring requirements.
The Secretary of Agriculture must take any action necessary to
prevent unnecessary or undue degradation in administering mineral
activities on National Forest System land. The bill directs the
Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to jointly issue
regulations.
The bill requires within 3 years a review of certain lands to
determine whether they will be available for future mining claim
location. The Governor of a state, Chairman of an Indian tribe, or
appropriate local official may petition the Secretary to undertake a
review of an area.
The bill establishes a program for the reclamation of abandoned
hardrock mines in 14 western states. Creates a Hardrock Minerals
Reclamation Fund comprised of hardrock royalties, fees, and donations.
Each operator of a hardrock mining operation on Federal, state, tribal
or private land, must pay a reclamation fee established by the
Secretary of not less than 0.3 percent, and not more than 1.0 percent,
of the value of the production of the hardrock minerals for deposit
into the Fund. The bill provides grant programs for all states for
hardrock reclamation projects and for public entities and nonprofit
organizations for collaborative restoration projects to improve fish
and wildlife habitat affected by past hardrock mining.
Reform of the Mining Law of 1872 is a matter that has come before the
Congress repeatedly and that we simply must address. I ask that my
colleagues join me in cosponsoring this important legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a bill summary be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2009

Eliminates Patenting--Eliminates the practice of patenting
Federal land (i.e., transferring title) while grandfathering
patent applications filed and meeting all requirements by
September 30, 1994.
Claim Maintenance and Location Fees--Increases the current
annual claim maintenance fee to $150 (up from $125 under
current law) which is paid in lieu of annual assessment work,
with an exception for claim holders with 10 or fewer claims.
Increases the current claim location fee to $50 per claim (up
from $30 under current law). Provides that fees collected are
to be used for the administration of hardrock mining on
Federal lands. Any excess is deposited into the Hardrock
Minerals Reclamation Fund. Provides for adjustment of the
fees to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index.
Royalties--Production of all locatable minerals is subject
to a royalty to be determined by the Secretary by regulation
of not less than 2 percent and not more than 5 percent of the
value of production, not including reasonable transportation,
beneficiation, and processing costs. The royalty may vary
based on the particular mineral concerned. No royalty will be
collected from existing mines that are producing in
commercial quantities on the date of enactment. Royalty
revenues will be deposited into the Hardrock Minerals
Reclamation Fund. Provides for royalty reductions for all or
part of a mining operation where the person conducting the
mineral activities shows by clear and convincing evidence
that without the reduction, production would not occur.
Provides for enforcement for royalty and certain fee
collections. Provides for a look-back report on the impacts
of royalties and fees.
Permits--Permits are required for all mineral activities on
Federal land except for ``casual use'' that ordinarily
results in no or negligible disturbance. Mining permits are
for a term of 30 years and so long thereafter as production
occurs in commercial quantities.
Land Use Fees--With respect to new mines, requires the
operator to pay a land use fee as determined by the Secretary
by regulation equal to 4 times the claim maintenance fee
imposed for each 20 acres of Federal land that is included
within the mine permit area. Upon approval of the mining
permit and payment of the fee, the operator may use and
occupy the Federal land within the permit area, consistent
with the mining permit and all applicable law.
Financial Assurances--The operator must provide evidence of
approved financial assurances sufficient to ensure completion
of reclamation if performed by the Secretary concerned.
Water Reclamation--Financial assurances attributable to the
cost of water treatment will not be released until the
discharge has

[[Page 9921]]

ceased for at least 5 years or the operator has met all
applicable water quality standards for at least 5 years. The
operator may be required to establish a trust fund or other
long-term funding mechanism to provide financial assurances
for long-term treatment of water or other long-term post-
mining maintenance or monitoring requirements.
Operation and Reclamation--Creates a uniform standard for
operation and reclamation on both BLM and Forest Service
lands by applying the ``unnecessary or undue degradation''
standard currently applicable to BLM land to National Forest
System land. Directs the Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture to jointly issue regulations.
Land Open to Location--Amends the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act to require within 3 years that local Federal
land managers review specified categories of lands for
withdrawal from operation of the Mining Law, subject to valid
existing rights. The categories to be reviewed are:
designated wilderness study areas and National Forest System
land identified as suitable for wilderness designation; areas
of critical environmental concern; Federal land in which
mineral activities pose a reasonable likelihood of
substantial adverse impacts on National Conservation System
units as defined in the bill; certain areas with potential
for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System as
specified; and areas identified in the set of inventoried
roadless area maps contained in the Forest Service Roadless
Areas Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement,
Volume 2, dated November 2000). Based on the review and
recommendation of the local Federal land manager, areas can
be removed from operation of the Mining Law, subject to valid
existing rights. The Governor of a state, head of an Indian
tribe, or appropriate local official may petition the
Secretary to direct the local Federal land manager to
undertake a review of an area to determine whether land
should be withdrawn, subject to valid existing rights.
Inspection and Monitoring--Requires the Secretary concerned
to conduct inspections at least once each quarter. All
operators must develop and maintain a monitoring and
evaluation system.
Hardrock Minerals Reclamation Fund--Provides for the
payment of royalties, fees, and donations into a Hardrock
Minerals Reclamation Fund to be administered by the Secretary
of the Interior through the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement.
Use of the Fund--The Secretary may use amounts in the Fund
without further appropriation for the reclamation of land and
water (Federal, State, tribal and private) affected by past
hardrock mining and related activities in 14 western states
when there is no continuing reclamation responsibility of the
claim holder or operator, and for hardrock reclamation grant
programs nationwide as specified in the bill.
Allocation of the Fund--Provides for allocation of the
Fund: to states and tribes based on current hardrock
production and on the quantity of hardrock minerals
historically produced; to agencies for expenditure on Federal
land; for grants to states other than the 14 designated
western states for reclamation of abandoned hardrock mine
sites; for grants to public entities and nonprofit
organizations for collaborative restoration projects to
improve fish and wildlife habitat affected by past hardrock
mining; and for program administration.
Abandoned Mine Land Fee--Each operator of a hardrock
mineral mining operation on Federal, state, tribal or private
land, shall pay to the Secretary a reclamation fee
established by the Secretary by regulation of not less than
0.3 percent, and not more than 1.0 percent, of the value of
the production of the hardrock minerals mining operation for
each calendar year for deposit into the Fund.
Transition--If a plan of operations is approved or a notice
of operations is filed for mineral activities before the date
of enactment, mineral activities will be subject to the
approved plan of operations or the notice for 10 years after
the date of enactment. All fees apply starting on the date of
enactment of this Act, except that the land use fee applies
only to mining permits or modifications after the date of
enactment. No royalty is required on production from Federal
land that is subject to an operations permit on the date of
enactment of this Act and that produces valuable locatable
minerals in commercial quantities on the date of enactment.
Enforcement--Provides for enforcement, including civil
penalty authority for the Secretary.
Uncommon Varieties--Subject to valid existing rights, makes
minerals classified as ``common varieties with distinct and
special value'' subject to disposal under the Materials Act
of 1947.
Review of Uranium Development on Federal Land--Provides for
a National Academy of Sciences review of legal and related
requirements applicable to the development of uranium on
Federal lands.
______

By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Johnson, Ms.
Cantwell, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Thune, Mr. Tester, Mr. Begich, and
Mr. Udall of New Mexico):
S. 797. A bill to amend the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act, the
Indian Tribal Justice Act, the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and
Legal Assistance Act of 2000, and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 to improve the prosecution of, and response to,
crimes in Indian country, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Indian Affairs.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Tribal Law
and Order Act of 2009.
Last Congress, as Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, I
chaired eight hearings on the criminal justice system as it relates to
American Indian and Alaska Native communities. Those hearings confirmed
that a longstanding and life threatening public safety crisis exists on
many of our Nation's American Indian reservations.
One of the primary causes for violent crime in Indian Country is the
broken system of justice. The current system limits local tribal
government authority to combat crime in their own communities, and
requires reservation residents to rely on Federal officials to
investigate and prosecute violent crimes in district courts that are
often hundreds of miles away from the reservation.
The United States created this system. In so doing, our Government
accepted the responsibility to police Indian lands, and incurred a
legal obligation to provide for the public safety of tribal
communities.
Unfortunately, we are not meeting that obligation.
The following is a partial listing of Indian Country criminal justice
statistics. These statistics represent more than numbers. They
represent the dark reality faced by hundreds of tribal communities on a
daily basis.
The violent crime rate in Indian country is nearly twice the national
average, and more than 20 times the national average on some
reservations.
Thirty-four percent of Native women will be raped in their lifetimes;
and 39 percent will be subject to domestic violence.
Fewer than 3,000 tribal and Federal law enforcement officers patrol
more than 56,000,000 acres of Indian lands--less than \1/2\ of the law
enforcement presence in comparable communities nationwide.
The lack of police presence has resulted in significant delays in
responding to victims' calls for assistance, which in turn adversely
affects the collection of evidence needed to prosecute domestic
violence and sexual assaults.
In addition, Federal officials have seized business documents from
organized crime operations citing the lack of police presence and
jurisdictional confusion as reasons for targeting Indian reservations
for the manufacture and distribution of drugs.
An Interior Department report found that 90 percent of existing
Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal detention facilities must be
replaced. The lack of jail bed space has forced tribal courts to
release a number of offenders.
Tribal communities rely solely on the U.S. to investigate and
prosecute felony-level crimes occurring on the reservation. However,
between 2004 and 2007, Federal prosecutors declined 62 percent of
Indian country criminal cases, including 72 percent of child and adult
sex crimes.
To address this crisis, I am introducing the Tribal Law and Order Act
of 2009 with the support of my colleagues Committee Vice Chairman
Barrasso, and Senators Baucus, Bingaman, Begich, Cantwell, Johnson,
Kyl, Lieberman, Murkowski, Tester, Thune, Udall, and Wyden.
This bill will take initial steps to mend this broken system by
arming tribal justice officials with the needed tools to protect their
communities. Importantly, the bill would enable tribal courts to
sentence offenders up to 3 years in prison for violations of tribal
law, an increase from the current limit of 1 year. It also arms tribal
police with better access to national criminal databases, and improves
their ability to makes arrests for reservation crimes.
In addition, the bill would provide for greater accountability on the
part of

[[Page 9922]]

Federal officials responsible for investigating and prosecuting
reservation crimes. To increase coordination of prosecutions, the bill
would require U.S. Attorneys to file declination reports and maintain
data when refusing to pursue a case. Maintaining consistent data on
declinations will enable Congress to direct funding where the
additional resources are needed. It would also require greater
consultation and coordination between federal law enforcement
officials, tribal leaders, and community members.
To address the epidemic of domestic violence, the bill would require
Federal health and law enforcement officials to establish consistent
sexual assault protocols. It would require officials to testify to aid
tribal court prosecutions. The bill would also require Federal
officials to receive specialized training to properly interview victims
of domestic and sexual violence, and improve evidence collection and
preservation, which will help improve the prosecution of domestic
violence and sexual assaults in Federal and tribal courts.
Improving the system will ensure that Federal dollars appropriated to
fight reservation crime will be used in a more efficient manner. To
that end, the bill also reauthorizes and amends several Federal
programs designed to supplement tribal justice systems to enable them
to better combat crime locally. These programs would provide funding
for tribal courts, tribal police, Indian youth programs, and tribal
jails construction.
This bill was developed in consultation with tribal, Federal and
State law enforcement officials, judges, prosecutors, public defenders,
victims, victims' advocates and many others.
I want to again thank the co-sponsors for their support. Many of the
co-sponsors sit on the Indian Affairs Committee with me, and have
repeatedly heard from Federal and tribal officials about this
longstanding problem. The residents of Indian Country deserve our
timely consideration of this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting the passage of 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. 797

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Tribal Law
and Order Act of 2009''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings; purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I--FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND COORDINATION

Sec. 101. Office of Justice Services responsibilities.
Sec. 102. Declination reports.
Sec. 103. Prosecution of crimes in Indian country.
Sec. 104. Administration.

TITLE II--STATE ACCOUNTABILITY AND COORDINATION

Sec. 201. State criminal jurisdiction and resources.
Sec. 202. Incentives for State, tribal, and local law enforcement
cooperation.

TITLE III--EMPOWERING TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND TRIBAL
GOVERNMENTS

Sec. 301. Tribal police officers.
Sec. 302. Drug enforcement in Indian country.
Sec. 303. Access to national criminal information databases.
Sec. 304. Tribal court sentencing authority.
Sec. 305. Indian Law and Order Commission.

TITLE IV--TRIBAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS

Sec. 401. Indian alcohol and substance abuse.
Sec. 402. Indian tribal justice; technical and legal assistance.
Sec. 403. Tribal resources grant program.
Sec. 404. Tribal jails program.
Sec. 405. Tribal probation office liaison program.
Sec. 406. Tribal youth program.

TITLE V--INDIAN COUNTRY CRIME DATA COLLECTION AND INFORMATION SHARING

Sec. 501. Tracking of crimes committed in Indian country.
Sec. 502. Grants to improve tribal data collection systems.
Sec. 503. Criminal history record improvement program.

TITLE VI--DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT PROSECUTION AND
PREVENTION

Sec. 601. Prisoner release and reentry.
Sec. 602. Domestic and sexual violent offense training.
Sec. 603. Testimony by Federal employees in cases of rape and sexual
assault.
Sec. 604. Coordination of Federal agencies.
Sec. 605. Sexual assault protocol.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the United States has distinct legal, treaty, and trust
obligations to provide for the public safety of tribal
communities;
(2) several States have been delegated or have accepted
responsibility to provide for the public safety of tribal
communities within the borders of the States;
(3) Congress and the President have acknowledged that--
(A) tribal law enforcement officers are often the first
responders to crimes on Indian reservations; and
(B) tribal justice systems are ultimately the most
appropriate institutions for maintaining law and order in
tribal communities;
(4) less than 3,000 tribal and Federal law enforcement
officers patrol more than 56,000,000 acres of Indian country,
which reflects less than \1/2\ of the law enforcement
presence in comparable rural communities nationwide;
(5) on many Indian reservations, law enforcement officers
respond to distress or emergency calls without backup and
travel to remote locations without adequate radio
communication or access to national crime information
database systems;
(6) the majority of tribal detention facilities were
constructed decades before the date of enactment of this Act
and must be or will soon need to be replaced, creating a
multibillion-dollar backlog in facility needs;
(7) a number of Indian country offenders face no
consequences for minor crimes, and many such offenders are
released due to severe overcrowding in existing detention
facilities;
(8) tribal courts--
(A) are the primary arbiters of criminal and civil justice
for actions arising in Indian country; but
(B) have been historically underfunded;
(9) tribal courts have no criminal jurisdiction over non-
Indian persons, and the sentencing authority of tribal courts
is limited to sentences of not more than 1 year of
imprisonment for Indian offenders, forcing tribal communities
to rely solely on the Federal Government and certain State
governments for the prosecution of--
(A) misdemeanors committed by non-Indian persons; and
(B) all felony crimes in Indian country;
(10) a significant percentage of cases referred to Federal
agencies for prosecution of crimes allegedly occurring in
tribal communities are declined to be prosecuted;
(11) the complicated jurisdictional scheme that exists in
Indian country--
(A) has a significant negative impact on the ability to
provide public safety to Indian communities; and
(B) has been increasingly exploited by criminals;
(12) the violent crime rate in Indian country is--
(A) nearly twice the national average; and
(B) more than 20 times the national average on some Indian
reservations;
(13)(A) domestic and sexual violence against Indian and
Alaska Native women has reached epidemic proportions;
(B) 34 percent of Indian and Alaska Native women will be
raped in their lifetimes; and
(C) 39 percent of Indian and Alaska Native women will be
subject to domestic violence;
(14) the lack of police presence and resources in Indian
country has resulted in significant delays in responding to
victims' calls for assistance, which adversely affects the
collection of evidence needed to prosecute crimes,
particularly crimes of domestic and sexual violence;
(15) alcohol and drug abuse plays a role in more than 80
percent of crimes committed in tribal communities;
(16) the rate of methamphetamine addiction in tribal
communities is 3 times the national average;
(17) the Department of Justice has reported that drug
organizations have increasingly targeted Indian country to
produce and distribute methamphetamine, citing the limited
law enforcement presence and jurisdictional confusion as
reasons for the increased activity;
(18) tribal communities face significant increases in
instances of domestic violence, burglary, assault, and child
abuse as a direct result of increased methamphetamine use on
Indian reservations;
(19)(A) criminal jurisdiction in Indian country is complex,
and responsibility for Indian country law enforcement is
shared among Federal, tribal, and State authorities; and
(B) that complexity requires a high degree of commitment
and cooperation from Federal and State officials that can be
difficult to establish;
(20) agreements for cooperation among certified tribal and
State law enforcement officers have proven to improve law
enforcement in tribal communities;

[[Page 9923]]

(21) consistent communication among tribal, Federal, and
State law enforcement agencies has proven to increase public
safety and justice in tribal and nearby communities; and
(22) crime data is a fundamental tool of law enforcement,
but for decades the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the
Department of Justice have not been able to coordinate or
consistently report crime and prosecution rates in tribal
communities.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to clarify the responsibilities of Federal, State,
tribal, and local governments with respect to crimes
committed in tribal communities;
(2) to increase coordination and communication among
Federal, State, tribal, and local law enforcement agencies;
(3) to empower tribal governments with the authority,
resources, and information necessary to safely and
effectively provide for the safety of the public in tribal
communities;
(4) to reduce the prevalence of violent crime in tribal
communities and to combat violence against Indian and Alaska
Native women;
(5) to address and prevent drug trafficking and reduce
rates of alcohol and drug addiction in Indian country; and
(6) to increase and standardize the collection of criminal
data and the sharing of criminal history information among
Federal, State, and tribal officials responsible for
responding to and investigating crimes in tribal communities.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General.--In this Act:
(1) Indian country.--The term ``Indian country'' has the
meaning given the term in section 1151 of title 18, United
States Code.
(2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given the term in section 102 of the Federally
Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(4) Tribal government.--The term ``tribal government''
means the governing body of an Indian tribe.
(b) Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act.--Section 2 of the
Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2801) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(10) Tribal justice official.--The term `tribal justice
official' means--
``(A) a tribal prosecutor;
``(B) a tribal law enforcement officer; or
``(C) any other person responsible for investigating or
prosecuting an alleged criminal offense in tribal court.''.

TITLE I--FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND COORDINATION

SEC. 101. OFFICE OF JUSTICE SERVICES RESPONSIBILITIES.

(a) Definitions.--Section 2 of the Indian Law Enforcement
Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2801) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (8);
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (7) as
paragraphs (2) through (8), respectively;
(3) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (1) and
moving the paragraphs so as to appear in numerical order; and
(4) in paragraph (1) (as redesignated by paragraph (3)), by
striking ``Division of Law Enforcement Services'' and
inserting ``Office of Justice Services''.
(b) Additional Responsibilities of Office.--Section 3 of
the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2802) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``(b) There is hereby
established within the Bureau a Division of Law Enforcement
Services which'' and inserting the following:
``(b) Office of Justice Services.--There is established in
the Bureau an office, to be known as the `Office of Justice
Services', that'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``Division of Law Enforcement Services'' and inserting
``Office of Justice Services'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and, with the consent
of the Indian tribe, tribal criminal laws, including
testifying in tribal court'' before the semicolon at the end;
(C) in paragraph (8), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(D) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(E) by adding at the end the following:
``(10) the development and provision of dispatch and
emergency and E-911 services;
``(11) communicating with tribal leaders, tribal community
and victims' advocates, tribal justice officials, and
residents of Indian land on a regular basis regarding public
safety and justice concerns facing tribal communities;
``(12) conducting meaningful and timely consultation with
tribal leaders and tribal justice officials in the
development of regulatory policies and other actions that
affect public safety and justice in Indian country;
``(13) providing technical assistance and training to
tribal law enforcement officials to gain access and input
authority to utilize the National Criminal Information Center
and other national crime information databases pursuant to
section 534 of title 28, United States Code;
``(14) in coordination with the Attorney General pursuant
to subsection (g) of section 302 of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3732), collecting,
analyzing, and reporting data regarding Indian country crimes
on an annual basis;
``(15) submitting to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the
Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives, for each fiscal year, a detailed spending
report regarding tribal public safety and justice programs
that includes--
``(A)(i) the number of full-time employees of the Bureau
and tribal government who serve as--
``(I) criminal investigators;
``(II) uniform police;
``(III) police and emergency dispatchers;
``(IV) detention officers;
``(V) executive personnel, including special agents in
charge, and directors and deputies of various offices in the
Office of Justice Services; or
``(VI) tribal court judges, prosecutors, public defenders,
or related staff; and
``(ii) the amount of appropriations obligated for each
category described in clause (i) for each fiscal year;
``(B) a list of amounts dedicated to law enforcement and
corrections, vehicles, related transportation costs,
equipment, inmate transportation costs, inmate transfer
costs, replacement, improvement, and repair of facilities,
personnel transfers, detailees and costs related to their
details, emergency events, public safety and justice
communications and technology costs, and tribal court
personnel, facilities, and related program costs;
``(C) a list of the unmet staffing needs of law
enforcement, corrections, and court personnel at tribal and
Bureau of Indian Affairs justice agencies, the replacement
and repair needs of tribal and Bureau corrections facilities,
needs for tribal police and court facilities, and public
safety and emergency communications and technology needs; and
``(D) the formula, priority list or other methodology used
to determine the method of disbursement of funds for the
public safety and justice programs administered by the Office
of Justice Services;
``(16) submitting to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the
Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives, for each fiscal year, a report summarizing
the technical assistance, training, and other support
provided to tribal law enforcement and corrections agencies
that operate relevant programs pursuant to self-determination
contracts or self-governance compacts with the Bureau of
Indian Affairs; and
``(17) promulgating regulations to carry out this Act, and
routinely reviewing and updating, as necessary, the
regulations contained in subchapter B of title 25, Code of
Federal Regulations (or successor regulations).'';
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Division of Law
Enforcement Services'' and inserting ``Office of Justice
Services'';
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking ``regulations which shall establish'' and
inserting ``regulations, which shall--
``(A) establish'';
(ii) by striking ``reservation.'' and inserting
``reservation; but''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) support the enforcement of tribal laws and
investigation of offenses against tribal criminal laws.'';
and
(C) in paragraph (4)(i), in the first sentence, by striking
``Division'' and inserting ``Office of Justice Services'';
(4) in subsection (e), by striking ``Division of Law
Enforcement Services'' each place it appears and inserting
``Office of Justice Services''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Long-Term Plan for Tribal Detention Programs.--Not
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
subsection, the Secretary, acting through the Bureau, in
coordination with the Department of Justice and in
consultation with tribal leaders, tribal law enforcement
officers, and tribal corrections officials, shall submit to
Congress a long-term plan to address incarceration in Indian
country, including a description of--
``(1) proposed activities for the construction of detention
facilities (including regional facilities) on Indian land;
``(2) proposed activities for the construction of
additional Federal detention facilities on Indian land;
``(3) proposed activities for contracting with State and
local detention centers, upon approval of affected tribal
governments;
``(4) proposed activities for alternatives to
incarceration, developed in cooperation with tribal court
systems; and
``(5) other such alternatives to incarceration as the
Secretary, in coordination with the Bureau and in
consultation with tribal representatives, determines to be
necessary.
``(g) Law Enforcement Personnel of Bureau and Indian
Tribes.--
``(1) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall submit to
the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Natural Resources of the House of

[[Page 9924]]

Representatives a report regarding vacancies in law
enforcement personnel of Bureau and Indian tribes.
``(2) Long-term plan.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall submit
to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives a long-term plan to address law enforcement
personnel needs in Indian country.''.
(c) Law Enforcement Authority.--Section 4 of the Indian Law
Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2803) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``), or'' and
inserting ``or offenses committed on Federal property
processed by the Central Violations Bureau); or''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking subparagraphs (A) through
(C) and inserting the following:
``(A) the offense is committed in the presence of the
employee; or
``(B) the offense is a Federal crime and the employee has
reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested
has committed, or is committing, the crime;''.

SEC. 102. DECLINATION REPORTS.

Section 10 of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25
U.S.C. 2809) is amended by striking subsections (a) through
(d) and inserting the following:
``(a) Reports.--
``(1) Law enforcement officials.--Subject to subsection
(d), if a law enforcement officer or employee of any Federal
department or agency declines to initiate an investigation of
an alleged violation of Federal law in Indian country, or
terminates such an investigation without referral for
prosecution, the officer or employee shall--
``(A) submit to the appropriate tribal justice officials
evidence, including related reports, relevant to the case
that would advance prosecution of the case in a tribal court;
and
``(B) submit to the Office of Indian Country Crime relevant
information regarding all declinations of alleged violations
of Federal law in Indian country, including--
``(i) the type of crime alleged;
``(ii) the status of the accused as an Indian or non-
Indian;
``(iii) the status of the victim as an Indian; and
``(iv) the reason for declining to initiate, open, or
terminate the investigation.
``(2) United states attorneys.--Subject to subsection (d),
if a United States Attorney declines to prosecute, or acts to
terminate prosecution of, an alleged violation of Federal law
in Indian country, the United States Attorney shall--
``(A) submit to the appropriate tribal justice official,
sufficiently in advance of the tribal statute of limitations,
evidence relevant to the case to permit the tribal prosecutor
to pursue the case in tribal court; and
``(B) submit to the Office of Indian Country Crime and the
appropriate tribal justice official relevant information
regarding all declinations of alleged violations of Federal
law in Indian country, including--
``(i) the type of crime alleged;
``(ii) the status of the accused as an Indian or non-
Indian;
``(iii) the status of the victim as an Indian; and
``(iv) the reason for the determination to decline or
terminate the prosecution.
``(b) Maintenance of Records.--
``(1) In general.--The Director of the Office of Indian
Country Crime shall establish and maintain a compilation of
information received under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection
(a) relating to declinations.
``(2) Availability to congress.--Each compilation under
paragraph (1) shall be made available to Congress on an
annual basis.
``(c) Inclusion of Case Files.--A report submitted to the
appropriate tribal justice officials under paragraph (1) or
(2) of subsection (a) may include the case file, including
evidence collected and statements taken that could support an
investigation or prosecution by the appropriate tribal
justice officials.
``(d) Effect of Section.--
``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section requires any
Federal agency or official to transfer or disclose any
confidential or privileged communication, information, or
source to an official of any Indian tribe.
``(2) Federal rules of criminal procedure.--Rule 6 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure shall apply to this
section.
``(3) Regulations.--Each Federal agency required to submit
a report pursuant to this section shall adopt, by regulation,
standards for the protection of confidential or privileged
communications, information, and sources under paragraph
(1).''.

SEC. 103. PROSECUTION OF CRIMES IN INDIAN COUNTRY.

(a) Appointment of Special Prosecutors.--Section 543 of
title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``, including the appointment of
qualified tribal prosecutors and other qualified attorneys to
assist in prosecuting Federal offenses committed in Indian
country''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Sense of Congress Regarding Consultation.--It is the
sense of Congress that, in appointing attorneys under this
section to serve as special prosecutors in Indian country,
the Attorney General should consult with tribal justice
officials of each Indian tribe that would be affected by the
appointment.''.
(b) Tribal Liaisons.--The Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act
(25 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 11. ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY TRIBAL LIAISONS.

``(a) Appointment.--Each United States Attorney the
district of which includes Indian country shall appoint not
less than 1 assistant United States Attorney to serve as a
tribal liaison for the district.
``(b) Duties.--A tribal liaison shall be responsible for
the following activities in the district of the tribal
liaison:
``(1) Coordinating the prosecution of Federal crimes that
occur in Indian country.
``(2) Developing multidisciplinary teams to combat child
abuse and domestic and sexual violence offenses against
Indians.
``(3) Consulting and coordinating with tribal justice
officials and victims' advocates to address any backlog in
the prosecution of major crimes in Indian country in the
district.
``(4) Developing working relationships and maintaining
communication with tribal leaders, tribal community and
victims' advocates, and tribal justice officials to gather
information from, and share appropriate information with,
tribal justice officials.
``(5) Coordinating with tribal prosecutors in cases in
which a tribal government has concurrent jurisdiction over an
alleged crime, in advance of the expiration of any applicable
statute of limitation.
``(6) Providing technical assistance and training regarding
evidence gathering techniques to tribal justice officials and
other individuals and entities that are instrumental to
responding to Indian country crimes.
``(7) Conducting training sessions and seminars to certify
special law enforcement commissions to tribal justice
officials and other individuals and entities responsible for
responding to Indian country crimes.
``(8) Coordinating with the Office of Indian Country Crime,
as necessary.
``(9) Conducting such other activities to address and
prevent violent crime in Indian country as the applicable
United States Attorney determines to be appropriate.
``(c) Sense of Congress Regarding Evaluations of Tribal
Liaisons.--
``(1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
``(A) many tribal communities rely solely on United States
Attorneys offices to prosecute felony and misdemeanor crimes
occurring on Indian land; and
``(B) tribal liaisons have dual obligations of--
``(i) coordinating prosecutions of Indian country crime;
and
``(ii) developing relationships with tribal communities and
serving as a link between tribal communities and the Federal
justice process.
``(2) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Attorney General should--
``(A) take all appropriate actions to encourage the
aggressive prosecution of all crimes committed in Indian
country; and
``(B) when appropriate, take into consideration the dual
responsibilities of tribal liaisons described in paragraph
(1)(B) in evaluating the performance of the tribal liaisons.
``(d) Enhanced Prosecution of Minor Crimes.--
``(1) In general.--Each United States Attorney serving a
district that includes Indian country is authorized and
encouraged--
``(A) to appoint Special Assistant United States Attorneys
pursuant to section 543(a) of title 28, United States Code,
to prosecute crimes in Indian country as necessary to improve
the administration of justice, and particularly when--
``(i) the crime rate exceeds the national average crime
rate; or
``(ii) the rate at which criminal offenses are declined to
be prosecuted exceeds the national average declination rate;
``(B) to coordinate with applicable United States
magistrate and district courts--
``(i) to ensure the provision of docket time for
prosecutions of Indian country crimes; and
``(ii) to hold trials and other proceedings in Indian
country, as appropriate;
``(C) to provide to appointed Special Assistant United
States Attorneys appropriate training, supervision, and staff
support; and
``(D) if an agreement is entered into with a Federal court
pursuant to paragraph (2), to provide technical and other
assistance to tribal governments and tribal court systems to
ensure the success of the program under this subsection.
``(2) Sense of congress regarding consultation.--It is the
sense of Congress that, in appointing Special Assistant
United States Attorneys under this subsection, a United
States Attorney should consult with tribal justice officials
of each Indian tribe that would be affected by the
appointment.''.

SEC. 104. ADMINISTRATION.

(a) Office of Tribal Justice.--
(1) Definitions.--Section 4 of the Indian Tribal Justice
Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (25 U.S.C. 3653)
is amended--

[[Page 9925]]

(A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (7) as
paragraphs (3) through (8), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of
the Office of Tribal Justice.''.
(2) Status.--Title I of the Indian Tribal Justice Technical
and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 is amended--
(A) by redesignating section 106 (25 U.S.C. 3666) as
section 107; and
(B) by inserting after section 105 (25 U.S.C. 3665) the
following:

``SEC. 106. OFFICE OF TRIBAL JUSTICE.

``(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009, the
Attorney General shall modify the status of the Office of
Tribal Justice as the Attorney General determines to be
necessary to establish the Office of Tribal Justice as a
permanent division of the Department.
``(b) Personnel and Funding.--The Attorney General shall
provide to the Office of Tribal Justice such personnel and
funds as are necessary to establish the Office of Tribal
Justice as a division of the Department under subsection (a).
``(c) Additional Duties.--In addition to the duties of the
Office of Tribal Justice in effect on the day before the date
of enactment of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009, the
Office of Tribal Justice shall--
``(1) serve as the program and legal policy advisor to the
Attorney General with respect to the treaty and trust
relationship between the United States and Indian tribes;
``(2) serve as the point of contact for federally
recognized tribal governments and tribal organizations with
respect to questions and comments regarding policies and
programs of the Department and issues relating to public
safety and justice in Indian country; and
``(3) coordinate with other bureaus, agencies, offices, and
divisions within the Department of Justice to ensure that
each component has an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely consultation with tribal leaders in the
development of regulatory policies and other actions that
affect--
``(A) the trust responsibility of the United States to
Indian tribes;
``(B) any tribal treaty provision;
``(C) the status of Indian tribes as a sovereign
governments; or
``(D) any other tribal interest.''.
(b) Office of Indian Country Crime.--The Indian Law
Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) (as amended
by section 103(b)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 12. OFFICE OF INDIAN COUNTRY CRIME.

``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the criminal
division of the Department of Justice an office, to be known
as the `Office of Indian Country Crime'.
``(b) Duties.--The Office of Indian Country Crime shall--
``(1) develop, enforce, and administer the application of
Federal criminal laws applicable in Indian country;
``(2) coordinate with the United States Attorneys that have
authority to prosecute crimes in Indian country;
``(3) coordinate prosecutions of crimes of national
significance in Indian country, as determined by the Attorney
General;
``(4) develop and implement criminal enforcement policies
for United States Attorneys and investigators of Federal
crimes regarding cases arising in Indian country; and
``(5) submit to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the
Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives annual reports describing the prosecution and
declination rates of cases involving alleged crimes in Indian
country referred to United States Attorneys.
``(c) Deputy Assistant Attorney General.--
``(1) Appointment.--The Attorney General shall appoint a
Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Indian Country Crime.
``(2) Duties.--The Deputy Assistant Attorney General for
Indian Country Crime shall--
``(A) serve as the head of the Office of Indian Country
Crime;
``(B) serve as a point of contact to United State Attorneys
serving districts including Indian country, tribal liaisons,
tribal governments, and other Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies regarding issues affecting the
prosecution of crime in Indian country; and
``(C) carry out such other duties as the Attorney General
may prescribe.''.

TITLE II--STATE ACCOUNTABILITY AND COORDINATION

SEC. 201. STATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION AND RESOURCES.

(a) Concurrent Authority of United States.--Section 401(a)
of Public Law 90-284 (25 U.S.C. 1321(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking the section designation and heading and all
that follows through ``The consent of the United States'' and
inserting the following:

``SEC. 401. ASSUMPTION BY STATE OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.

``(a) Consent of United States.--
``(1) In general.--The consent of the United States''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Concurrent jurisdiction.--At the request of an Indian
tribe, and after consultation with the Attorney General, the
United States shall maintain concurrent jurisdiction to
prosecute violations of sections 1152 and 1153 of title 18,
United States Code, within the Indian country of the Indian
tribe.''.
(b) Applicable Law.--Section 1162 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking subsection (c) and
inserting the following:
``(c) Applicable Law.--At the request of an Indian tribe,
and after consultation with the Attorney General--
``(1) sections 1152 and 1153 of this title shall remain in
effect in the areas of the Indian country of the Indian
tribe; and
``(2) jurisdiction over those areas shall be concurrent
among the Federal Government and State and tribal
governments.''.

SEC. 202. INCENTIVES FOR STATE, TRIBAL, AND LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION.

(a) Establishment of Cooperative Assistance Program.--The
Attorney General may provide grants, technical assistance,
and other assistance to State, tribal, and local governments
that enter into cooperative agreements, including agreements
relating to mutual aid, hot pursuit of suspects, and cross-
deputization for the purposes of--
(1) improving law enforcement effectiveness; and
(2) reducing crime in Indian country and nearby
communities.
(b) Program Plans.--
(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive assistance under
this section, a group composed of not less than 1 of each of
a tribal government and a State or local government shall
jointly develop and submit to the Attorney General a plan for
a program to achieve the purpose described in subsection (a).
(2) Plan requirements.--A joint program plan under
paragraph (1) shall include a description of--
(A) the proposed cooperative tribal and State or local law
enforcement program for which funding is sought, including
information on the population and each geographic area to be
served by the program;
(B) the need of the proposed program for funding under this
section, the amount of funding requested, and the proposed
use of funds, subject to the requirements listed in
subsection (c);
(C) the unit of government that will administer any
assistance received under this section, and the method by
which the assistance will be distributed;
(D) the types of law enforcement services to be performed
on each applicable Indian reservation and the individuals and
entities that will perform those services;
(E) the individual or group of individuals who will
exercise daily supervision and control over law enforcement
officers participating in the program;
(F) the method by which local and tribal government input
with respect to the planning and implementation of the
program will be ensured;
(G) the policies of the program regarding mutual aid, hot
pursuit of suspects, deputization, training, and insurance of
applicable law enforcement officers;
(H) the recordkeeping procedures and types of data to be
collected pursuant to the program; and
(I) other information that the Attorney General determines
to be relevant.
(c) Permissible Uses of Funds.--An eligible entity that
receives a grant under this section may use the grant, in
accordance with the program plan described in subsection
(b)--
(1) to hire and train new career tribal, State, or local
law enforcement officers, or to make overtime payments for
current law enforcement officers, that are or will be
dedicated to--
(A) policing tribal land and nearby lands; and
(B) investigating alleged crimes on those lands;
(2) procure equipment, technology, or support systems to be
used to investigate crimes and share information between
tribal, State, and local law enforcement agencies; or
(3) for any other uses that the Attorney General determines
will meet the purposes described in subsection (a).
(d) Factors for Consideration.--In determining whether to
approve a joint program plan submitted under subsection (b)
and, on approval, the amount of assistance to provide to the
program, the Attorney General shall take into consideration
the following factors:
(1) The size and population of each Indian reservation and
nearby community proposed to be served by the program.
(2) The complexity of the law enforcement problems proposed
to be addressed by the program.
(3) The range of services proposed to be provided by the
program.
(4) The proposed improvements the program will make
regarding law enforcement cooperation beyond existing levels
of cooperation.
(5) The crime rates of the tribal and nearby communities.
(6) The available resources of each entity applying for a
grant under this section for

[[Page 9926]]

dedication to public safety in the respective jurisdictions
of the entities.
(e) Annual Reports.--To be eligible to renew or extend a
grant under this section, a group described in subsection
(b)(1) shall submit to the Attorney General, together with
the joint program plan under subsection (b), a report
describing the law enforcement activities carried out
pursuant to the program during the preceding fiscal year,
including the success of the activities, including any
increase in arrests or prosecutions.
(f) Reports by Attorney General.--Not later than January 15
of each applicable fiscal year, the Attorney General shall
submit to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and
the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives a report describing the law enforcement
programs carried out using assistance provided under this
section during the preceding fiscal year, including the
success of the programs.
(g) Technical Assistance.--On receipt of a request from a
group composed of not less than 1 tribal government and 1
State or local government, the Attorney General shall provide
technical assistance to the group to develop successful
cooperative relationships that effectively combat crime in
Indian country and nearby communities.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014.

TITLE III--EMPOWERING TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND TRIBAL
GOVERNMENTS

SEC. 301. TRIBAL POLICE OFFICERS.

(a) Flexibility in Training Law Enforcement Officers
Serving Indian Country.--Section 3(e) of the Indian Law
Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2802(e)) (as amended by
section 101(b)(4)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``(e)(1) The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(e) Standards of Education and Experience and
Classification of Positions.--
``(1) Standards of education and experience.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Training.--The training standards established under
subparagraph (A) shall permit law enforcement personnel of
the Office of Justice Services or an Indian tribe to obtain
training at a State or tribal police academy, a local or
tribal community college, or another training academy that
meets the relevant Peace Officer Standards and Training.'';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``Agencies'' and
inserting ``agencies''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Background checks for officers.--The Office of
Justice Services shall develop standards and deadlines for
the provision of background checks for tribal law enforcement
and corrections officials that ensure that a response to a
request by an Indian tribe for such a background check shall
be provided by not later than 60 days after the date of
receipt of the request, unless an adequate reason for failure
to respond by that date is provided to the Indian tribe.''.
(b) Special Law Enforcement Commissions.--Section 5(a) of
the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2804(a)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``(a) The Secretary may enter into an
agreement'' and inserting the following:
``(a) Agreements.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009, the
Secretary shall establish procedures to enter into memoranda
of agreement'';
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``The Secretary''
and inserting the following:
``(2) Certain activities.--The Secretary''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Program enhancement.--
``(A) Training sessions in indian country.--
``(i) In general.--The procedures described in paragraph
(1) shall include the development of a plan to enhance the
certification and provision of special law enforcement
commissions to tribal law enforcement officials, and, subject
to subsection (d), State and local law enforcement officials,
pursuant to this section.
``(ii) Inclusions.--The plan under clause (i) shall include
the hosting of regional training sessions in Indian country,
not less frequently than biannually, to educate and certify
candidates for the special law enforcement commissions.
``(B) Memoranda of agreement.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009, the
Secretary, in consultation with Indian tribes and tribal law
enforcement agencies, shall develop minimum requirements to
be included in special law enforcement commission agreements
pursuant to this section.
``(ii) Agreement.--Not later than 60 days after the date on
which the Secretary determines that all applicable
requirements under clause (i) are met, the Secretary shall
offer to enter into a special law enforcement commission
agreement with the applicable Indian tribe.''.
(c) Indian Law Enforcement Foundation.--The Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``TITLE VII--INDIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT FOUNDATION

``SEC. 701. INDIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT FOUNDATION.

``(a) Establishment.--As soon as practicable after the date
of enactment of this title, the Secretary shall establish,
under the laws of the District of Columbia and in accordance
with this title, a foundation, to be known as the `Indian Law
Enforcement Foundation' (referred to in this section as the
`Foundation').
``(b) Duties.--The Foundation shall--
``(1) encourage, accept, and administer, in accordance with
the terms of each donation, private gifts of real and
personal property, and any income from or interest in such
gifts, for the benefit of, or in support of, public safety
and justice services in American Indian and Alaska Native
communities; and
``(2) assist the Office of Justice Services of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs and Indian tribal governments in funding
and conducting activities and providing education to advance
and support the provision of public safety and justice
services in American Indian and Alaska Native communities.''.
(d) Acceptance and Assistance.--Section 5 of the Indian Law
Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2804) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(g) Acceptance of Assistance.--The Bureau may accept
reimbursement, resources, assistance, or funding from--
``(1) a Federal, tribal, State, or other government agency;
or
``(2) the Indian Law Enforcement Foundation established
under section 701(a) of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act.''.

SEC. 302. DRUG ENFORCEMENT IN INDIAN COUNTRY.

(a) Education and Research Programs.--Section 502 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 872) is amended in
subsections (a)(1) and (c), by inserting `` tribal,'' after
``State,'' each place it appears.
(b) Public-Private Education Program.--Section 503 of the
Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996 (21 U.S.C.
872a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``tribal,'' after
``State,''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting ``, tribal,'' after
``State''.
(c) Cooperative Arrangements.--Section 503 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 873) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``tribal,'' after ``State,'' each place it
appears; and
(B) in paragraphs (6) and (7), by inserting ``, tribal,''
after ``State'' each place it appears; and
(2) in subsection (d)(1), by inserting ``, tribal,'' after
``State''.
(d) Powers of Enforcement Personnel.--Section 508(a) of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 878(a)) is amended in
the matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting ``, tribal,''
after ``State''.

SEC. 303. ACCESS TO NATIONAL CRIMINAL INFORMATION DATABASES.

(a) Access to National Criminal Information Databases.--
Section 534 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(4), by inserting ``Indian tribes,''
after ``the States,'';
(2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``(d) Indian Law Enforcement Agencies.--The Attorney
General shall permit tribal and Bureau of Indian Affairs law
enforcement agencies--
``(1) to directly access and enter information into Federal
criminal information databases; and
``(2) to directly obtain information from the databases.'';
(3) by redesignating the second subsection (e) as
subsection (f); and
(4) in paragraph (2) of subsection (f) (as redesignated by
paragraph (3)), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by
inserting ``, tribal,'' after ``Federal''.
(b) Requirement.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall ensure that
tribal law enforcement officials that meet applicable Federal
or State requirements have access to national crime
information databases.
(2) Sanctions.--For purpose of sanctions for noncompliance
with requirements of, or misuse of, national crime
information databases and information obtained from those
databases, a tribal law enforcement agency or official shall
be treated as Federal law enforcement agency or official.
(3) NCIC.--Each tribal justice official serving an Indian
tribe with criminal jurisdiction over Indian country shall be
considered to be an authorized law enforcement official for
purposes of access to the National Crime Information Center
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

SEC. 304. TRIBAL COURT SENTENCING AUTHORITY.

(a) Constitutional Rights.--Section 202 of Public Law 90-
284 (25 U.S.C. 1302) is amended--

[[Page 9927]]

(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``No
Indian tribe'' and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--No Indian tribe'';
(2) in paragraph (7) of subsection (a) (as designated by
paragraph (1)), by striking ``and a fine'' and inserting ``or
a fine''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Tribal Courts and Prisoners.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (7) of
subsection (a) and in addition to the limitations described
in the other paragraphs of that subsection, no Indian tribe,
in exercising any power of self-government involving a
criminal trial that subjects a defendant to more than 1 year
imprisonment for any single offense, may--
``(A) deny any person in such a criminal proceeding the
assistance of a defense attorney licensed to practice law in
any jurisdiction in the United States;
``(B) require excessive bail, impose an excessive fine,
inflict a cruel or unusual punishment, or impose for
conviction of a single offense any penalty or punishment
greater than imprisonment for a term of 3 years or a fine of
$15,000, or both; or
``(C) deny any person in such a criminal proceeding the due
process of law.
``(2) Authority.--An Indian tribe exercising authority
pursuant to this subsection shall--
``(A) require that each judge presiding over an applicable
criminal case is licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction
in the United States; and
``(B) make publicly available the criminal laws (including
regulations and interpretive documents) of the Indian tribe.
``(3) Sentences.--A tribal court acting pursuant to
paragraph (1) may require a convicted offender--
``(A) to serve the sentence--
``(i) in a tribal correctional center that has been
approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for long-term
incarceration, in accordance with guidelines developed by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, in consultation with Indian tribes;
``(ii) in the nearest appropriate Federal facility, at the
expense of the United States pursuant to a memorandum of
agreement with Bureau of Prisons in accordance with paragraph
(4);
``(iii) in a State or local government-approved detention
or correctional center pursuant to an agreement between the
Indian tribe and the State or local government; or
``(iv) subject to paragraph (1), in an alternative
rehabilitation center of an Indian tribe; or
``(B) to serve another alternative form of punishment, as
determined by the tribal court judge pursuant to tribal law.
``(4) Memoranda of agreement.--A memorandum of agreement
between an Indian tribe and the Bureau of Prisons under
paragraph (2)(A)(ii)--
``(A) shall acknowledge that the United States will incur
all costs involved, including the costs of transfer, housing,
medical care, rehabilitation, and reentry of transferred
prisoners;
``(B) shall limit the transfer of prisoners to prisoners
convicted in tribal court of violent crimes, crimes involving
sexual abuse, and serious drug offenses, as determined by the
Bureau of Prisons, in consultation with tribal governments,
by regulation;
``(C) shall not affect the jurisdiction, power of self-
government, or any other authority of an Indian tribe over
the territory or members of the Indian tribe;
``(D) shall contain such other requirements as the Bureau
of Prisons, in consultation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and tribal governments, may determine, by regulation; and
``(E) shall be executed and carried out not later than 180
days after the date on which the applicable Indian tribe
first contacts the Bureau of Prisons to accept a transfer of
a tribal court offender pursuant to this subsection.
``(c) Effect of Section.--Nothing in this section affects
the obligation of the United States, or any State government
that has been delegated authority by the United States, to
investigate and prosecute any criminal violation in Indian
country.''.
(b) Grants and Contracts.--Section 1007(b) of the Economic
Opportunity Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2996f(b)) is amended by
striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) to provide legal assistance with respect to any
criminal proceeding, except to provide assistance to a person
charged with an offense in an Indian tribal court;''.

SEC. 305. INDIAN LAW AND ORDER COMMISSION.

(a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be
known as the Indian Law and Order Commission (referred to in
this section as the ``Commission'').
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of 9
members, of whom--
(A) 3 shall be appointed by the President, in consultation
with--
(i) the Attorney General; and
(ii) the Secretary of the Interior;
(B) 2 shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the
Senate, in consultation with the Chairperson of the Committee
on Indian Affairs of the Senate;
(C) 1 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the
Senate, in consultation with the Vice Chairperson of the
Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate;
(D) 2 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, in consultation with the Chairperson of the
Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives; and
(E) 1 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the
House of Representatives, in consultation with the Ranking
Member of the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives.
(2) Requirements for eligibility.--Each member of the
Commission shall have significant experience and expertise
in--
(A) the Indian country criminal justice system; and
(B) matters to be studied by the Commission.
(3) Consultation required.--The President, the Speaker and
Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, and the
Majority Leader and Minority Leader of the Senate shall
consult before the appointment of members of the Commission
under paragraph (1) to achieve, to the maximum extent
practicable, fair and equitable representation of various
points of view with respect to the matters to be studied by
the Commission.
(4) Term.--Each member shall be appointed for the life of
the Commission.
(5) Time for initial appointments.--The appointment of the
members of the Commission shall be made not later than 60
days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(6) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission shall be
filled--
(A) in the same manner in which the original appointment
was made; and
(B) not later than 60 days after the date on which the
vacancy occurred.
(c) Operation.--
(1) Chairperson.--Not later than 15 days after the date on
which all members of the Commission have been appointed, the
Commission shall select 1 member to serve as Chairperson of
the Commission.
(2) Meetings.--
(A) In general.--The Commission shall meet at the call of
the Chairperson.
(B) Initial meeting.--The initial meeting shall take place
not later than 30 days after the date described in paragraph
(1).
(3) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may
hold hearings.
(4) Rules.--The Commission may establish, by majority vote,
any rules for the conduct of Commission business, in
accordance with this Act and other applicable law.
(d) Comprehensive Study of Criminal Justice System Relating
to Indian Country.--The Commission shall conduct a
comprehensive study of law enforcement and criminal justice
in tribal communities, including --
(1) jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian country
and the impact of that jurisdiction on--
(A) the investigation and prosecution of Indian country
crimes; and
(B) residents of Indian land;
(2) the tribal jail and Federal prisons systems and the
effect of those systems with respect to--
(A) reducing Indian country crime; and
(B) rehabilitation of offenders;
(3)(A) tribal juvenile justice systems and the Federal
juvenile justice system as relating to Indian country; and
(B) the effect of those systems and related programs in
preventing juvenile crime, rehabilitating Indian youth in
custody, and reducing recidivism among Indian youth;
(4) the impact of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (25
U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) on--
(A) the authority of Indian tribes; and
(B) the rights of defendants subject to tribal government
authority; and
(5) studies of such other subjects as the Commission
determines relevant to achieve the purposes of the Tribal Law
and Order Act of 2009.
(e) Recommendations.--Taking into consideration the results
of the study under paragraph (1), the Commission shall
develop recommendations on necessary modifications and
improvements to justice systems at the tribal, Federal, and
State levels, including consideration of--
(1) simplifying jurisdiction in Indian country;
(2) improving services and programs--
(A) to prevent juvenile crime on Indian land;
(B) to rehabilitate Indian youth in custody; and
(C) to reduce recidivism among Indian youth;
(3) enhancing the penal authority of tribal courts and
exploring alternatives to incarceration;
(4) the establishment of satellite United States magistrate
or district courts in Indian country;
(5) changes to the tribal jails and Federal prison systems;
and
(6) other issues that, as determined by the Commission,
would reduce violent crime in Indian country.
(f) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to the
President and Congress a report that contains--
(1) a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of
the Commission; and
(2) the recommendations of the Commission for such
legislative and administrative

[[Page 9928]]

actions as the Commission considers to be appropriate.
(g) Powers.--
(1) Hearings.--
(A) In general.--The Commission may hold such hearings,
meet and act at such times and places, take such testimony,
and receive such evidence as the Commission considers to be
advisable to carry out the duties of the Commission under
this section.
(B) Public requirement.--The hearings of the Commission
under this paragraph shall be open to the public.
(2) Witness expenses.--
(A) In general.--A witness requested to appear before the
Commission shall be paid the same fees as are paid to
witnesses under section 1821 of title 28, United States Code.
(B) Per diem and mileage.--The per diem and mileage
allowance for a witness shall be paid from funds made
available to the Commission.
(3) Information from federal, tribal, and state agencies.--
(A) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from a
Federal agency such information as the Commission considers
to be necessary to carry out this section.
(B) Tribal and state agencies.--The Commission may request
the head of any tribal or State agency to provide to the
Commission such information as the Commission considers to be
necessary to carry out this section.
(4) Postal services.--The Commission may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as other agencies of the Federal Government.
(5) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of
gifts or donations of services or property.
(h) Commission Personnel Matters.--
(1) Travel expenses.--A member of the Commission shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee of an agency
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from the home or regular place of business
of the member in the performance of the duties of the
Commission.
(2) Detail of federal employees.--On the affirmative vote
of \2/3\ of the members of the Commission and the approval of
the appropriate Federal agency head, an employee of the
Federal Government may be detailed to the Commission without
reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption
or loss of civil service status, benefits, or privileges.
(3) Procurement of temporary and intermittent services.--On
request of the Commission, the Attorney General and Secretary
shall provide to the Commission reasonable and appropriate
office space, supplies, and administrative assistance.
(i) Contracts for Research.--
(1) Researchers and experts.--
(A) In general.--On an affirmative vote of \2/3\ of the
members of the Commission, the Commission may select
nongovernmental researchers and experts to assist the
Commission in carrying out the duties of the Commission under
this section.
(B) National institute of justice.--The National Institute
of Justice may enter into a contract with the researchers and
experts selected by the Commission under subparagraph (A) to
provide funding in exchange for the services of the
researchers and experts.
(2) Other organizations.--Nothing in this subsection limits
the ability of the Commission to enter into contracts with
any other entity or organization to carry out research
necessary to carry out the duties of the Commission under
this section.
(j) Tribal Advisory Committee.--
(1) Establishment.--The Commission shall establish a
committee, to be known as the ``Tribal Advisory Committee''.
(2) Membership.--
(A) Composition.--The Tribal Advisory Committee shall
consist of 2 representatives of Indian tribes from each
region of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
(B) Qualifications.--Each member of the Tribal Advisory
Committee shall have experience relating to--
(i) justice systems;
(ii) crime prevention; or
(iii) victim services.
(3) Duties.--The Tribal Advisory Committee shall--
(A) serve as an advisory body to the Commission; and
(B) provide to the Commission advice and recommendations,
submit materials, documents, testimony, and such other
information as the Commission determines to be necessary to
carry out the duties of the Commission under this section.
(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section, to remain available until expended.
(l) Termination of Commission.--The Commission shall
terminate 90 days after the date on which the Commission
submits the report of the Commission under subsection (c)(3).
(m) Nonapplicability of FACA.--The Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the
Commission.

TITLE IV--TRIBAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS

SEC. 401. INDIAN ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE.

(a) Correction of References.--
(1) Inter-departmental memorandum of agreement.--Section
4205 of the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act of 1986 (25 U.S.C. 2411) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--

(I) by striking ``the date of enactment of this subtitle''
and inserting ``the date of enactment of the Tribal Law and
Order Act of 2009''; and
(II) by inserting ``, the Attorney General,'' after
``Secretary of the Interior'';

(ii) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``, Bureau of
Justice Assistance, Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration,'' after ``Bureau of Indian
Affairs,'';
(iii) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``, Department of
Justice, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration,'' after ``Bureau of Indian Affairs'';
(iv) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``, Department of
Justice, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration,'' after ``Bureau of Indian Affairs'';
(v) in paragraph (7), by inserting ``, the Attorney
General,'' after ``Secretary of the Interior'';
(B) in subsection (c), by inserting ``, the Attorney
General,'' after ``Secretary of the Interior''; and
(C) in subsection (d), by striking ``the date of enactment
of this subtitle'' and inserting ``the date of enactment of
the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009''.
(2) Tribal action plans.--Section 4206 of the Indian
Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of
1986 (25 U.S.C. 2412) is amended--
(A) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by inserting
``, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration,'' before ``and the
Indian Health Service service unit'';
(B) in subsection (c)(1)(A)(i), by inserting ``, the Bureau
of Justice Assistance, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration,'' before ``and the Indian Health
Service service unit'';
(C) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ``fiscal year 1993
and such sums as are necessary for each of the fiscal years
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000'' and inserting
``the period of fiscal years 2010 through 2014'';
(D) in subsection (e), in the first sentence, by inserting
``, the Attorney General,'' after ``the Secretary of the
Interior''; and
(E) in subsection (f)(3), by striking ``fiscal year 1993
and such sums as are necessary for each of the fiscal years
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000'' and inserting
``the period of fiscal years 2010 through 2014''.
(3) Departmental responsibility.--Section 4207 of the
Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Act of 1986 (25 U.S.C. 2413) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, the Attorney
General'' after ``Bureau of Indian Affairs'';
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Establishment.--
``(A) In general.--To improve coordination among the
Federal agencies and departments carrying out this subtitle,
there is established within the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration an office, to be known as the
`Office of Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse' (referred to
in this section as the `Office').
``(B) Director.--The director of the Office shall be
appointed by the Director of the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration--
``(i) on a permanent basis; and
``(ii) at a grade of not less than GS-15 of the General
Schedule.'';
(ii) in paragraph (2)--

(I) by striking ``(2) In addition'' and inserting the
following:

``(2) Responsibilities of office.--In addition'';

(II) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:

``(A) coordinating with other agencies to monitor the
performance and compliance of the relevant Federal programs
in achieving the goals and purposes of this subtitle and the
Memorandum of Agreement entered into under section 4205;'';

(III) in subparagraph (B)--

(aa) by striking ``within the Bureau of Indian Affairs'';
and
(bb) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and

(IV) by adding at the end the following:

``(C) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009, developing, in
coordination and consultation with tribal governments, a
framework for interagency and tribal coordination that--
``(i) establish the goals and other desired outcomes of
this Act;
``(ii) prioritizes outcomes that are aligned with the
purposes of affected agencies;
``(iii) provides guidelines for resource and information
sharing;
``(iv) provides technical assistance to the affected
agencies to establish effective and permanent interagency
communication and coordination; and

[[Page 9929]]

``(v) determines whether collaboration is feasible, cost-
effective, and within agency capability.''; and
(iii) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the
following:
``(3) Appointment of employees.--The Director of the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
shall appoint such employees to work in the Office, and shall
provide such funding, services, and equipment, as may be
necessary to enable the Office to carry out the
responsibilities under this subsection.''; and
(C) in subsection (c)--
(i) by striking ``of Alcohol and Substance Abuse'' each
place it appears;
(ii) in paragraph (1), in the second sentence, by striking
``The Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian
Affairs'' and inserting ``The Director of the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration''; and
(iii) in paragraph (3)--

(I) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``Youth'' and inserting ``youth''; and
(II) by striking ``programs of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs'' and inserting ``the applicable Federal programs''.

(4) Review of programs.--Section 4208a(a) of the Indian
Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of
1986 (25 U.S.C. 2414a(a)) is amended in the matter preceding
paragraph (1) by inserting ``, the Attorney General,'' after
``the Secretary of the Interior''.
(5) Federal facilities, property, and equipment.--Section
4209 of the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act of 1986 (25 U.S.C. 2415) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, the Attorney
General,'' after ``the Secretary of the Interior'';
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) in the first sentence, by inserting ``, the Attorney
General,'' after ``the Secretary of the Interior'';
(ii) in the second sentence, by inserting ``, nor the
Attorney General,'' after ``the Secretary of the Interior'';
and
(iii) in the third sentence, by inserting ``, the
Department of Justice,'' after ``the Department of the
Interior''; and
(C) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``, the Attorney
General,'' after ``the Secretary of the Interior''.
(6) Newsletter.--Section 4210 of the Indian Alcohol and
Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986 (25
U.S.C. 2416) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), in the first sentence, by inserting
``, the Attorney General,'' after ``the Secretary of the
Interior''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``fiscal year 1993 and
such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000'' and inserting
``the period of fiscal years 2010 through 2014''.
(7) Review.--Section 4211(a) of the Indian Alcohol and
Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986 (25
U.S.C. 2431(a)) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph
(1) by inserting ``, the Attorney General,'' after ``the
Secretary of the Interior''.
(b) Indian Education Programs.--Section 4212 of the Indian
Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention Act of 1986 (25 U.S.C.
2432) is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the
following:
``(a) Summer Youth Programs.--
``(1) In general.--The head of the Indian Alcohol and
Substance Abuse Program, in coordination with the Assistant
Secretary for Indian Affairs, shall develop and implement
programs in tribal schools and schools funded by the Bureau
of Indian Education (subject to the approval of the local
school board or contract school board) to determine the
effectiveness of summer youth programs in advancing the
purposes and goals of this Act.
``(2) Costs.--The head of the Indian Alcohol and Substance
Abuse Program and the Assistant Secretary shall defray all
costs associated with the actual operation and support of the
summer youth programs in a school from funds appropriated to
carry out this subsection.
``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out the programs under
this subsection such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal
years 2010 through 2014.''.
(c) Emergency Shelters.--Section 4213(e) of the Indian
Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of
1986 (25 U.S.C. 2433(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``as may be necessary''
and all that follows through the end of the paragraph and
inserting ``as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2010
through 2014.'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$7,000,000'' and all
that follows through the end of the paragraph and inserting
``$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014.'';
and
(3) by indenting paragraphs (4) and (5) appropriately.
(d) Review of Programs.--Section 4215(a) of the Indian
Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of
1986 (25 U.S.C. 2441(a)) is amended by inserting ``, the
Attorney General,'' after ``the Secretary of the Interior''.
(e) Illegal Narcotics Trafficking; Source Eradication.--
Section 4216 of the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986 (25 U.S.C. 2442) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking the comma at the end
and inserting a semicolon;
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``, and'' at the end
and inserting a semicolon;
(iii) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``; and''; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) the Blackfeet Nation of Montana for the investigation
and control of illegal narcotics traffic on the Blackfeet
Indian Reservation along the border with Canada.'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``United States Custom
Service'' and inserting ``United States Customs and Border
Protection''; and
(C) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection
such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2010
through 2014.''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``as may be
necessary'' and all that follows through the end of the
paragraph and inserting ``as are necessary for each of fiscal
years 2010 through 2014.''.
(f) Law Enforcement and Judicial Training.--Section 4218 of
the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act of 1986 (25 U.S.C. 2451) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Training Programs.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior, in
coordination with the Attorney General, the Administrator of
the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall ensure, through the
establishment of a new training program or by supplementing
existing training programs, that all Bureau of Indian Affairs
and tribal law enforcement and judicial personnel have access
to training regarding--
``(A) the investigation and prosecution of offenses
relating to illegal narcotics; and
``(B) alcohol and substance abuse prevention and treatment.
``(2) Youth-related training.--Any training provided to
Bureau of Indian Affairs or tribal law enforcement or
judicial personnel under paragraph (1) shall include training
in issues relating to youth alcohol and substance abuse
prevention and treatment.''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``as may be necessary''
and all that follows through the end of the subsection and
inserting ``as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2010
through 2014.''.
(g) Juvenile Detention Centers.--Section 4220 of the Indian
Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of
1986 (25 U.S.C. 2453) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``The Secretary'' the first place it
appears and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary'';
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``The Secretary
shall'' and inserting the following:
``(2) Construction and operation.--The Secretary shall'';
and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Development of plan.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary, the Director
of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, the Director of the Indian Health Service,
and the Attorney General, in consultation with tribal leaders
and tribal justice officials, shall develop a long-term plan
for the construction, renovation, and operation of Indian
juvenile detention and treatment centers and alternatives to
detention for juvenile offenders.
``(B) Coordination.--The plan under subparagraph (A) shall
require the Bureau of Indian Education and the Indian Health
Service to coordinate with tribal and Bureau of Indian
Affairs juvenile detention centers to provide services to
those centers.''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``such sums as may be necessary for each of
the fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and
2000'' each place it appears and inserting ``such sums as are
necessary for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014''; and
(B) by indenting paragraph (2) appropriately.

SEC. 402. INDIAN TRIBAL JUSTICE; TECHNICAL AND LEGAL
ASSISTANCE.

(a) Indian Tribal Justice.--
(1) Base support funding.--Section 103(b) of the Indian
Tribal Justice Act (25 U.S.C. 3613(b)) is amended by striking
paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) the employment of tribal court personnel, including
tribal court judges, prosecutors, public defenders, guardians
ad litem, and court-appointed special advocates for children
and juveniles;''.
(2) Tribal justice systems.--Section 201 of the Indian
Tribal Justice Act (25 U.S.C. 3621) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)--

[[Page 9930]]

(i) by striking ``the provisions of sections 101 and 102 of
this Act'' and inserting ``sections 101 and 102''; and
(ii) by striking ``the fiscal years 2000 through 2007'' and
inserting ``fiscal years 2010 through 2014'';
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) by striking ``the provisions of section 103 of this
Act'' and inserting ``section 103''; and
(ii) by striking ``the fiscal years 2000 through 2007'' and
inserting ``fiscal years 2010 through 2014'';
(C) in subsection (c), by striking ``the fiscal years 2000
through 2007'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2010 through
2014''; and
(D) in subsection (d), by striking ``the fiscal years 2000
through 2007'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2010 through
2014''.
(b) Technical and Legal Assistance.--
(1) Tribal civil legal assistance grants.--Section 102 of
the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act
of 2000 (25 U.S.C. 3662) is amended by inserting ``(including
guardians ad litem and court-appointed special advocates for
children and juveniles)'' after ``civil legal assistance''.
(2) Tribal criminal legal assistance grants.--Section 103
of the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance
Act of 2000 (25 U.S.C. 3663) is amended by striking
``criminal legal assistance to members of Indian tribes and
tribal justice systems'' and inserting ``criminal legal
assistance services to all defendants subject to tribal court
jurisdiction and judicial services for tribal courts''.
(3) Funding.--The Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal
Assistance Act of 2000 is amended--
(A) in section 106 (25 U.S.C. 3666), by striking ``2000
through 2004'' and inserting ``2010 through 2014''; and
(B) in section 201(d) (25 U.S.C. 3681(d)), by striking
``2000 through 2004'' and inserting ``2010 through 2014''.

SEC. 403. TRIBAL RESOURCES GRANT PROGRAM.

Section 1701 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (4) and (6) through
(17), by inserting ``to'' after the paragraph designation;
(B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``State and'' and
inserting ``State, tribal, or'';
(C) in paragraphs (9) and (10), by inserting ``, tribal,''
after ``State'' each place it appears;
(D) in paragraph (15)--
(i) by striking ``a State in'' and inserting ``a State or
Indian tribe in'';
(ii) by striking ``the State which'' and inserting ``the
State or tribal community that''; and
(iii) by striking ``a State or'' and inserting ``a State,
tribal, or'';
(E) in paragraph (16), by striking ``and'' at the end
(F) in paragraph (17), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and'';
(G) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (17) as
paragraphs (5) through (16), respectively; and
(H) by adding at the end the following:
``(17) to permit tribal governments receiving direct law
enforcement services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to
access the program under this section on behalf of the Bureau
for use in accordance with paragraphs (1) through (16).''.
(2) in subsection (i), by striking ``The authority'' and
inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (j), the
authority''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Grants to Indian Tribes.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (i) and
section 1703, and in acknowledgment of the Federal nexus and
distinct Federal responsibility to address and prevent crime
in Indian country, the Attorney General shall provide grants
under this section to Indian tribal governments, for fiscal
year 2010 and any fiscal year thereafter, for such period as
the Attorney General determines to be appropriate to assist
the Indian tribal governments in carrying out the purposes
described in subsection (b).
``(2) Priority of funding.--In providing grants to Indian
tribal governments under this subsection, the Attorney
General shall take into consideration reservation crime rates
and tribal law enforcement staffing needs of each Indian
tribal government.
``(3) Federal share.--Because of the Federal nature and
responsibility for providing public safety on Indian land,
the Federal share of the cost of any activity carried out
using a grant under this subsection shall be 100 percent.
``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this subsection for each of fiscal years 2010
through 2014.
``(k) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General shall
submit to Congress a report describing the extent and
effectiveness of the Community Oriented Policing (COPS)
initiative as applied in Indian country, including particular
references to--
``(1) the problem of intermittent funding;
``(2) the integration of COPS personnel with existing law
enforcement authorities; and
``(3) an explanation of how the practice of community
policing and the broken windows theory can most effectively
be applied in remote tribal locations.''.

SEC. 404. TRIBAL JAILS PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Section 20109 of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13709) is amended
by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Reservation of Funds.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this part, of amounts made available to the
Attorney General to carry out programs relating to offender
incarceration, the Attorney General shall reserve $35,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to carry out this
section.''.
(b) Regional Detention Centers.--
(1) In general.--Section 20109 of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13709) is amended
by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Grants to Indian Tribes.--
``(1) In general.--From the amounts reserved under
subsection (a), the Attorney General shall provide grants--
``(A) to Indian tribes for purposes of--
``(i) construction and maintenance of jails on Indian land
for the incarceration of offenders subject to tribal
jurisdiction;
``(ii) entering into contracts with private entities to
increase the efficiency of the construction of tribal jails;
and
``(iii) developing and implementing alternatives to
incarceration in tribal jails;
``(B) to Indian tribes for the construction of tribal
justice centers that combine tribal police, courts, and
corrections services to address violations of tribal civil
and criminal laws;
``(C) to consortia of Indian tribes for purposes of
constructing and operating regional detention centers on
Indian land for long-term incarceration of offenders subject
to tribal jurisdiction, as the applicable consortium
determines to be appropriate.
``(2) Priority of funding.--in providing grants under this
subsection, the Attorney General shall take into
consideration applicable--
``(A) reservation crime rates;
``(B) annual tribal court convictions; and
``(C) bed space needs.
``(3) Federal share.--Because of the Federal nature and
responsibility for providing public safety on Indian land,
the Federal share of the cost of any activity carried out
using a grant under this subsection shall be 100 percent.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 20109(c) of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C.
13709(c)) is amended by inserting ``or consortium of Indian
tribes, as applicable,'' after ``Indian tribe''.
(3) Long-term plan.--Section 20109 of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13709) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Long-Term Plan.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General, in
coordination with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and in
consultation with tribal leaders, tribal law enforcement
officers, and tribal corrections officials, shall submit to
Congress a long-term plan to address incarceration in Indian
country, including a description of--
``(1) proposed activities for construction of detention
facilities (including regional facilities) on Indian land;
``(2) proposed activities for construction of additional
Federal detention facilities on Indian land;
``(3) proposed activities for contracting with State and
local detention centers, with tribal government approval;
``(4) proposed alternatives to incarceration, developed in
cooperation with tribal court systems; and
``(5) such other alternatives as the Attorney General, in
coordination with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and in
consultation with Indian tribes, determines to be
necessary.''.

SEC. 405. TRIBAL PROBATION OFFICE LIAISON PROGRAM.

Title II of the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal
Assistance Act of 2000 (25 U.S.C. 3681 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 203. ASSISTANT PAROLE AND PROBATION OFFICERS.

``To the maximum extent practicable, the Director of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, in
coordination with the Office of Tribal Justice and the
Director of the Office of Justice Services, shall--
``(1) appoint individuals residing in Indian country to
serve as assistant parole or probation officers for purposes
of monitoring and providing service to Federal prisoners
residing in Indian country; and
``(2) provide substance abuse, mental health, and other
related treatment services to offenders residing on Indian
land.''.

SEC. 406. TRIBAL YOUTH PROGRAM.

(a) Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention
Programs.--
(1) In general.--Section 504 of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5783) is
amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, or to Indian tribes
under subsection (d)'' after ``subsection (b)''; and

[[Page 9931]]

(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Grants for Tribal Delinquency Prevention and Response
Programs.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall make grants
under this section, on a competitive basis, to eligible
Indian tribes or consortia of Indian tribes, as described in
paragraph (2)--
``(A) to support and enhance--
``(i) tribal juvenile delinquency prevention services; and
``(ii) the ability of Indian tribes to respond to, and care
for, juvenile offenders; and
``(B) to encourage accountability of Indian tribal
governments with respect to preventing juvenile delinquency
and responding to, and caring for, juvenile offenders.
``(2) Eligible indian tribes.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under this subsection, an Indian tribe or consortium of
Indian tribes shall submit to the Administrator an
application in such form and containing such information as
the Administrator may require.
``(3) Priority of funding.--In providing grants under this
subsection, the Administrator shall take into consideration,
with respect to the reservation communities to be served--
``(A) juvenile crime rates;
``(B) dropout rates; and
``(C) percentage of at-risk youth.''.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 505 of the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5784) is amended by striking ``fiscal years 2004,
2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008'' and inserting ``each of fiscal
years 2010 through 2014''.
(b) Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.--Section 206(a)(2) of the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
5616(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``Nine'' and inserting
``Ten''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by adding at the end the
following:
``(iv) One member shall be appointed by the Chairman of the
Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate, in consultation
with the Vice Chairman of that Committee.''.

TITLE V--INDIAN COUNTRY CRIME DATA COLLECTION AND INFORMATION SHARING

SEC. 501. TRACKING OF CRIMES COMMITTED IN INDIAN COUNTRY.

(a) Gang Violence.--Section 1107 of the Violence Against
Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005
(28 U.S.C. 534 note; Public Law 109-162) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (8) through (12) as
paragraphs (9) through (13), respectively;
(B) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
``(8) the Office of Justice Services of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs;'';
(C) in paragraph (9) (as redesignated by subparagraph (A)),
by striking ``State'' and inserting ``tribal, State,''; and
(D) in paragraphs (10) through (12) (as redesignated by
subparagraph (A)), by inserting ``tribal,'' before ``State,''
each place it appears; and
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``tribal,'' before
``State,'' each place it appears.
(b) Bureau of Justice Statistics.--Section 302 of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3732) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, Indian tribes,''
after ``contracts with'';
(B) in each of paragraphs (3) through (6), by inserting
``tribal,'' after ``State,'' each place it appears;
(C) in paragraph (7), by inserting ``and in Indian
country'' after ``States'';
(D) in paragraph (9), by striking ``Federal and State
Governments'' and inserting ``Federal Government and State
and tribal governments'';
(E) in each of paragraphs (10) and (11), by inserting ``,
tribal,'' after ``State'' each place it appears;
(F) in paragraph (13), by inserting ``, Indian tribes,''
after ``States'';
(G) in paragraph (17)--
(i) by striking ``State and local'' and inserting ``State,
tribal, and local''; and
(ii) by striking ``State, and local'' and inserting
``State, tribal, and local'';
(H) in paragraph (18), by striking ``State and local'' and
inserting ``State, tribal, and local'';
(I) in paragraph (19), by inserting ``and tribal'' after
``State'' each place it appears;
(J) in paragraph (20), by inserting ``, tribal,'' after
``State''; and
(K) in paragraph (22), by inserting ``, tribal,'' after
``Federal'';
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (6) as
subparagraphs (A) through (F), respectively, and indenting
the subparagraphs appropriately;
(B) by striking ``To insure'' and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--To ensure''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Consultation with indian tribes.--The Director,
acting jointly with the Assistant Secretary for Indian
Affairs (acting through the Director of the Office of Law
Enforcement Services) and the Director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, shall work with Indian tribes and tribal
law enforcement agencies to establish and implement such
tribal data collection systems as the Director determines to
be necessary to achieve the purposes of this section.'';
(3) in subsection (e), by striking ``subsection (d)(3)''
and inserting ``subsection (d)(1)(C)'';
(4) in subsection (f)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``, Tribal,''
after ``State''; and
(B) by inserting ``, tribal,'' after ``State''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Report to Congress on Crimes in Indian Country.--Not
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
subsection, and annually thereafter, the Director shall
submit to Congress a report describing the data collected and
analyzed under this section relating to crimes in Indian
country.''.

SEC. 502. GRANTS TO IMPROVE TRIBAL DATA COLLECTION SYSTEMS.

Section 3 of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25
U.S.C. 2802) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Grants to Improve Tribal Data Collection Systems.--
``(1) Grant program.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director of the Office of Justice Services of the Bureau and
in coordination with the Attorney General, shall establish a
program under which the Secretary shall provide grants to
Indian tribes for activities to ensure uniformity in the
collection and analysis of data relating to crime in Indian
country.
``(2) Regulations.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director of the Office of Justice Services of the Bureau, in
consultation with tribal governments and tribal justice
officials, shall promulgate such regulations as are necessary
to carry out the grant program under this subsection.''.

SEC. 503. CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

Section 1301(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796h(a)) is amended by
inserting ``, tribal,'' after ``State''.

TITLE VI--DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT PROSECUTION AND
PREVENTION

SEC. 601. PRISONER RELEASE AND REENTRY.

Section 4042 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(4), by inserting ``, tribal,'' after
``State'';
(2) in subsection (b)(1), in the first sentence, by
striking ``officer of the State and of the local
jurisdiction'' and inserting ``officers of each State,
tribal, and local jurisdiction''; and
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``officer of the State
and of the local jurisdiction'' and inserting ``officers of
each State, tribal, and local jurisdiction''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``, tribal,'' after
``State'' each place it appears; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``(2) Notice'' and inserting the following:
``(2) Requirements.--
``(A) In general.--A notice'';
(ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``For a person who
is released'' and inserting the following:
``(B) Released persons.--For a person who is released'';
(iii) in the third sentence, by striking ``For a person who
is sentenced'' and inserting the following:
``(C) Persons on probation.--For a person who is
sentenced'';
(iv) in the fourth sentence, by striking ``Notice
concerning'' and inserting the following:
``(D) Released persons required to register.--
``(i) In general.--A notice concerning''; and
(v) in subparagraph (D) (as designated by clause (iv)), by
adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Persons residing in indian country.--For a person
described in paragraph (3) the expected place of residence of
whom is potentially located in Indian country, the Director
of the Bureau of Prisons or the Director of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, as
appropriate, shall--

``(I) make all reasonable and necessary efforts to
determine whether the residence of the person is located in
Indian country; and
``(II) ensure that the person is registered with the law
enforcement office of each appropriate jurisdiction before
release from Federal custody.''.

SEC. 602. DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENT OFFENSE TRAINING.

Section 3(c)(9) of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act
(25 U.S.C. 2802(c)(9)) (as amended by section 101(a)(2)) is
amended by inserting before the semicolon at the end the
following: ``, including training to properly interview
victims of domestic and sexual violence and to collect,
preserve, and present evidence to Federal and tribal
prosecutors to increase the conviction rate for domestic and
sexual violence offenses for purposes of addressing and
preventing domestic and sexual violent offenses''.

[[Page 9932]]

SEC. 603. TESTIMONY BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN CASES OF RAPE AND
SEXUAL ASSAULT.

The Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2801 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 11. TESTIMONY BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN CASES OF RAPE
AND SEXUAL ASSAULT.

``(a) Approval of Employee Testimony.--The Director of the
Office of Justice Services or the Director of the Indian
Health Service, as appropriate (referred to in this section
as the `Director concerned'), shall approve or disapprove, in
writing, any request or subpoena for a law enforcement
officer, sexual assault nurse examiner, or other employee
under the supervision of the Director concerned to provide
testimony in a deposition, trial, or other similar proceeding
regarding information obtained in carrying out the official
duties of the employee.
``(b) Requirement.--The Director concerned shall approve a
request or subpoena under subsection (a) if the request or
subpoena does not violate the policy of the Department of the
Interior to maintain strict impartiality with respect to
private causes of action.
``(c) Treatment.--If the Director concerned fails to
approve or disapprove a request or subpoena by the date that
is 30 days after the date of receipt of the request or
subpoena, the request or subpoena shall be considered to be
approved for purposes of this section.''.

SEC. 604. COORDINATION OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.

The Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2801 et
seq.) (as amended by section 603) is amended by adding at the
end the following:

``SEC. 12. COORDINATION OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in coordination with the
Attorney General, Federal and tribal law enforcement
agencies, the Indian Health Service, and domestic violence or
sexual assault victim organizations, shall develop
appropriate victim services and victim advocate training
programs--
``(1) to improve domestic violence or sexual abuse
responses;
``(2) to improve forensic examinations and collection;
``(3) to identify problems or obstacles in the prosecution
of domestic violence or sexual abuse; and
``(4) to meet other needs or carry out other activities
required to prevent, treat, and improve prosecutions of
domestic violence and sexual abuse.
``(b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and the Committee
on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives a report
that describes, with respect to the matters described in
subsection (a), the improvements made and needed, problems or
obstacles identified, and costs necessary to address the
problems or obstacles, and any other recommendations that the
Secretary determines to be appropriate.''.

SEC. 605. SEXUAL ASSAULT PROTOCOL.

Title VIII of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act is
amended by inserting after section 802 (25 U.S.C. 1672) the
following:

``SEC. 803. POLICIES AND PROTOCOL.

``The Director of Service, in coordination with the
Director of the Office on Violence Against Women of the
Department of Justice, in consultation with Indian Tribes and
Tribal Organizations, and in conference with Urban Indian
Organizations, shall develop standardized sexual assault
policies and protocol for the facilities of the Service,
based on similar protocol that has been established by the
Department of Justice.''.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, Mr. Dorgan,
in introducing the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009. This bill
represents a bipartisan effort and crucial step in addressing a serious
public safety crisis in many Indian communities throughout our Nation.
During the 110th Congress, the Committee on Indian Affairs held no
less than seven hearings on the issue of law and order on Indian
reservations. The committee found recurring themes of insufficient
resources for law enforcement agencies, inadequate responses to
criminal activity, and ineffective communication and coordination.
Criminal elements are well aware of the conditions of near
lawlessness in some reservation areas. With great regret, I point to
the Wind River Indian Reservation of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern
Arapaho peoples in my home state of Wyoming as an example. The Wind
River Indian Reservation consists of approximately 2.2 million acres
and has a tribal population of over 11,000.
During fiscal year 2008, the Wind River Indian Reservation had a
violent crime rate that was 3.58 times the national crime rate,
according to the crime reports published by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs within the Department of the Interior. Between 2007 and 2008,
the crime rate on the Wind River Indian Reservation escalated from 677
to 748 incidents per 100,000 inhabitants.
Yet despite these troubling statistics, the Wind River Indian
Reservation has only 9 law enforcement officers to cover all shifts.
According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs' fiscal year 2008 crime
report, an additional 22 police officers would be necessary to meet the
minimum safety needs of this community. This situation would never be
tolerated in other communities. We must address the needs for public
safety, law enforcement and justice on Indian reservations head on.
Senator Dorgan and I have worked together to ensure that this bill
will assist in increasing the number of police officers on the ground.
Through this bill we are sending a strong message that Indian
reservations will not be a haven for criminal activity, drug
trafficking, gangs, or abuse.
We have set important goals for this legislation. To achieve them, we
are proposing some significant changes to the status quo. As we move
forward, I intend to solicit more input from stakeholders. The bill
will inevitably require some modifications, and I look forward to that
process. I consider the introduced legislation to be the beginning of a
dialogue that will hopefully lead to refinement and improvement.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Cardin,
Mr. Feingold, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Reed,
Mr. Sanders, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Whitehouse):
S. 799. A bill to designate as wilderness certain Federal portions of
the red rock canyons of the Colorado Plateau and the Great Basin
Deserts in the State of Utah for the benefit of present and future
generations of people in the United States; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce America's Red
Rock Wilderness Act of 2009. This legislation continues our commitment
to preserve natural resources in this country.
America's Red Rock Wilderness Act will designate as wilderness some
of our nation's most remarkable, but currently unprotected public
lands. Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands in Utah harbor some of the
largest and most remarkable roadless desert areas anywhere in the
world. Included in the 9.4 million acres I seek to protect are well
known landscapes, such as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument, and lesser known areas just outside Zion National Park,
Canyonlands National Park, and Arches National Park. Together this wild
landscape offers spectacular vistas of rare rock formations, canyons
and desert lands, important archaeological sites, and habitat for rare
plant and animal species.
I have visited many of the areas this act would designate as
wilderness. I can tell you that the natural beauty of these landscapes
is a compelling reason for Congress to grant these lands wilderness
protection. I have the honor of introducing legislation on the 20th
anniversary of the year it was first introduced by my friend and former
colleague in the House of Representatives, Wayne Owens. As a member of
the Utah delegation, Congressman Owens pioneered the Congressional
effort to protect Utah's red rock wilderness. He did this with broad
public support, which still exists not only in Utah, but in all corners
of Nation.
The wilderness designated in this bill was chosen based on more than
20 years of meticulous research and surveying. Volunteers have taken
inventories of thousands of square miles of BLM land in Utah to help
determine which lands should be protected. These volunteers provided
extensive documentation to ensure that these areas meet Federal
wilderness criteria. The BLM also completed an inventory of
approximately 7.5 million acres of the land that would be protected by
America's Red Rock Wilderness Act and agreed that the vast majority
qualify for wilderness designation.

[[Page 9933]]

For more than 20 years, Utah conservationists have been working to
add the last great blocks of undeveloped BLM-administered land in Utah
to the National Wilderness Preservation System. Together, we celebrate
the recent passage of a national public lands bill that protects over
180,000 acres of wilderness in Washington County, UT, for future
generations. The more than 9 million acres of lands that would be
protected by this legislation surround eleven of Utah's national park,
monument and recreation areas. These proposed BLM wilderness areas
easily equal their neighboring national parklands in scenic beauty,
opportunities for recreation, and ecological importance. Yet, unlike
the parks, most of these scenic treasures lack any form of long-term
protection from commercial development, damaging off-road vehicle use,
or oil and gas exploration.
Americans understand the need for wise stewardship of these wild
landscapes. This legislation represents a realistic balance between the
need to protect our natural heritage and demand for energy. While
wilderness designation has been portrayed as a barrier to energy
independence, it is important to note that within the entire 9.4
million acres of America's Red Rock Wilderness Act the amount of
``technically recoverable'' undiscovered natural gas and oil resources
amounts to less than four days of oil and four weeks of natural gas at
current consumption levels. In fact, protecting these lands benefits
local economies because of the recreational opportunities they provide.
Unfortunately, scientists have already begun to see the impacts of
global warming on public lands throughout the West. Hotter and drier
conditions, larger wildfires, shrinking water resources, the spread of
invasive species, soil erosion, and dust storms are all expected to
increase over the next century. These threats make the need to protect
the remaining undisturbed landscapes and wildlife habitats in Utah's
red rock wilderness even more urgent.
America's Red Rock Wilderness Act is a lasting gift to the American
public. By protecting this serene yet wild land we are giving future
generations the opportunity to enjoy the same untrammeled landscape
that so many now cherish.
I would like to thank my colleagues who are original cosponsors of
this measure. Origin cosponsors are Senators Boxer, Cantwell, Cardin,
Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Lieberman,
Menendez, Reed, Sanders, Stabenow, and Whitehouse. Additionally, I
would like to thank the Utah Wilderness Coalition, which includes The
Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense
Council, Earthjustice, and the Wasatch Mountain Club; the Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance; and all of the other national, regional and local,
hard-working groups who, for years, have championed this legislation.
Theodore Roosevelt once stated:

The Nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources
as assets which it must turn over to the next generation
increased and not impaired in value.

Enactment of this legislation will help us realize Roosevelt's
vision. To protect these precious resources in Utah for future
generations, I urge my colleagues to support America's Red Rock
Wilderness Act.
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. 799

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``America's
Red Rock Wilderness Act of 2009''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.

TITLE I--DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS

Sec. 101. Great Basin Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 102. Zion and Mojave Desert Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 103. Grand Staircase-Escalante Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 104. Moab-La Sal Canyons Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 105. Henry Mountains Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 106. Glen Canyon Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 107. San Juan-Anasazi Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 108. Canyonlands Basin Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 109. San Rafael Swell Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 110. Book Cliffs and Uinta Basin Wilderness Areas.

TITLE II--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. General provisions.
Sec. 202. Administration.
Sec. 203. State school trust land within wilderness areas.
Sec. 204. Water.
Sec. 205. Roads.
Sec. 206. Livestock.
Sec. 207. Fish and wildlife.
Sec. 208. Management of newly acquired land.
Sec. 209. Withdrawal.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land
Management.
(2) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Utah.

TITLE I--DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS

SEC. 101. GREAT BASIN WILDERNESS AREAS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Great Basin region of western Utah is comprised of
starkly beautiful mountain ranges that rise as islands from
the desert floor;
(2) the Wah Wah Mountains in the Great Basin region are
arid and austere, with massive cliff faces and leathery
slopes speckled with pinon and juniper;
(3) the Pilot Range and Stansbury Mountains in the Great
Basin region are high enough to draw moisture from passing
clouds and support ecosystems found nowhere else on earth;
(4) from bristlecone pine, the world's oldest living
organism, to newly-flowered mountain meadows, mountains of
the Great Basin region are islands of nature that--
(A) support remarkable biological diversity; and
(B) provide opportunities to experience the colossal
silence of the Great Basin; and
(5) the Great Basin region of western Utah should be
protected and managed to ensure the preservation of the
natural conditions of the region.
(b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are
designated as wilderness areas and as components of the
National Wilderness Preservation System:
(1) Antelope Range (approximately 17,000 acres).
(2) Barn Hills (approximately 20,000 acres).
(3) Black Hills (approximately 9,000 acres).
(4) Bullgrass Knoll (approximately 15,000 acres).
(5) Burbank Hills/Tunnel Spring (approximately 92,000
acres).
(6) Conger Mountains (approximately 21,000 acres).
(7) Crater Bench (approximately 35,000 acres).
(8) Crater and Silver Island Mountains (approximately
121,000 acres).
(9) Cricket Mountains Cluster (approximately 62,000 acres).
(10) Deep Creek Mountains (approximately 126,000 acres).
(11) Drum Mountains (approximately 39,000 acres).
(12) Dugway Mountains (approximately 24,000 acres).
(13) Essex Canyon (approximately 1,300 acres).
(14) Fish Springs Range (approximately 64,000 acres).
(15) Granite Peak (approximately 19,000 acres).
(16) Grassy Mountains (approximately 23,000 acres).
(17) Grouse Creek Mountains (approximately 15,000 acres).
(18) House Range (approximately 201,000 acres).
(19) Keg Mountains (approximately 38,000 acres).
(20) Kern Mountains (approximately 15,000 acres).
(21) King Top (approximately 110,000 acres).
(22) Ledger Canyon (approximately 9,000 acres).
(23) Little Goose Creek (approximately 1,200 acres).
(24) Middle/Granite Mountains (approximately 80,000 acres).
(25) Mountain Home Range (approximately 90,000 acres).
(26) Newfoundland Mountains (approximately 22,000 acres).
(27) Ochre Mountain (approximately 13,000 acres).
(28) Oquirrh Mountains (approximately 9,000 acres).
(29) Painted Rock Mountain (approximately 26,000 acres).
(30) Paradise/Steamboat Mountains (approximately 144,000
acres).
(31) Pilot Range (approximately 45,000 acres).
(32) Red Tops (approximately 28,000 acres).

[[Page 9934]]

(33) Rockwell-Little Sahara (approximately 21,000 acres).
(34) San Francisco Mountains (approximately 39,000 acres).
(35) Sand Ridge (approximately 73,000 acres).
(36) Simpson Mountains (approximately 42,000 acres).
(37) Snake Valley (approximately 100,000 acres).
(38) Stansbury Island (approximately 10,000 acres).
(39) Stansbury Mountains (approximately 24,000 acres).
(40) Thomas Range (approximately 36,000 acres).
(41) Tule Valley (approximately 159,000 acres).
(42) Wah Wah Mountains (approximately 167,000 acres).
(43) Wasatch/Sevier Plateaus (approximately 29,000 acres).
(44) White Rock Range (approximately 5,200 acres).

SEC. 102. ZION AND MOJAVE DESERT WILDERNESS AREAS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the renowned landscape of Zion National Park, including
soaring cliff walls, forested plateaus, and deep narrow
gorges, extends beyond the boundaries of the Park onto
surrounding public land managed by the Secretary;
(2) from the pink sand dunes of Moquith Mountain to the
golden pools of Beaver Dam Wash, the Zion and Mojave Desert
areas encompass 3 major provinces of the Southwest that
include--
(A) the sculpted canyon country of the Colorado Plateau;
(B) the Mojave Desert; and
(C) portions of the Great Basin;
(3) the Zion and Mojave Desert areas display a rich mosaic
of biological, archaeological, and scenic diversity;
(4) 1 of the last remaining populations of threatened
desert tortoise is found within this region; and
(5) the Zion and Mojave Desert areas in Utah should be
protected and managed as wilderness areas.
(b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are
designated as wilderness areas and as components of the
National Wilderness Preservation System:
(1) Beaver Dam Mountains (approximately 30,000 acres).
(2) Beaver Dam Wash (approximately 23,000 acres).
(3) Beaver Dam Wilderness Expansion (approximately 8,000
acres).
(4) Canaan Mountain (approximately 67,000 acres).
(5) Cottonwood Canyon (approximately 12,000 acres).
(6) Cougar Canyon/Docs Pass (approximately 41,000 acres).
(7) Joshua Tree (approximately 12,000 acres).
(8) Mount Escalante (approximately 17,000 acres).
(9) Parunuweap Canyon (approximately 43,000 acres).
(10) Red Butte (approximately 4,500 acres).
(11) Red Mountain (approximately 21,000 acres).
(12) Scarecrow Peak (approximately 16,000 acres).
(13) Square Top Mountain (approximately 23,000 acres).
(14) Zion Adjacent (approximately 58,000 acres).

SEC. 103. GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE WILDERNESS AREAS.

(a) Grand Staircase Area.--
(1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(A) the area known as the Grand Staircase rises more than
6,000 feet in a series of great cliffs and plateaus from the
depths of the Grand Canyon to the forested rim of Bryce
Canyon;
(B) the Grand Staircase--
(i) spans 6 major life zones, from the lower Sonoran Desert
to the alpine forest; and
(ii) encompasses geologic formations that display
3,000,000,000 years of Earth's history;
(C) land managed by the Secretary lines the intricate
canyon system of the Paria River and forms a vital natural
corridor connection to the deserts and forests of those
national parks;
(D) land described in paragraph (2) (other than East of
Bryce, Upper Kanab Creek, Moquith Mountain, Bunting Point,
and Vermillion Cliffs) is located within the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument; and
(E) the Grand Staircase in Utah should be protected and
managed as a wilderness area.
(2) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are
designated as wilderness areas and as components of the
National Wilderness Preservation System:
(A) Bryce View (approximately 4,500 acres).
(B) Bunting Point (approximately 11,000 acres).
(C) Canaan Peak Slopes (approximately 2,300 acres).
(D) East of Bryce (approximately 750 acres).
(E) Glass Eye Canyon (approximately 24,000 acres).
(F) Ladder Canyon (approximately 14,000 acres).
(G) Moquith Mountain (approximately 16,000 acres).
(H) Nephi Point (approximately 14,000 acres).
(I) Paria-Hackberry (approximately 188,000 acres).
(J) Paria Wilderness Expansion (approximately 3,300 acres).
(K) Pine Hollow (approximately 11,000 acres).
(L) Slopes of Bryce (approximately 2,600 acres).
(M) Timber Mountain (approximately 51,000 acres).
(N) Upper Kanab Creek (approximately 49,000 acres).
(O) Vermillion Cliffs (approximately 26,000 acres).
(P) Willis Creek (approximately 21,000 acres).
(b) Kaiparowits Plateau.--
(1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(A) the Kaiparowits Plateau east of the Paria River is 1 of
the most rugged and isolated wilderness regions in the United
States;
(B) the Kaiparowits Plateau, a windswept land of harsh
beauty, contains distant vistas and a remarkable variety of
plant and animal species;
(C) ancient forests, an abundance of big game animals, and
22 species of raptors thrive undisturbed on the grassland
mesa tops of the Kaiparowits Plateau;
(D) each of the areas described in paragraph (2) (other
than Heaps Canyon, Little Valley, and Wide Hollow) is located
within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument; and
(E) the Kaiparowits Plateau should be protected and managed
as a wilderness area.
(2) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are
designated as wilderness areas and as components of the
National Wilderness Preservation System:
(A) Andalex Not (approximately 18,000 acres).
(B) The Blues (approximately 21,000 acres).
(C) Box Canyon (approximately 2,800 acres).
(D) Burning Hills (approximately 80,000 acres).
(E) Carcass Canyon (approximately 83,000 acres).
(F) The Cockscomb (approximately 11,000 acres).
(G) Fiftymile Bench (approximately 12,000 acres).
(H) Fiftymile Mountain (approximately 203,000 acres).
(I) Heaps Canyon (approximately 4,000 acres).
(J) Horse Spring Canyon (approximately 31,000 acres).
(K) Kodachrome Headlands (approximately 10,000 acres).
(L) Little Valley Canyon (approximately 4,000 acres).
(M) Mud Spring Canyon (approximately 65,000 acres).
(N) Nipple Bench (approximately 32,000 acres).
(O) Paradise Canyon-Wahweap (approximately 262,000 acres).
(P) Rock Cove (approximately 16,000 acres).
(Q) Warm Creek (approximately 23,000 acres).
(R) Wide Hollow (approximately 6,800 acres).
(c) Escalante Canyons.--
(1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(A) glens and coves carved in massive sandstone cliffs,
spring-watered hanging gardens, and the silence of ancient
Anasazi ruins are examples of the unique features that entice
hikers, campers, and sightseers from around the world to
Escalante Canyon;
(B) Escalante Canyon links the spruce fir forests of the
11,000-foot Aquarius Plateau with winding slickrock canyons
that flow into Glen Canyon;
(C) Escalante Canyon, 1 of Utah's most popular natural
areas, contains critical habitat for deer, elk, and wild
bighorn sheep that also enhances the scenic integrity of the
area;
(D) each of the areas described in paragraph (2) is located
within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument; and
(E) Escalante Canyon should be protected and managed as a
wilderness area.
(2) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are
designated as wilderness areas and as components of the
National Wilderness Preservation System:
(A) Brinkerhof Flats (approximately 3,000 acres).
(B) Colt Mesa (approximately 28,000 acres).
(C) Death Hollow (approximately 49,000 acres).
(D) Forty Mile Gulch (approximately 6,600 acres).
(E) Hurricane Wash (approximately 9,000 acres).
(F) Lampstand (approximately 7,900 acres).
(G) Muley Twist Flank (approximately 3,600 acres).
(H) North Escalante Canyons (approximately 176,000 acres).
(I) Pioneer Mesa (approximately 11,000 acres).
(J) Scorpion (approximately 53,000 acres).
(K) Sooner Bench (approximately 390 acres).

[[Page 9935]]

(L) Steep Creek (approximately 35,000 acres).
(M) Studhorse Peaks (approximately 24,000 acres).

SEC. 104. MOAB-LA SAL CANYONS WILDERNESS AREAS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the canyons surrounding the La Sal Mountains and the
town of Moab offer a variety of extraordinary landscapes;
(2) outstanding examples of natural formations and
landscapes in the Moab-La Sal area include the huge sandstone
fins of Behind the Rocks, the mysterious Fisher Towers, and
the whitewater rapids of Westwater Canyon; and
(3) the Moab-La Sal area should be protected and managed as
a wilderness area.
(b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are
designated as wilderness areas and as components of the
National Wilderness Preservation System:
(1) Arches Adjacent (approximately 12,000 acres).
(2) Beaver Creek (approximately 41,000 acres).
(3) Behind the Rocks and Hunters Canyon (approximately
22,000 acres).
(4) Big Triangle (approximately 20,000 acres).
(5) Coyote Wash (approximately 28,000 acres).
(6) Dome Plateau-Professor Valley (approximately 35,000
acres).
(7) Fisher Towers (approximately 18,000 acres).
(8) Goldbar Canyon (approximately 9,000 acres).
(9) Granite Creek (approximately 5,000 acres).
(10) Mary Jane Canyon (approximately 25,000 acres).
(11) Mill Creek (approximately 14,000 acres).
(12) Porcupine Rim and Morning Glory (approximately 20,000
acres).
(13) Renegade Point (approximately 6,600 acres).
(14) Westwater Canyon (approximately 37,000 acres).
(15) Yellow Bird (approximately 4,200 acres).

SEC. 105. HENRY MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS AREAS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Henry Mountain Range, the last mountain range to be
discovered and named by early explorers in the contiguous
United States, still retains a wild and undiscovered quality;
(2) fluted badlands that surround the flanks of 11,000-foot
Mounts Ellen and Pennell contain areas of critical habitat
for mule deer and for the largest herd of free-roaming
buffalo in the United States;
(3) despite their relative accessibility, the Henry
Mountain Range remains 1 of the wildest, least-known ranges
in the United States; and
(4) the Henry Mountain range should be protected and
managed to ensure the preservation of the range as a
wilderness area.
(b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are
designated as wilderness areas and as components of the
National Wilderness Preservation System.
(1) Bull Mountain (approximately 16,000 acres).
(2) Bullfrog Creek (approximately 35,000 acres).
(3) Dogwater Creek (approximately 3,400 acres).
(4) Fremont Gorge (approximately 20,000 acres).
(5) Long Canyon (approximately 16,000 acres).
(6) Mount Ellen-Blue Hills (approximately 140,000 acres).
(7) Mount Hillers (approximately 21,000 acres).
(8) Mount Pennell (approximately 147,000 acres).
(9) Notom Bench (approximately 6,200 acres).
(10) Oak Creek (approximately 1,700 acres).
(11) Ragged Mountain (approximately 28,000 acres).

SEC. 106. GLEN CANYON WILDERNESS AREAS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the side canyons of Glen Canyon, including the Dirty
Devil River and the Red, White and Blue Canyons, contain some
of the most remote and outstanding landscapes in southern
Utah;
(2) the Dirty Devil River, once the fortress hideout of
outlaw Butch Cassidy's Wild Bunch, has sculpted a maze of
slickrock canyons through an imposing landscape of monoliths
and inaccessible mesas;
(3) the Red and Blue Canyons contain colorful Chinle/
Moenkopi badlands found nowhere else in the region; and
(4) the canyons of Glen Canyon in the State should be
protected and managed as wilderness areas.
(b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are
designated as wilderness areas and as components of the
National Wilderness Preservation System:
(1) Cane Spring Desert (approximately 18,000 acres).
(2) Dark Canyon (approximately 134,000 acres).
(3) Dirty Devil (approximately 242,000 acres).
(4) Fiddler Butte (approximately 92,000 acres).
(5) Flat Tops (approximately 30,000 acres).
(6) Little Rockies (approximately 64,000 acres).
(7) The Needle (approximately 11,000 acres).
(8) Red Rock Plateau (approximately 213,000 acres).
(9) White Canyon (approximately 98,000 acres).

SEC. 107. SAN JUAN-ANASAZI WILDERNESS AREAS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) more than 1,000 years ago, the Anasazi Indian culture
flourished in the slickrock canyons and on the pinon-covered
mesas of southeastern Utah;
(2) evidence of the ancient presence of the Anasazi
pervades the Cedar Mesa area of the San Juan-Anasazi area
where cliff dwellings, rock art, and ceremonial kivas
embellish sandstone overhangs and isolated benchlands;
(3) the Cedar Mesa area is in need of protection from the
vandalism and theft of its unique cultural resources;
(4) the Cedar Mesa wilderness areas should be created to
protect both the archaeological heritage and the
extraordinary wilderness, scenic, and ecological values of
the United States; and
(5) the San Juan-Anasazi area should be protected and
managed as a wilderness area to ensure the preservation of
the unique and valuable resources of that area.
(b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are
designated as wilderness areas and as components of the
National Wilderness Preservation System:
(1) Allen Canyon (approximately 5,900 acres).
(2) Arch Canyon (approximately 30,000 acres).
(3) Comb Ridge (approximately 15,000 acres).
(4) East Montezuma (approximately 45,000 acres).
(5) Fish and Owl Creek Canyons (approximately 73,000
acres).
(6) Grand Gulch (approximately 159,000 acres).
(7) Hammond Canyon (approximately 4,400 acres).
(8) Nokai Dome (approximately 93,000 acres).
(9) Road Canyon (approximately 63,000 acres).
(10) San Juan River (Sugarloaf) (approximately 15,000
acres).
(11) The Tabernacle (approximately 7,000 acres).
(12) Valley of the Gods (approximately 21,000 acres).

SEC. 108. CANYONLANDS BASIN WILDERNESS AREAS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) Canyonlands National Park safeguards only a small
portion of the extraordinary red-hued, cliff-walled
canyonland region of the Colorado Plateau;
(2) areas near Arches National Park and Canyonlands
National Park contain canyons with rushing perennial streams,
natural arches, bridges, and towers;
(3) the gorges of the Green and Colorado Rivers lie on
adjacent land managed by the Secretary;
(4) popular overlooks in Canyonlands Nations Park and Dead
Horse Point State Park have views directly into adjacent
areas, including Lockhart Basin and Indian Creek; and
(5) designation of those areas as wilderness would ensure
the protection of this erosional masterpiece of nature and of
the rich pockets of wildlife found within its expanded
boundaries.
(b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are
designated as wilderness areas and as components of the
National Wilderness Preservation System:
(1) Bridger Jack Mesa (approximately 33,000 acres).
(2) Butler Wash (approximately 27,000 acres).
(3) Dead Horse Cliffs (approximately 5,300 acres).
(4) Demon's Playground (approximately 3,700 acres).
(5) Duma Point (approximately 14,000 acres).
(6) Gooseneck (approximately 9,000 acres).
(7) Hatch Point Canyons/Lockhart Basin (approximately
149,000 acres).
(8) Horsethief Point (approximately 15,000 acres).
(9) Indian Creek (approximately 28,000 acres).
(10) Labyrinth Canyon (approximately 150,000 acres).
(11) San Rafael River (approximately 101,000 acres).
(12) Shay Mountain (approximately 14,000 acres).
(13) Sweetwater Reef (approximately 69,000 acres).
(14) Upper Horseshoe Canyon (approximately 60,000 acres).

SEC. 109. SAN RAFAEL SWELL WILDERNESS AREAS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--

[[Page 9936]]

(1) the San Rafael Swell towers above the desert like a
castle, ringed by 1,000-foot ramparts of Navajo Sandstone;
(2) the highlands of the San Rafael Swell have been
fractured by uplift and rendered hollow by erosion over
countless millennia, leaving a tremendous basin punctuated by
mesas, buttes, and canyons and traversed by sediment-laden
desert streams;
(3) among other places, the San Rafael wilderness offers
exceptional back country opportunities in the colorful Wild
Horse Badlands, the monoliths of North Caineville Mesa, the
rock towers of Cliff Wash, and colorful cliffs of Humbug
Canyon;
(4) the mountains within these areas are among Utah's most
valuable habitat for desert bighorn sheep; and
(5) the San Rafael Swell area should be protected and
managed to ensure its preservation as a wilderness area.
(b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are
designated as wilderness areas and as components of the
National Wilderness Preservation System:
(1) Cedar Mountain (approximately 15,000 acres).
(2) Devils Canyon (approximately 23,000 acres).
(3) Eagle Canyon (approximately 38,000 acres).
(4) Factory Butte (approximately 22,000 acres).
(5) Hondu Country (approximately 20,000 acres).
(6) Jones Bench (approximately 2,800 acres).
(7) Limestone Cliffs (approximately 25,000 acres).
(8) Lost Spring Wash (approximately 37,000 acres).
(9) Mexican Mountain (approximately 100,000 acres).
(10) Molen Reef (approximately 33,000 acres).
(11) Muddy Creek (approximately 240,000 acres).
(12) Mussentuchit Badlands (approximately 25,000 acres).
(13) Pleasant Creek Bench (approximately 1,100 acres).
(14) Price River-Humbug (approximately 120,000 acres).
(15) Red Desert (approximately 40,000 acres).
(16) Rock Canyon (approximately 18,000 acres).
(17) San Rafael Knob (approximately 15,000 acres).
(18) San Rafael Reef (approximately 114,000 acres).
(19) Sids Mountain (approximately 107,000 acres).
(20) Upper Muddy Creek (approximately 19,000 acres).
(21) Wild Horse Mesa (approximately 92,000 acres).

SEC. 110. BOOK CLIFFS AND UINTA BASIN WILDERNESS AREAS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Book Cliffs and Uinta Basin wilderness areas
offer--
(A) unique big game hunting opportunities in verdant high-
plateau forests;
(B) the opportunity for float trips of several days
duration down the Green River in Desolation Canyon; and
(C) the opportunity for calm water canoe weekends on the
White River;
(2) the long rampart of the Book Cliffs bounds the area on
the south, while seldom-visited uplands, dissected by the
rivers and streams, slope away to the north into the Uinta
Basin;
(3) bears, Bighorn sheep, cougars, elk, and mule deer
flourish in the back country of the Book Cliffs; and
(4) the Book Cliffs and Uinta Basin areas should be
protected and managed to ensure the protection of the areas
as wilderness.
(b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are
designated as wilderness areas and as components of the
National Wilderness Preservation System.
(1) Bourdette Draw (approximately 15,000 acres).
(2) Bull Canyon (approximately 2,800 acres).
(3) Chipeta (approximately 95,000 acres).
(4) Dead Horse Pass (approximately 8,000 acres).
(5) Desbrough Canyon (approximately 13,000 acres).
(6) Desolation Canyon (approximately 557,000 acres).
(7) Diamond Breaks (approximately 9,000 acres).
(8) Diamond Canyon (approximately 166,000 acres).
(9) Diamond Mountain (also known as ``Wild Mountain'')
(approximately 27,000 acres).
(10) Dinosaur Adjacent (approximately 10,000 acres).
(11) Goslin Mountain (approximately 4,900 acres).
(12) Hideout Canyon (approximately 12,000 acres).
(13) Lower Bitter Creek (approximately 14,000 acres).
(14) Lower Flaming Gorge (approximately 21,000 acres).
(15) Mexico Point (approximately 15,000 acres).
(16) Moonshine Draw (also known as ``Daniels Canyon'')
(approximately 10,000 acres).
(17) Mountain Home (approximately 9,000 acres).
(18) O-Wi-Yu-Kuts (approximately 13,000 acres).
(19) Red Creek Badlands (approximately 3,600 acres).
(20) Seep Canyon (approximately 21,000 acres).
(21) Sunday School Canyon (approximately 18,000 acres).
(22) Survey Point (approximately 8,000 acres).
(23) Turtle Canyon (approximately 39,000 acres).
(24) White River (approximately 24,500 acres).
(25) Winter Ridge (approximately 38,000 acres).
(26) Wolf Point (approximately 15,000 acres).

TITLE II--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

(a) Names of Wilderness Areas.--Each wilderness area named
in title I shall--
(1) consist of the quantity of land referenced with respect
to that named area, as generally depicted on the map entitled
``Utah BLM Wilderness Proposed by H.R. [___], 111th
Congress''; and
(2) be known by the name given to it in title I.
(b) Map and Description.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall file a map and a
legal description of each wilderness area designated by this
Act with--
(A) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives; and
(B) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
Senate.
(2) Force of law.--A map and legal description filed under
paragraph (1) shall have the same force and effect as if
included in this Act, except that the Secretary may correct
clerical and typographical errors in the map and legal
description.
(3) Public availability.--Each map and legal description
filed under paragraph (1) shall be filed and made available
for public inspection in the Office of the Director of the
Bureau of Land Management.

SEC. 202. ADMINISTRATION.

Subject to valid rights in existence on the date of
enactment of this Act, each wilderness area designated under
this Act shall be administered by the Secretary in accordance
with--
(1) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
(2) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).

SEC. 203. STATE SCHOOL TRUST LAND WITHIN WILDERNESS AREAS.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), if State-owned
land is included in an area designated by this Act as a
wilderness area, the Secretary shall offer to exchange land
owned by the United States in the State of approximately
equal value in accordance with section 603(c) of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c))
and section 5(a) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1134(a)).
(b) Mineral Interests.--The Secretary shall not transfer
any mineral interests under subsection (a) unless the State
transfers to the Secretary any mineral interests in land
designated by this Act as a wilderness area.

SEC. 204. WATER.

(a) Reservation.--
(1) Water for wilderness areas.--
(A) In general.--With respect to each wilderness area
designated by this Act, Congress reserves a quantity of water
determined by the Secretary to be sufficient for the
wilderness area.
(B) Priority date.--The priority date of a right reserved
under subparagraph (A) shall be the date of enactment of this
Act.
(2) Protection of rights.--The Secretary and other officers
and employees of the United States shall take any steps
necessary to protect the rights reserved by paragraph (1)(A),
including the filing of a claim for the quantification of the
rights in any present or future appropriate stream
adjudication in the courts of the State--
(A) in which the United States is or may be joined; and
(B) that is conducted in accordance with section 208 of the
Department of Justice Appropriation Act, 1953 (66 Stat. 560,
chapter 651).
(b) Prior Rights Not Affected.--Nothing in this Act
relinquishes or reduces any water rights reserved or
appropriated by the United States in the State on or before
the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Administration.--
(1) Specification of rights.--The Federal water rights
reserved by this Act are specific to the wilderness areas
designated by this Act.
(2) No precedent established.--Nothing in this Act related
to reserved Federal water rights--
(A) shall establish a precedent with regard to any future
designation of water rights; or
(B) shall affect the interpretation of any other Act or any
designation made under any other Act.

SEC. 205. ROADS.

(a) Setbacks.--

[[Page 9937]]

(1) Measurement in general.--A setback under this section
shall be measured from the center line of the road.
(2) Wilderness on 1 side of roads.--Except as provided in
subsection (b), a setback for a road with wilderness on only
1 side shall be set at--
(A) 300 feet from a paved Federal or State highway;
(B) 100 feet from any other paved road or high standard
dirt or gravel road; and
(C) 30 feet from any other road.
(3) Wilderness on both sides of roads.--Except as provided
in subsection (b), a setback for a road with wilderness on
both sides (including cherry-stems or roads separating 2
wilderness units) shall be set at--
(A) 200 feet from a paved Federal or State highway;
(B) 40 feet from any other paved road or high standard dirt
or gravel road; and
(C) 10 feet from any other roads.
(b) Setback Exceptions.--
(1) Well-defined topographical barriers.--If, between the
road and the boundary of a setback area described in
paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a), there is a well-
defined cliff edge, streambank, or other topographical
barrier, the Secretary shall use the barrier as the
wilderness boundary.
(2) Fences.--If, between the road and the boundary of a
setback area specified in paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection
(a), there is a fence running parallel to a road, the
Secretary shall use the fence as the wilderness boundary if,
in the opinion of the Secretary, doing so would result in a
more manageable boundary.
(3) Deviations from setback areas.--
(A) Exclusion of disturbances from wilderness boundaries.--
In cases where there is an existing livestock development,
dispersed camping area, borrow pit, or similar disturbance
within 100 feet of a road that forms part of a wilderness
boundary, the Secretary may delineate the boundary so as to
exclude the disturbance from the wilderness area.
(B) Limitation on exclusion of disturbances.--The Secretary
shall make a boundary adjustment under subparagraph (A) only
if the Secretary determines that doing so is consistent with
wilderness management goals.
(C) Deviations restricted to minimum necessary.--Any
deviation under this paragraph from the setbacks required
under in paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a) shall be the
minimum necessary to exclude the disturbance.
(c) Delineation Within Setback Area.--The Secretary may
delineate a wilderness boundary at a location within a
setback under paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a) if, as
determined by the Secretary, the delineation would enhance
wilderness management goals.

SEC. 206. LIVESTOCK.

Within the wilderness areas designated under title I, the
grazing of livestock authorized on the date of enactment of
this Act shall be permitted to continue subject to such
reasonable regulations and procedures as the Secretary
considers necessary, as long as the regulations and
procedures are consistent with--
(1) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.); and
(2) section 101(f) of the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of
1990 (Public Law 101-628; 104 Stat. 4469).

SEC. 207. FISH AND WILDLIFE.

Nothing in this Act affects the jurisdiction of the State
with respect to wildlife and fish on the public land located
in the State.

SEC. 208. MANAGEMENT OF NEWLY ACQUIRED LAND.

Any land within the boundaries of a wilderness area
designated under this Act that is acquired by the Federal
Government shall--
(1) become part of the wilderness area in which the land is
located; and
(2) be managed in accordance with this Act and other laws
applicable to wilderness areas.

SEC. 209. WITHDRAWAL.

Subject to valid rights existing on the date of enactment
of this Act, the Federal land referred to in title I is
withdrawn from all forms of--
(1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under public law;
(2) location, entry, and patent under mining law; and
(3) disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and
geothermal leasing or mineral materials.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join with the
Senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original cosponsor of
legislation to designate areas of pristine Federal lands in Utah as
wilderness.
I support this legislation, for a few reasons, but most of all
because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the
marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the
Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands of Southern Utah.
I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah and view firsthand some
of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator
Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas
from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes
outside of the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness
unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed
the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down
the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the
Emery County government.
Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the
appropriate benchmark for the lands that should be protected in
Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness
legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those
lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill
encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah.
Unfortunately, the Senate has not always had the benefit of
considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in
Southern Utah. Last Congress, a provision was air-dropped into a bill
considered by the Senate--without having been considered by the House
or the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee--that designated
less than 45 percent of the wilderness quality lands included in the
America's Red Rock Wilderness Act for Washington County, Utah.
Furthermore, the public lands package omitted a wilderness unit, Dry
Creek, that Senator Bennett has previously agreed to protect in his
Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2008, S. 2834. During
the 104th Congress, I joined with the former Senator from New Jersey,
Mr. Bradley, in opposing omnibus parks legislation that contained
provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home State
of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of
the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such
protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded
designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964.
The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of
Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents
have described these lands as places of solitude, special family
moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of the
Capital Times, a paper in Madison, WI, wrote: ``Other remaining
wilderness in the U.S. is at first daunting, but then endearing and
always a treasure for all Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock
of the Colorado Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin
include some of the last of our country's wilderness, which is not
fully protected. We must ask our elected officials to redress this
circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect those
national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This wilderness is a
treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we can be forever proud to
bestow to our children.''
I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish
that goal. The measure protects wild lands that really are not done
justice by any description. In my trip I found widely varied and
distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff
walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of
the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great
Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and
stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These
regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hiking
and sightseeing to hunting.
Wisconsinites are watching this test case closely. I believe that
Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a
sign of where the nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of
natural resources. Legislation to protect existing wilderness ensures
that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to
that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild
lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will
publicly codify that expectation and promise.

[[Page 9938]]

Finally, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the
support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be
protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the
Federal Government for the people of the U.S. Thus, while they are
physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the
citizens of Wisconsin as it is for other Americans. I am eager to work
with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to protect these lands. I
commend him for introducing this measure.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Casey):
S. 800. A bill to require the President to update and modify the
website recovery.gov; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to enhance
the availability of information to the public concerning the programs
funded pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
enacted in February. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Casey in
introducing this bill.
In a recent meeting that I had with constituents from the Maine
Municipal Association, several questions arose regarding application
deadlines and when funding will be distributed under the act.
Additionally, because there is no centralized location listing the
opportunities available, some Mayors and First Selectmen had little
idea of all the programs for which they may be eligible. Indeed, the
officials spoke of finding out about various programs either through
meetings or colleagues, and they noted that a regularly updated online
database of catalogued programs would be extremely useful.
This modest bill would require that the administration's recovery.gov
website be expanded so that States and localities can easily ascertain
stimulus funds for which they may be eligible. Cities and towns could
benefit greatly if they could use Recovery.gov to quickly learn about
funding for which they may be eligible, application deadlines, and who
to contact for more information. An enhanced website or
``clearinghouse'' would facilitate the timely distribution of economic
stimulus funds and ensure that they will be used as quickly and
efficiently as possible to help restore economic growth throughout the
country.
I urge prompt consideration of this bill.
______

By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Burr, Mr. Tester, Mr. Burris, and
Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 801. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to waive
charges for humanitarian care provided by the Department of Veterans
Affairs to family members accompanying veterans severely injured after
September 11, 2001, as they receive medical care from the Department
and to provide assistance to family caregivers, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
create a program within the Department of Veterans Affairs for family
caregivers. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senator Burr,
the Ranking Member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Tester,
Senator Burns, and Senator Rockefeller, former Chairman of the
Committee.
Some veterans returning from the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
as well as previous conflicts, suffer from disabilities that prevent
them from being fully independent. This is a sad fact of war. The
legislation I am introducing today is designed to provide for several
improvements in health care for veterans by supporting the family
members who care for them.
The challenges faced by family caregivers are well known to us. We
have been working on this issue for nearly two years. Provisions that
then-Senator Clinton included in a health care omnibus bill reported by
the Committee last Congress would have provided for pilot programs to
serve caregivers. We have since learned much more about the role family
members play in caring for injured veterans, and the needs of family
caregivers. I think we are now beyond the scope of that original pilot
program and I believe that a full-fledged permanent program is needed
in VA.
First, it is well known that the involvement of family members in the
provision of health care dramatically improves speed and success of
recovery. This bill will give family members the resources needed to be
involved in the care for their loved one. Second, many disabled
veterans are not able to complete some tasks of daily living on their
own, but do not require care in an institution. Allowing a veteran to
remain in the home, while having family members meet the veteran's
needs, will vastly improve quality of life for the veteran.
Caregivers, who are members of a veteran's family, often put their
lives on hold in order to provide care for the injured or disabled
veteran at home. In some instances, these caregivers are unable to
maintain regular jobs because of the time consumed in providing
sufficient care to the veteran. This has the compound effect of
decreasing household income, and possibly preventing the caregiver from
keeping health insurance. This legislation would help alleviate these
problems so as to allow the caregiver to focus entirely on caring for
the veteran.
This bill includes provisions for training and certifying family
caregivers or personal care attendants. It would provide for mental
health counseling, health care eligibility, a living stipend, and other
critical services to support these caregivers. Additionally, this bill
would make improvements to the services VA provides to family members
who must travel to take the veteran to a VA facility to receive
treatment.
I look forward to working with all of our colleagues to pass this
much needed legislation. I especially thank Senators Burr and
Rockefeller for cosponsoring this bill. I would also like to thank the
dedicated members of the Wounded Warrior Project and Paralyzed Veterans
of America for their tireless efforts in support of 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. 801

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 ``Family Caregiver Program Act
of 2009''.

SEC. 2. WAIVER OF CHARGES FOR HUMANITARIAN CARE PROVIDED TO
FAMILY MEMBERS ACCOMPANYING CERTAIN SEVERELY
INJURED VETERANS AS THEY RECEIVE MEDICAL CARE.

The text of section 1784 of title 38, United States Code,
is amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may furnish hospital care
or medical services as a humanitarian service in emergency
cases.
``(b) Reimbursement.--Except as provided in subsection (c),
the Secretary shall charge for care and services provided
under subsection (a) at rates prescribed by the Secretary.
``(c) Waiver of Charges.--(1) Except as provided in
paragraph (2), the Secretary shall waive the charges required
by subsection (b) for care or services provided under
subsection (a) to an attendant of a covered veteran if such
care or services are provided to such attendant for an
emergency that occurs while such attendant is accompanying
such veteran while such veteran is receiving approved
inpatient or outpatient treatment at--
``(A) a Department facility; or
``(B) a non-Department facility--
``(i) that is under contract with the Department; or
``(ii) at which the veteran is receiving fee-basis care.
``(2) If an attendant is entitled to care or services under
a health-plan contract (as that term is defined in section
1725(f) of this title) or other contractual or legal recourse
against a third party that would, in part, extinguish
liability by charges described by subsection (b), the amount
of such charges waived under paragraph (1) shall be the
amount by which such charges exceed the amount of such
charges covered by the health-plan contract or other
contractual or legal recourse against the third party.
``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `attendant' includes, with respect to a
veteran, the following:
``(A) A family member of the veteran.
``(B) An individual eligible to receive ongoing family
caregiver assistance under section

[[Page 9939]]

1717A(e)(1) of this title for the provision of personal care
services to the veteran.
``(C) Any other individual whom the Secretary determines--
``(i) has a relationship with the veteran sufficient to
demonstrate a close affinity with the veteran; and
``(ii) provides a significant portion of the veteran's
care.
``(2) The term `covered veteran' means any veteran with a
severe injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty in
the active military, naval, or air service on or after
September 11, 2001.
``(3) The term `family member' with respect to a veteran,
includes the following:
``(A) The spouse of the veteran.
``(B) The child of the veteran.
``(C) A parent of the veteran.
``(D) A sibling of the veteran.
``(E) A cousin of the veteran.
``(F) An aunt of the veteran.
``(G) An uncle of the veteran.
``(H) A grandparent of the veteran.
``(I) A grandchild of the veteran.
``(J) A stepparent of the veteran.
``(K) A stepchild of the veteran.
``(L) A stepsibling of the veteran.
``(M) A parent-in-law of the veteran.
``(N) A sister-in-law of the veteran.
``(O) A brother-in-law of the veteran.
``(P) A cousin of the spouse of the veteran.
``(Q) An aunt of the spouse of the veteran.
``(R) An uncle of the spouse of the veteran.
``(S) A grandparent of the spouse of the veteran.
``(T) A grandchild of the spouse of the veteran.
``(U) A stepparent of the spouse of the veteran.
``(V) A stepsibling of the spouse of the veteran.
``(W) Such other individuals as the Secretary shall specify
in regulations for purposes of this section.
``(4) The term `severe injury' means, in the case of a
covered veteran, any injury as follows:
``(A) A physiological condition of the veteran if the
condition is a permanent or temporary severely disabling
disorder that compromises the ability of the veteran to carry
out one or more independent activities of daily living.
``(B) A psychological condition of the veteran if the
condition is rated at 30 or less on the Global Assessment of
Functioning (GAF) scale, as set forth in the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text
Revision (DSM-IV-TR), or the most recent edition if different
than the Fourth Edition Text Revision, of the American
Psychiatric Association.
``(C) An injury for which the veteran needs supervision or
protection based on symptoms or residuals of neurological or
other impairment.
``(D) Any other injury of the veteran that is determined to
be a severe injury in accordance with regulations prescribed
by the Secretary for purposes of this section.''.

SEC. 3. FAMILY CAREGIVER ASSISTANCE.

(a) Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 17 of title 38,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
1717 the following new section:

``Sec. 1717A. Family caregiver assistance

``(a) In General.--(1) As part of home health services
provided under section 1717 of this title, the Secretary
shall, upon the joint application of an eligible veteran and
a family member of such veteran (or other individual
designated by such veteran), furnish to such family member
(or designee) family caregiver assistance in accordance with
this section. The purpose of providing family caregiver
assistance under this section is--
``(A) to reduce the number of veterans who are receiving
institutional care, or who are in need of institutional care,
whose personal care service needs could be substantially
satisfied with the provision of such services by a family
member (or designee); and
``(B) to provide eligible veterans with additional options
so that they can choose the setting for the receipt of
personal care services that best suits their needs.
``(2) The Secretary shall only furnish family caregiver
assistance under this section to a family member of an
eligible veteran (or other individual designated by such
veteran) if the Secretary determines it is in the best
interest of the eligible veteran to do so.
``(b) Eligible Veterans.--(1) For purposes of this section,
an eligible veteran is a veteran (or member of the Armed
Forces undergoing medical discharge from the Armed Forces)--
``(A) who has a serious injury (including traumatic brain
injury, psychological trauma, or other mental disorder)
incurred or aggravated in line of duty in the active
military, naval, or air service on or after the date
described in paragraph (2); and
``(B) whom the Secretary determines, in consultation with
the Secretary of Defense as necessary, is in need of personal
care services because of--
``(i) an inability to perform one or more independent
activities of daily living;
``(ii) a need for supervision or protection based on
symptoms or residuals of neurological or other impairment or
injury; or
``(iii) such other matters as the Secretary shall establish
in consultation with the Secretary of Defense as appropriate.
``(2) The date described in this paragraph--
``(A) during the period beginning on the date of the
enactment of the Family Caregiver Program Act of 2009 and
ending two years after the date of the enactment of that Act,
is September 11, 2001; and
``(B) beginning on the first day after the date that is two
years after the date of the enactment of the Family Caregiver
Program Act of 2009, is the earliest date the Secretary
determines is appropriate to include the largest number of
veterans possible under this section without reducing the
quality of care provided to such veterans.
``(c) Evaluation of Eligible Veterans and Family
Caregivers.--(1) The Secretary shall evaluate each eligible
veteran who makes a joint application under subsection
(a)(1)--
``(A) to identify the personal care services required by
such veteran; and
``(B) to determine whether such requirements could be
significantly or substantially satisfied with the provision
of personal care services from a family member (or other
individual designated by the veteran).
``(2) The Secretary shall evaluate each family member of an
eligible veteran (or other individual designated by the
veteran) who makes a joint application under subsection
(a)(1) to determine--
``(A) the basic amount of instruction, preparation, and
training such family member (or designee) requires, if any,
to provide the personal care services required by such
veteran; and
``(B) the amount of additional instruction, preparation,
and training such family member (or designee) requires, if
any, to be the primary personal care attendant designated for
such veteran under subsection (e).
``(3) An evaluation carried out under paragraph (1) may be
carried out--
``(A) at a Department facility;
``(B) at a non-Department facility determined appropriate
by the Secretary for purposes of such evaluation; and
``(C) such other locations as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
``(d) Training and Certification.--(1) Except as provided
in subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall provide each family
member of an eligible veteran (or other individual designated
by the veteran) who makes a joint application under
subsection (a)(1) the basic instruction, preparation, and
training determined to be required by such family member (or
designee) under subsection (c)(2)(A).
``(2) The Secretary may provide to a family member of an
eligible veteran (or other individual designated by the
veteran) the additional instruction, preparation, and
training determined to be required by such family member (or
designee) under subsection (c)(2)(B) if such family member
(or designee)--
``(A) is certified as a personal care attendant for the
veteran under paragraph (3); and
``(B) requests, with concurrence of the veteran, such
additional instruction, preparation, and training.
``(3) Upon the successful completion by a family member of
an eligible veteran (or other individual designated by the
veteran) of basic instruction, preparation, and training
provided under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall certify the
family member as a personal care attendant for the veteran.
``(4) If the Secretary determines that a primary personal
care attendant designated under subsection (e) requires
additional training to maintain such designation, the
Secretary shall make such training available to the primary
personal care attendant.
``(5) The Secretary shall, subject to regulations the
Secretary shall prescribe, provide for necessary travel,
lodging, and per diem expenses incurred by a family member of
an eligible veteran (or other individual designated by the
veteran) in undergoing training under this subsection.
``(6) If the participation of a family member of an
eligible veteran (or other individual designated by the
veteran) in training under this subsection would interfere
with the provision of personal care services to the veteran,
the Secretary shall, subject to regulations as the Secretary
shall prescribe and in consultation with the eligible
veteran, provide respite care to the eligible veteran during
the provision of such training to the family member so that
such family caregiver (or designee) can participate in such
training without interfering with the provision of such
services.
``(e) Designation of Primary Personal Care Attendant.--(1)
For each eligible veteran with at least one family member (or
other individual designated by the veteran) who is described
by subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall designate one family member of such veteran
(or other individual designated by the veteran) as the
primary personal care attendant for such veteran to be the
primary provider of personal care services for such veteran.
``(2) A primary personal care attendant designated for an
eligible veteran under paragraph (1) shall be selected from
among family members of such veteran (or other individuals
designated by such veteran) who--
``(A) are certified under subsection (d)(3) as a personal
care attendant for such veteran;
``(B) complete all additional instruction, preparation, and
training, if any, provided under subsection (d)(2);

[[Page 9940]]

``(C) elect to provide the personal care services to such
veteran that the Secretary determines such veteran requires
under subsection (c)(1);
``(D) has the consent of such veteran to be the primary
provider of such services for such veteran; and
``(E) the Secretary considers competent to be the primary
provider of such services for such veteran.
``(3) An eligible veteran receiving personal care services
from a family member (or other individual designated by the
veteran) designated as the primary personal care attendant
for the veteran under paragraph (1) may revoke consent with
respect to such family member (or designee) under paragraph
(2)(D) at any time.
``(4) If an individual designated as the primary personal
care attendant of an eligible veteran under paragraph (1)
subsequently fails to meet the requirements set forth in
paragraph (2), the Secretary--
``(A) shall immediately revoke the individual's designation
under paragraph (1); and
``(B) may designate, in consultation with the eligible
veteran or the eligible veteran's surrogate appointed under
subsection (g), a new primary personal care attendant for the
veteran under such paragraph.
``(5) The Secretary shall take such actions as may be
necessary to ensure that the revocation of a designation
under paragraph (1) does not interfere with the provision of
personal care services required by a veteran.
``(f) Ongoing Family Caregiver Assistance.--(1) Except as
provided in subsection (a)(2) and subject to the provisions
of this subsection, the Secretary shall provide ongoing
family caregiver assistance to family members of eligible
veterans (or other individuals designated by such veterans)
as follows:
``(A) To each family member of an eligible veteran (or
designee) who is certified under subsection (d)(3) as a
personal care attendant for the veteran the following:
``(i) Direct technical support consisting of information
and assistance to timely address routine, emergency, and
specialized caregiving needs.
``(ii) Counseling.
``(iii) Access to an interactive Internet website on
caregiver services that addresses all aspects of the
provision of personal care services under this section.
``(B) To each family member of an eligible veteran (or
designee) who is designated as the primary personal care
attendant for the veteran under subsection (e) the following:
``(i) The ongoing family caregiver assistance described in
subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Mental health services.
``(iii) Respite care of not less than 30 days annually,
including 24-hour per day care of the veteran commensurate
with the care provided by the family caregiver to permit
extended respite.
``(iv) Medical care under section 1781 of this title.
``(v) A monthly personal caregiver stipend.
``(2)(A) The Secretary shall provide respite care under
paragraph (1)(B)(iii), at the election of the Secretary--
``(i) through facilities of the Department that are
appropriate for the veteran; or
``(ii) through contracts under section 1720B(c) of this
title.
``(B) If the primary personal care attendant of an eligible
veteran designated under subsection (e)(1) determines in
consultation with the veteran or the veteran's surrogate
appointed under subsection (g), and the Secretary concurs,
that the needs of the veteran cannot be accommodated through
the facilities and contracts described in subparagraph (A),
the Secretary shall, in consultation with the primary
personal care attendant and the veteran (or the veteran's
surrogate), provide respite care through other facilities or
arrangements that are medically and age appropriate.
``(3)(A) The Secretary shall provide monthly personal
caregiver stipends under paragraph (1)(B)(v) in accordance
with a schedule established by the Secretary that specifies
stipends provided based upon the amount and degree of
personal care services provided.
``(B) The Secretary shall ensure, to the extent
practicable, that the schedule required by subparagraph (A)
specifies that the amount of the personal caregiver stipend
provided to a primary personal care attendant designated
under subsection (e)(1) for the provision of personal care
services to an eligible veteran is not less than the amount
the Secretary would pay a commercial home health care entity
in the geographic area of the veteran to provide equivalent
personal care services to the veteran.
``(C) If personal care services are not available from a
commercial provider in the geographic area of an eligible
veteran, the Secretary may establish the schedule required by
subparagraph (A) with respect to the veteran by considering
the costs of commercial providers of personal care services
in geographic areas other than the geographic area of the
veteran with similar costs of living.
``(4) Provision of ongoing family caregiver assistance
under this subsection for provision of personal care services
to an eligible veteran shall terminate if the eligible
veteran no longer requires the personal care services.
``(g) Surrogates.--If an eligible veteran lacks the
capacity to submit an application, provide consent, make a
request, or concur with a request under this section, the
Secretary may, in accordance with regulations and policies of
the Department regarding the appointment of guardians or the
use of powers of attorney, appoint a surrogate for the
veteran who may submit applications, provide consent, make
requests, or concur with requests on behalf of the veteran
under this section.
``(h) Oversight.--(1) The Secretary shall enter into
contracts with appropriate entities to provide oversight of
the provision of personal care services by primary personal
care attendants designated under subsection (e)(1) under this
section.
``(2) The Secretary shall ensure that each eligible veteran
receiving personal care services under this section from a
primary personal care attendant designated under subsection
(e)(1) is visited in the veteran's home by an entity
providing oversight under paragraph (1) at such frequency as
the Secretary shall determine under paragraph (3) to
determine if the care received by the veteran under this
section meets the needs of the veteran.
``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the
Secretary shall determine the manner of oversight provided
under paragraph (1) and the frequency of visits under
paragraph (2) for an eligible veteran as the Secretary
considers commensurate with the needs of such eligible
veteran.
``(B) The frequency of visits under paragraph (2) for an
eligible veteran shall be not less frequent than once every
six months.
``(4)(A) An entity visiting an eligible veteran under
paragraph (2) shall submit to the Secretary the findings of
the entity with respect to each visit, including whether the
eligible veteran is receiving the care the eligible veteran
requires.
``(B) If an entity finds under subparagraph (A) that an
eligible veteran is not receiving the care the eligible
veteran requires, the entity shall submit to the Secretary a
recommendation on the corrective actions that should be taken
to ensure that the eligible veterans receives the care the
eligible veteran requires, including, if the entity considers
appropriate, a recommendation for revocation of a caregiver's
certification under subsection (d)(3) or revocation of the
designation of an individual under subsection (e)(1).
``(5) After receiving findings and recommendations, if any,
under paragraph (4) with respect to an eligible veteran, the
Secretary may take such actions as the Secretary considers
appropriate to ensure that the eligible veteran receives the
care the eligible veteran requires, including the following:
``(A) Revocation of a caregiver's certification under
subsection (d)(3).
``(B) Revocation of the designation of an individual under
subsection (e)(1).
``(6) If the Secretary terminates the provision of ongoing
family caregiver assistance under subsection (f) to a family
member of an eligible veteran (or other individual designated
by the veteran) because of findings of an entity submitted to
the Secretary under paragraph (4) of this subsection, the
Secretary may not provide compensation to such entity for the
provision of personal care services to such veteran, unless
the Secretary determines it would be in the best interest of
the eligible veteran to provide compensation to such entity
to provide such services.
``(i) Outreach.--The Secretary shall carry out a program of
outreach to inform eligible veterans and their family members
of the availability and nature of family caregiver
assistance.
``(j) Construction.--A decision by the Secretary under this
section affecting the furnishing of family caregiver
assistance shall be considered a medical determination.
``(k) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `family caregiver assistance' includes the
instruction, preparation, training, and certification
provided under subsection (d) and the ongoing family
caregiver assistance provided under subsection (f).
``(2) The term `family member' includes, with respect to a
veteran, the following:
``(A) The spouse of the veteran.
``(B) The child of the veteran.
``(C) A parent of the veteran.
``(D) A sibling of the veteran.
``(E) A cousin of the veteran.
``(F) An aunt of the veteran.
``(G) An uncle of the veteran.
``(H) A grandparent of the veteran.
``(I) A grandchild of the veteran.
``(J) A stepparent of the veteran.
``(K) A stepchild of the veteran.
``(L) A stepsibling of the veteran.
``(M) A parent-in-law of the veteran.
``(N) A sister-in-law of the veteran.
``(O) A brother-in-law of the veteran.
``(P) A cousin of the spouse of the veteran.
``(Q) An aunt of the spouse of the veteran.
``(R) An uncle of the spouse of the veteran.
``(S) A grandparent of the spouse of the veteran.
``(T) A grandchild of the spouse of the veteran.
``(U) A stepparent of the spouse of the veteran.
``(V) A stepsibling of the spouse of the veteran.

[[Page 9941]]

``(W) Such other individuals as the Secretary shall specify
in regulations for purposes of this section.
``(3) The term `personal care services' includes the
following:
``(A) Supervision.
``(B) Protection.
``(C) Services to assist a veteran with one or more
independent activities of daily living.
``(D) Such other services as the Secretary considers
appropriate.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 17 of such title is amended by inserting
after the item related to section 1717 the following new
item:

``1717A. Family caregiver assistance.''.
(3) Authorization for provision of health care to personal
care attendants.--Section 1781(a) of such title is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph (2):
``(2) a family member of a veteran (or other individual
designated by the veteran) designated as the primary personal
care attendant for such veteran under section 1717A(e) of
this title,''.
(4) Construction.--The furnishing of family caregiver
assistance under section 1717A of title 38, United States
Code, as added by paragraph (1), shall be construed to
supplement and not supplant the programs of the Department of
Veterans Affairs in existence on the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(5) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on the date that is 270 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Implementation Plan and Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall--
(A) develop a plan for the implementation of section 1717A
of title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection
(a)(1); and
(B) submit to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the
Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of
Representatives a report on such plan.
(2) Consultation.--In developing the plan required by
paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary shall consult with the
following:
(A) Veterans described in section 1717A(b) of title 38,
United States Code, as added by subsection (a)(1).
(B) Family members of veterans who provider personal care
services to such veterans.
(C) Veterans service organizations, as recognized by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs for the representation of
veterans under section 5902 of title 38, United States Code.
(D) Relevant national organizations that specialize in the
provision of assistance to individuals with the types of
disabilities that personal care attendants will encounter
while providing personal care services under section 1717A of
title 38, United States Code, as so added.
(E) Such other organizations with an interest in the
provision of care to veterans as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(F) The Secretary of Defense with respect to matters
concerning personal care services for eligible veterans who
are members of the Armed Forces undergoing medical discharge
from the Armed Forces.
(3) Report contents.--The report required by paragraph
(1)(B) shall contain the following:
(A) The plan required by paragraph (1)(A).
(B) A description of the veterans, caregivers, and
organizations consulted by the Secretary under paragraph (2).
(C) A description of such consultations.
(D) The recommendations of such veterans, caregivers, and
organizations, if any, that were not incorporated into the
plan required by paragraph (1)(A).
(E) The reasons the Secretary did not incorporate such
recommendations into such plan.
(c) Annual Evaluation Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than two years after the date
described in subsection (a)(4) and annually thereafter, the
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the
House of Representatives a comprehensive report on the
implementation of section 1717A of title 38, United States
Code, as added by subsection (a)(1).
(2) Contents.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) The number of family members of veterans (or other
individuals designated by veterans) that received family
caregiver assistance under such section 1717A.
(B) A description of the outreach activities carried out by
the Secretary in accordance with subsection (i) of such
section 1717A.
(C) The resources expended by the Secretary under such
section 1717A.
(D) An assessment of the manner in which resources are
expended by the Secretary under such section 1717A,
particularly with respect to the provision of monthly
personal caregiver stipends under subsection (f) of such
section.
(E) A description of the outcomes achieved by, and any
measurable benefits of, carrying out the requirements of such
section 1717A.
(F) A justification of any determination made under
subsection (b)(2) of such section 1717A.
(G) An assessment of the effectiveness and the efficiency
of the implementation of such section 1717A.
(H) An assessment of how the provision of family caregiver
assistance fits into the continuum of home health care
services and benefits provided to veterans in need of such
services and benefits.
(I) Such recommendations, including recommendations for
legislative or administrative action, as the Secretary
considers appropriate in light of carrying out the
requirements of such section 1717A.

SEC. 4. LODGING AND SUBSISTENCE FOR ATTENDANTS.

Section 111(e) of title 38, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``When any'' and inserting ``(1) When
any'';
(2) in paragraph (1), as designated by paragraph (1) of
this subsection--
(A) by inserting ``(including lodging and subsistence)''
after ``expenses of travel''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``for the period consisting of travel to and from
a treatment facility and the duration of the treatment
episode''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) The Secretary may prescribe regulations to carry out
this subsection. Such regulations may include provisions--
``(A) to limit the number of individuals that may receive
expenses of travel under paragraph (1) for a single treatment
episode of a person; and
``(B) to require attendants to use certain travel services.
``(3) In this subsection:
``(A) The term `attendant' includes, with respect to a
person described in paragraph (1), the following:
``(i) A family member of the person.
``(ii) An individual certified as a personal care attendant
under section 1717A(d)(3) of this title.
``(iii) Any other individual whom the Secretary
determines--
``(I) has a preexisting relationship with the person; and
``(II) provides a significant portion of the person's care.
``(B) The term `family member' includes, with respect to a
person described in paragraph (1), the following:
``(i) The spouse of the person.
``(ii) The child of the person.
``(iii) A parent of the person.
``(iv) A sibling of the person.
``(v) A cousin of the person.
``(vi) An aunt of the person.
``(vii) An uncle of the person.
``(viii) A grandparent of the person.
``(ix) A grandchild of the person.
``(x) A stepparent of the person.
``(xi) A stepchild of the person.
``(xii) A stepsibling of the person.
``(xiii) A parent-in-law of the person.
``(xiv) A sister-in-law of the person.
``(xv) A brother-in-law of the person.
``(xvi) A cousin of the spouse of the person.
``(xvii) An aunt of the spouse of the person.
``(xviii) An uncle of the spouse of the person.
``(xix) A grandparent of the spouse of the person.
``(xx) A grandchild of the spouse of the person.
``(xxi) A stepparent of the spouse of the person.
``(xxii) A stepsibling of the spouse of the person.
``(xxiii) Such other individuals as the Secretary shall
specify in regulations for purposes of this subsection.''.
______

By Mr. Bingaman:
S. 804. A bill to amend subpart 2 of part A of title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to establish incentives
for States to extend the minimum length of the school year to 200 full
days by 2014, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the School Day
Factor Act of 2009.
This bill would encourage States to provide students with the time
they need to master knowledge and skills they will need to succeed in
the 21st century, and to provide teachers with sufficient time to
deliver effective instruction.
Twenty-first century learners, and their teachers, are faced with
educational demands that simply did not exist decades ago. Right now,
our economy is struggling. But we have a plan to get it back on track
by investing aggressively in scientific R&D, and the deployment of new
technologies. If we are to maintain and increase our Nation's
competitiveness in the global economy for decades to come, we must
allow every child the opportunity for a quality 21st century education.
Today's students need to master mathematics,

[[Page 9942]]

science, and technology, language arts and social studies, and they
must also have opportunities to study foreign languages, the arts, and
physical education. No one of these subject areas should be sacrificed
at the expense of another. But that is the choices that teachers and
students are faced with in schools across the United States. Teachers
are being asked to cover more material than before, without being given
more time. Students are expected to master more material than students
of decades ago, without being given more time. Meanwhile, researchers
have demonstrated that reducing instructional time hinders learning. As
summarized by the National Research Council, in its report on How
People Learn, ``. . . significant learning takes major investments of
time.''
How can a quality, well rounded education be achieved when the
average school year in this country includes only 180 days--less than
half the number of days in a calendar year? Children today are spending
only 20 percent to 30 percent of their waking hours in school, even if
they have a record of perfect attendance. According to the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, by the time American
students finish high school, they will have spent more time watching
television than in the classroom.
In 1991, Congress established the National Education Commission on
Time and Learning, an independent advisory group charged with studying
the relationship between instructional time and student learning in
American schools. Members of the commission visited schools in the U.S.
and abroad, and interviewed teachers, administrators, parents, and
students. The Commission concluded that students and teachers in
American schools are ``prisoners of time,'' captives of an agrarian-
based school calendar that robs them of the opportunity for a quality
education. To quote from their report, ``we have been asking the
impossible of our students--that they learn as much as their foreign
peers while spending only half as much time in core academic
subjects.'' I add that this means we have also been asking the
impossible of our teachers--to deliver effective instruction, without
sufficient time. Clearly, our school calendars have not moved forward
along with our societal and technological advances.
The Commission's 1994 report was not the first to recommend
lengthening the school year. In 1983, the Nation at Risk report
recommended increasing the school day to 7 hours per day, and the
school year to 200 to 220 days per year, as a means to strengthen our
nation's grip on global competitiveness. Well, it has been 25 years
since that report, and I believe the time has come to give students and
teachers the time they need for a quality education.
The School Day Factor Act will support efforts to expand the school
year, by coordinating school funding with the length of the school
year, and by encouraging schools to add five days to their calendar
each year, for the next 4 years. This bill introduces a variable, the
``School Day Factor,'' that will reflect the number of mandatory full
days included in a state's school year, and it may be adjusted to
reflect any increases in instructional hours per day. This variable
will be added to existing Title I allocation formulas that determine
education grants to States.
The existing funding allocation formulas would be essentially
unchanged for States whose school calendars meet a base level number of
days per school year. By raising the base level school year length by 5
school days per year, over a 4 year period, the average school year
calendar would reach the target of 200 school days per year by 2014.
Inclusion of the School Day Factor will result in higher grants to
states with school years that exceed the base level number of school
days per year, and smaller grants to states with school years that fall
below the base level.
I believe that schools are not only ready for this change, but that
they are setting the pace for this movement. Some States and school
districts have already taken the initiative to expand their school year
by 20 days per year. In my own State of New Mexico, a State initiated
pilot program to extend kindergarten by 20 to 25 days per year led to
such positive outcomes that the program was recently extended to third
grade. Requests to participate have increased, as more school districts
understand the benefits afforded by expanding students' and teachers'
educational time. The School Day Factor Act is an investment that will
support the efforts to dramatically increase this participation rate
such that the 200 day school year is the norm, not an expanded
calendar.
Clearly, more time alone is not sufficient to insure quality
learning. By including the School Day Factor Act in the reauthorization
of ESEA, it will be paired with actions designed to enhance and support
quality instruction delivered by highly qualified teachers. I hope that
this legislation will be included in the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, and I urge
my colleagues to support it.
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. 804

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 ``School Day Factor Act of
2009''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) According to the National Center for Education
Statistics the length of the average school year steadily
increased from 144 to 178 days between 1869 and 1949. In
2008, the average number of school days per year remains at
178.5.
(2) In 1983, a recommendation in the Nation at Risk report
was to increase students' instructional time by lengthening
the school day or the school year, as a means to strengthen
our Nation's grip on global competitiveness. Since then, no
systematic school day or school year increase has occurred.
(3) In 2008, 42 States mandate a school year of 180 or
fewer days per year, or the equivalent thereof. Across
States, the number of school days per year ranges from 173 to
182.
(4) Researchers have demonstrated that--
(A) when class material is covered in a streamlined,
shortened unit, students' conceptual mastery of the content
suffers; and
(B) significant learning requires investment of time.
(5) Research has demonstrated that all students are at risk
for losing educational gains during extended summer breaks in
the typical school calendar, particularly children from low
income households. The continued lack of out-of-school
learning opportunities contributes to a growing achievement
gap. Even more so than achievement gaps present at
kindergarten, differences in out-of-school learning
opportunities experienced by economically advantaged versus
disadvantaged youth contribute to the cumulative achievement
difference registered by 9th grade, which affects high school
placements, high school exit, and postsecondary school
attendance.
(6) Since 1991, over 300 expanded learning initiatives have
occurred, across 30 States, aimed primarily at schools with
high-poverty and high-minority student populations. Outcomes
of these initiatives include enhanced student achievement,
lower student and teacher absenteeism, and satisfaction of
parents, teachers, and students.
(7) Research demonstrates that the increased school time is
beneficial not only for students, but also for teachers.
Teachers gain planning time, more opportunities for
cooperative planning, professional development opportunities,
and additional time to individualize instruction. Teacher
employment increases from part-year to up to full year,
depending on the calendar conversion adopted.
(8) Regarding the costs of expanded learning initiatives,
the cost per hour of instruction decreases with the addition
of more learning time.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are to ensure that all children
have sufficient time to achieve in school, that all children
have access to a high quality and well-rounded education, and
that teachers have sufficient time to deliver quality
instruction. Such purposes can be achieved by--
(1) encouraging States to expand the minimum number of days
in their school year, to 200 full days, by 2014, without
reducing the length of the school day;
(2) modifying the allocations under subpart 2 of part A of
title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 6331 et seq.) regarding basic, concentration,
targeted, and education finance incentive grants, so that
each of the formulas used to determine allocations includes a
factor that reflects all of the following:
(A) the minimum number of school days in the State-mandated
school year length;

[[Page 9943]]

(B) the most recent increase in the number of school days
in the State-mandated academic year; and
(C) whether the number of school days in an academic year
meets, exceeds, or falls short of the base level school year
length described in the amendment made by this Act; and
(3) encouraging States to increase the length of the school
day.

SEC. 4. SCHOOL DAY FACTOR.

(a) Amendment.--Subpart 2 of part A of title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6331 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 1128. SCHOOL DAY FACTOR.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Academic year.--The term `academic year' means the
period of time beginning with the first day of a school year
and ending on the last day of a school year, which typically
begins in the late summer and ends in the early summer.
``(2) Base level school year length.--The term `base level
school year length' means--
``(A) 180 school days for the 2009-2010 academic year;
``(B) 185 school days for the 2010-2011 academic year;
``(C) 190 school days for the 2011-2012 academic year;
``(D) 195 school days for the 2012-2013 academic year; and
``(E) 200 school days for the 2013-2014 academic year and
for each succeeding academic year.
``(3) Instructional hours.--The term `instructional hours'
means the number of hours within the school day that are
directly devoted to student learning in core academic
subjects.
``(4) School day.--
``(A) In general.--The term `school day' means a day for
which attendance is mandatory for all students attending an
elementary school or secondary school in a State, and in
which a minimum of 5\1/2\ instructional hours are delivered
to students.
``(B) Partial days.--Two days for which attendance is
mandatory for all students attending an elementary school or
secondary school in a State and in which less than 5\1/2\
instructional hours per day are delivered to students may be
deemed to be 1 school day for purposes of this section, if
the total instructional time for the 2 partial days meets or
exceeds 5\1/2\ instructional hours.
``(5) State-mandated school year length.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B)
and (C), the term `State-mandated school year length' means
the minimum number of school days an elementary school or
secondary school student is required by the State to attend
school in an academic year. In calculating the State-mandated
school year length, days that the State permits to be waived
due to teacher professional development, weather, or other
reasons shall not be counted.
``(B) States that mandate minimum number of instructional
hours.--In the case of a State that does not mandate a
minimum number of school days for an academic year and does
mandate a minimum number of instructional hours per academic
year, the State-mandated school year length for such State
shall be the quotient of--
``(i) the minimum number of mandated instructional hours
per academic year, excluding hours that may be waived due to
teacher professional development, weather, or other reasons;
divided by
``(ii) the greater of--

``(I) the average number of instructional hours per school
day in the State's public elementary schools and secondary
schools; or
``(II) 6\1/2\ hours.

``(C) States that do not mandate minimum number of days or
hours.--In the case of a State that does not mandate a
minimum number of school days or a minimum number of
instructional hours per academic year, the State-mandated
school year length for such State shall be the average number
of school days that elementary school or secondary school
students in the State attended school during--
``(i) the preceding school year; or
``(ii) in the case where the preceding school year was
significantly shorter due to a natural disaster during such
school year, the school year that is preceding the preceding
school year.
``(b) School Day Factor.--
``(1) Adjustments authorized.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this part, the amount of a grant that a State or local
educational agency is eligible to receive under section
1124(a), 1124A(a), 1125(b), or 1125A(b) shall be adjusted by
multiplying such amount by the school day factor described in
paragraph (2) that is applicable to such State or local
educational agency, respectively, for such academic year.
``(B) Timing of adjustment.--The Secretary shall make the
adjustment described in subparagraph (A) to the amount of a
grant that a State or local educational agency is eligible to
receive under section 1124, 1124A, 1125, or 1125A before
applying any hold-harmless requirement, minimum grant amount
requirement, or ratable reduction requirement under this
part.
``(2) School day factor.--
``(A) In general.--The school day factor referred to in
paragraph (1) that is applicable to each State and local
educational agency in the State for an academic year is a
percentage calculated as the sum of the following:
``(i) \2/3\ of such percentage shall be equal to--

``(I) the result of--

``(aa) the State-mandated school year length for the
academic year preceding the academic year for which the
calculation is made; divided by
``(bb) the base level school year length for the academic
year preceding the academic year for which the calculation is
made; multiplied by

``(II) 100.

``(ii) \1/3\ of such percentage shall be equal to--

``(I) the result of--

``(aa) the State mandated minimum instructional hours per
school day for the academic year preceding the academic year
for which the calculation is made; divided by
``(bb) 5.5; multiplied by

``(II) 100.

``(B) Special calculation rule.--In making the calculation
described in subparagraph (A) for a State, the value of
subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be zero if the State mandated
minimum instructional hours per school day for the academic
year preceding the academic year for which the calculation is
made is less than the number of such State mandated minimum
instructional hours for the academic year that precedes by
two years the academic year for which the calculation is
made.''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents in section 2
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1127
the following:

``Sec. 1128. School day factor.''.
______

By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
S. 806. A bill to provide for the establishment, administration, and
funding of Federal Executive Boards, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Akaka to
introduce the Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009 in
order to provide for the establishment, administration and funding of
Federal Executive Boards, FEBs.
As you may know, President Kennedy issued a ``Memorandum on the Need
for Greater Coordination of Regional and Field Activities of the
Government'' in 1961 that noted that more than 90 percent of Federal
employees work outside of Washington, DC. President Kennedy wanted to
strengthen the coordination of their activities, so he directed ``the
establishment of a Board of Federal Executives'' to ``consider
management matters and interdepartmental cooperation and establish
liaison with State and local government officials in their regions.''
That Memorandum led to the creation of ten FEBs to ``increase the
effectiveness and economy of Federal agencies.''
These FEBs proved their worth, because the number of FEBs across the
Nation has increased to 28 FEBs total in Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston,
Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas-Fort Worth, Denver,
Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Minnesota,
Newark, New Mexico, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Antonio, San Francisco,
Seattle, and South Florida. Those FEBs serve an important role in
coordinating Federal activities. For example, earlier this year a
proactive FEB executive director sent an e-mail to her FEB colleagues
in an effort to coordinate stimulus spending.
However, a 2007 Government Accountability Office, GAO, report,
``Additional Steps Needed to Take Advantage of Federal Executive
Boards' Ability to Contribute to Emergency Operations,'' noted that
FEBs have no congressional charter and rely on voluntary contributions
from their member agencies for funding. Because such voluntary
contributions result in financial uncertainty on the part of FEBs, GAO
recommended that the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, develop a
proposal to address the uncertainty of funding sources for FEBs. Based
on that recommendation, the Federal Executive Board Authorization Act
of 2009 provides for the establishment, administration and funding of
FEBs.

[[Page 9944]]

The legislation is based in large part on Title 5 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, where OPM has set forth regulations relating to
the authority, location, and membership of FEBs. Similar to those
provisions, this bill calls on the Director of OPM to determine where
to establish FEBs and requires the Director to consult with agencies in
making that determination. The bill also provides that FEBs shall
consist of senior officials from appropriate agencies in those areas.
Also similar to provisions in the Code of Federal Regulations, the bill
authorizes the Director of OPM to establish staffing policies for FEBs,
designate an agency to staff each FEB, establish communications
policies, performance standards and accountability initiatives for
FEBs, and administer FEB funding.
The Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009 also requires
each FEB to adopt bylaws or other rules for its internal governance,
elect a chairman from among its members, provide a forum for the
exchange of information, and develop coordinated approaches to the
development and operation of programs that have common characteristics.
Under the bill, FEBs would be required to communicate management
initiatives and other concerns from Washington, DC to the field and
develop relationships with State and local governments and private
sector organizations to help coordinate emergency management and
homeland security matters.
To address GAO's concern about the uncertainty of FEB funding, the
legislation establishes a fund for FEB operations which would be
administered by OPM. The fund would consist of contributions from OPM
for administrative and oversight activities as well as contributions
from each agency participating in FEBs for staffing and operations.
Each agency's contribution would be determined by a formula established
by the Director of OPM in consultation with agencies and the Office of
Management and Budget, and that formula must take into account each
agency's number of employees in areas served by FEBs.
President Kennedy showed great foresight when he called for the
coordination of Federal agencies' activities in 1961, and FEBs have
done a good job since then in coordinating their work. These FEBs need
a congressional charter and a set source of funding, so I hope the
Senate will act quickly to pass this legislation, which OPM and GAO
were consulted in drafting.
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. 806

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 ``Federal Executive Board
Authorization Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL EXECUTIVE BOARDS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 11 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 1106. Federal Executive Boards

``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are to--
``(1) strengthen the coordination of Government activities;
``(2) facilitate interagency collaboration to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of Federal programs;
``(3) facilitate communication and collaboration on Federal
emergency preparedness and continuity of operations to
address homeland security issues, including natural
disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters,
outside the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area; and
``(4) provide stable funding for Federal Executive Boards.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Agency.--The term `agency'--
``(A) means an Executive agency as defined under section
105; and
``(B) shall not include the Government Accountability
Office.
``(2) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of
the Office of Personnel Management.
``(3) Federal executive board.--The term `Federal Executive
Board' means an interagency entity established by the
Director, in consultation with the headquarters of
appropriate agencies, in a geographic area with a high
concentration of Federal employees outside the Washington,
D.C. metropolitan area to strengthen the management and
administration of agency activities and coordination among
local Federal officers to implement national initiatives in
that geographic area.
``(c) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--The Director shall establish Federal
Executive Boards in geographic areas outside the Washington,
D.C. metropolitan area. Before establishing Federal Executive
Boards that are not in existence on the date of enactment of
this section, the Director shall consult with the
headquarters of appropriate agencies to determine the number
and location of the Federal Executive Boards.
``(2) Membership.--Each Federal Executive Board for a
geographic area shall consist of an appropriate senior
officer for each agency in that geographic area. The
appropriate senior officer may designate, by title of office,
an alternate representative who shall attend meetings and
otherwise represent the agency on the Federal Executive Board
in the absence of the appropriate senior officer. An
alternate representative shall be a senior officer in the
agency.
``(3) Location of federal executive boards.--In determining
the location for the establishment of Federal Executive
Boards, the Director shall consider--
``(A) whether a Federal Executive Board exists in a
geographic area on the date of enactment of this section;
``(B) whether a geographic area has a strong, viable, and
active Federal Executive Association;
``(C) whether the Federal Executive Association of a
geographic area petitions the Director to become a Federal
Executive Board; and
``(D) such other factors as the Director and the
headquarters of appropriate agencies consider relevant.
``(d) Administration and Oversight.--
``(1) In general.--The Director shall provide for the
administration and oversight of Federal Executive Boards,
including--
``(A) establishing staffing policies in consultation with
the headquarters of agencies participating in Federal
Executive Boards;
``(B) designating an agency to staff each Federal Executive
Board based on recommendations from that Federal Executive
Board;
``(C) establishing communications policies for the
dissemination of information to agencies;
``(D) in consultation with the headquarters of appropriate
agencies, establishing performance standards for the Federal
Executive Board staff;
``(E) developing accountability initiatives to ensure
Federal Executive Boards are meeting performance standards;
and
``(F) administering Federal Executive Board funding through
the fund established in subsection (f).
``(2) Staffing.--In making designations under paragraph
(1)(B), the Director shall give preference to agencies
staffing Federal Executive Boards.
``(e) Governance and Activities.--Each Federal Executive
Board shall--
``(1) subject to the approval of the Director, adopt by-
laws or other rules for the internal governance of the
Federal Executive Board;
``(2) elect a Chairperson from among the members of the
Federal Executive Board, who shall serve for a set term;
``(3) serve as an instrument of outreach for the national
headquarters of agencies relating to agency activities in the
geographic area;
``(4) provide a forum for the exchange of information
relating to programs and management methods and problems--
``(A) between Federal officers and employees in the
Washington, D.C. area and Federal officers and employees in
the geographic area; and
``(B) among field elements in the geographic area;
``(5) develop local coordinated approaches to the
development and operation of programs that have common
characteristics;
``(6) communicate management initiatives and other concerns
from Federal officers and employees in the Washington, D.C.
area to Federal officers and employees in the geographic area
to achieve better mutual understanding and support;
``(7) develop relationships with State and local
governments and nongovernmental organizations to help in
coordinating emergency management and homeland security
issues; and
``(8) take other actions as agreed to by the Federal
Executive Board and the Director.
``(f) Funding.--
``(1) Establishment of fund.--The Director shall establish
a fund within the Office of Personnel Management for
financing essential Federal Executive Board functions,
including basic staffing and operating expenses.
``(2) Deposits.--There shall be deposited in the fund
established under paragraph (1)--
``(A) contributions from the Office of Personnel Management
to fund administrative and oversight activities conducted
under subsection (d);
``(B) contributions from the headquarters of each agency
participating in Federal Executive Boards, in an amount
determined by a formula established by the Director, in
consultation with the headquarters of such

[[Page 9945]]

agencies and the Office of Management and Budget.
``(3) Contributions.--
``(A) Formula.--The formula for contributions established
by the Director shall consider the number of employees in
each agency in each geographic area served by a Federal
Executive Board. The contribution of the headquarters of each
agency to the fund shall be recalculated at least every 2
years.
``(B) In-kind contributions.--At the sole discretion of the
Director, the headquarters of an agency may provide in-kind
contributions instead of providing monetary contributions to
the fund.
``(4) Use of excess amounts.--Any unobligated and
unexpended balances in the fund which the Director determines
to be in excess of amounts needed for essential Federal
Executive Board functions shall be allocated by the Director,
in consultation with the headquarters of agencies
participating in Federal Executive Boards, among the Federal
Executive Boards for the activities under subsection (e) and
other priorities, such as conducting emergency preparedness
training.
``(g) Reports.--The Director shall submit annual reports to
Congress and agencies on Federal Executive Board program
outcomes and budget matters.
``(h) Regulations.--The Director shall prescribe
regulations necessary to carry out this section.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--The table of
sections for chapter 11 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1105
the following:

``1106. Federal Executive Boards.''.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend Senator
Voinovich as we introduce the Federal Executive Board Authorization Act
of 2009 to formalize Federal Executive Boards, FEBs, in the Executive
Branch of the Federal Government.
President Kennedy issued a Directive in 1961 creating FEBs to allow
the heads of Federal agencies outside of Washington, DC to come
together to address local issues in their Federal communities. There
are now 28 Boards in 20 States, including Hawaii. Because they have
never been authorized in legislation, FEBs have no institutionalized
structure; each has its own operating structure. Some have an executive
director, while some have no permanent staff at all. They also do not
receive specific appropriations. As a result, FEBs must cobble together
voluntary funding from participating agencies.
The Office of Personnel Management oversees the mission and
activities of FEBs. Part of FEBs' mission is to offer agencies outside
of Washington, DC an opportunity to share information, collaborate to
address shared concerns, discuss management and administrative
challenges, and come together as a Federal community. Each Board sets
its own specific priorities and activities based on local concerns and
the leadership in a given area.
Additionally, FEBs' mission is to play a critical support role in
coordinating emergency preparedness and response efforts for a given
area. The Honolulu-Pacific Federal Executive Board regularly hosts and
participates in preparedness exercises in Hawaii and the Pacific Rim.
When the Interstate 35 West Bridge collapsed over the Mississippi River
in Minneapolis, Minnesota on August 1, 2007, the Executive Director of
the Minnesota FEB helped disseminate critical information to over 100
Federal agencies and coordinate with the State and local emergency
response network. FEBs have shared information with each other to
assist in preparing for large events as well. For example, the Boston
FEB used their experience with the Democratic National Convention in
2004 to help the Denver and Minnesota FEBs prepare for the National
Party Conventions in 2008.
At a hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia on
September 28, 2007, which I chaired, it was clear that FEBs lack of
formal structure hinders their critical support role in emergency
preparedness and response. At that hearing, the Government
Accountability Office, GAO, testified that FEBs have no clear role in
national emergency planning, no framework to operate, no accountability
in performing their duties, and no funding to carry out their missions.
Additionally, FEB Executive Directors from around the country testified
about the frustrations of operating without stable funding or a clear
structure.
Since the hearing, FEBs have been included in FEMA's National
Response Framework, and OPM and FEMA have signed a memorandum of
understanding, MOU, giving FEBs a formal role in emergency preparedness
and response. The Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009
would implement other recommendations made by GAO and the
representatives from FEBs at the 2007 hearing. More specifically, the
bill would formalize the role of Federal Executive Boards, which would
include interagency collaboration and Federal agency emergency
preparedness and response outside of Washington, DC; establish a
process for establishing new FEBs; require OPM to establish performance
standards for FEBs; specify a funding formula, which OPM will
administer, for FEBs based on the number of employees in a Federal
agency in a given area; and authorize staffing levels for each FEB to
have at least an Executive Director and one support staff member.
Eighty-five percent of the Federal workforce is employed outside of
the Washington, DC area. We spend billions of dollars preparing the
National Capital Region for emergencies, but we must focus more on
Federal Government agency emergency preparedness and response outside
of the Washington area. This legislation will address that pressing
need. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.
______

By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Boxer, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Landrieu,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Schumer, and Mr.
Whitehouse):
S. 808. A bill to amend the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to
reauthorize the Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senators
Bond, Akaka, Boxer, Collins, Durbin, Kerry, Klobuchar, Landrieu,
Lautenberg, Lieberman, Schumer, and Whitehouse, the Homeless Emergency
Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act, HEARTH Act.
Representative Gwen Moore is introducing a bipartisan companion bill
today as well. This legislation would reauthorize and amend the housing
titles of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987.
Specifically, our bill would consolidate and improve the homeless
assistance programs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development
to better accomplish the goals of preventing and ending homelessness.
According to the Homelessness Research Institute at the National
Alliance to End Homelessness, 2.5 to 3.5 million Americans experience
homelessness each year. On any one night, approximately 672,000 men,
women, and children are without homes. While strides have been made to
reduce homelessness over the last couple of years, the current economic
decline has halted such progress. We have already seen tent cities
forming, shelters turning away people, and cities reporting increased
numbers of homeless people. As unemployment continues to rise, more and
more people cannot afford to pay their mortgages or rent, and
nonprofits and local governments are unable to keep up.
As a result of the recession, 1.5 million additional Americans are
likely to experience homelessness over the next two years according to
estimates by the National Alliance to End Homelessness. This means more
trauma for children and adults, more dislocation from schools and
communities, and more of a drain on local community services.
Sadly, many of those who are homeless have served our country in
uniform. Their numbers range between 150,000 and 200,000 on any given
night. Three times that many veterans are housed, but are struggling
with excessive rent burdens and an increased risk of homelessness.
Different sources estimate that between 23 and 40 percent of homeless
adults are veterans.
Statistics regarding the number of children who experience
homelessness are especially troubling. Each year, it

[[Page 9946]]

is estimated that at least 1.35 million children experience
homelessness. According to HUD's 3rd Annual Homeless Assessment Report
to Congress, on any given night, 248,500 persons in families are
homeless. Each year, over 800,000 homeless children and youth are
identified and enrolled in public schools. However, this count does not
include preschool children, and at least half of all homeless children
are under the age of five. Whatever their age, we know that children
who are homeless are in poorer health, have developmental delays, and
suffer academically.
In addition, many of those who are homeless have a disability.
According to the Homelessness Research Institute, about 23 percent of
homeless people were found to be ``chronically homeless,'' which
according to the current HUD definition means that they are homeless
for long periods of time or homeless repeatedly, and they have a
disability. For many of these individuals and families, housing alone,
without some supportive services, may not be enough.
Finally, as rents have soared and affordable housing units have
disappeared from the market during the past several years, even more
working Americans have been left unable to afford housing. According to
the National Low Income Housing Coalition's most recent ``Out of
Reach'' report, nowhere in the country can a minimum wage earner afford
to rent a one-bedroom home. Low income renters who live paycheck to
paycheck are in precarious circumstances and sometimes must make tough
choices between paying rent and buying food, prescription drugs, or
other necessities. If one unforeseen event occurs in their lives, they
can end up homeless.
There is also a great societal cost to homelessness, including
expenses for emergency rooms, jails, shelters, foster care,
detoxification, and emergency mental health treatment. Indeed, studies
have shown it costs just as much, if not more in overall expenditures,
to allow men, women, and children to remain homeless as it does to
provide them with assistance and get them back on the road to self-
sufficiency.
It has been 22 years since the enactment of the Steward B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Act, and we have learned a lot about the problem of
homelessness since then. At the time of its adoption in 1987, this law
was viewed as an emergency response to a national crisis, and was to be
followed by measures to prevent homelessness and to create more
systemic solutions to the problem. It is now time to take what we have
learned during the past 22 years, and put those best practices and
proposals into action.
First and foremost, the HEARTH Act focuses federal funding on
prevention. It allows up to 20 percent of funds to be used to serve
people who are at risk of homelessness under a new ``Emergency
Solutions Grants'' program. At the same time, it expands the definition
of homelessness, which determines eligibility for much of the homeless
assistance funding, to include people who will lose their housing in 14
days; any family or individual fleeing or attempting to flee domestic
violence, or other dangerous or life threatening situations; and
families with children and unaccompanied youth who have experienced a
long term period without living independently, have experienced
persistent housing instability, and can be expected to continue in such
status for an extended period due to a number of enumerated factors,
such as a disability. It also allows grantees to use up to an
additional 10 percent of competitive funds to serve families defined as
homeless under the Education Department homeless definition, but not so
defined under the HUD definition. For areas with low levels of
homelessness, up to 100 percent of funds may be used for such purposes.
The HEARTH Act also provides communities with greater flexibility in
using funds to prevent and end homelessness. Rural communities can
participate in a new Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program that
would grant rural communities greater discretion in addressing the
needs of homeless people or those in the worst housing situations in
their communities.
The HEARTH Act would also increase the focus on practices and
programs that have demonstrated results. For example, the bill would
require that HUD provide incentives for rapid rehousing programs for
homeless families. Rapid rehousing programs have been successfully used
in numerous communities to significantly reduce family homelessness. By
dramatically reducing the length of time families are homeless, rapid
rehousing programs ensure a quicker return to stability and self
sufficiency.
The HEARTH Act would continue HUD's existing initiative to house
people who experience chronic homelessness, but would add families with
children to the initiative. It also would designate 30 percent of total
funds for new permanent housing for families and individuals with a
disability.
Finally, the HEARTH Act would increase the emphasis on performance by
measuring applicants' progress at reducing homelessness. It would also
allow communities with low levels of homelessness or that are reducing
homelessness to focus more on prevention and serving people who are at
risk of homelessness.
There is a growing consensus on ways to help communities break the
cycle of repeated and prolonged homelessness. If we combine federal
dollars with the right incentives to local communities, we can prevent
and end long-term homelessness.
The bipartisan HEARTH Act will set us on the path to meeting this
important national goal. I hope my colleagues will join us in
supporting this bill and other homelessness prevention efforts.
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. 808

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Homeless
Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of
2009''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Definition of homelessness.
Sec. 4. United States Interagency Council on Homelessness.

TITLE I--HOUSING ASSISTANCE GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Community homeless assistance planning boards.
Sec. 103. General provisions.
Sec. 104. Protection of personally identifying information by victim
service providers.
Sec. 105. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE II--EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANTS PROGRAM

Sec. 201. Grant assistance.
Sec. 202. Eligible activities.
Sec. 203. Participation in Homeless Management Information System.
Sec. 204. Administrative provision.
Sec. 205. GAO study of administrative fees.

TITLE III--CONTINUUM OF CARE PROGRAM

Sec. 301. Continuum of care.
Sec. 302. Eligible activities.
Sec. 303. High performing communities.
Sec. 304. Program requirements.
Sec. 305. Selection criteria, allocation amounts, and funding.
Sec. 306. Research.

TITLE IV--RURAL HOUSING STABILITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Sec. 401. Rural housing stability assistance.
Sec. 402. GAO study of homelessness and homeless assistance in rural
areas.

TITLE V--REPEALS AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS

Sec. 501. Repeals.
Sec. 502. Conforming amendments.
Sec. 503. Effective date.
Sec. 504. Regulations.
Sec. 505. Amendment to table of contents.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) a lack of affordable housing and limited scale of
housing assistance programs are the primary causes of
homelessness; and
(2) homelessness affects all types of communities in the
United States, including rural, urban, and suburban areas.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to consolidate the separate homeless assistance
programs carried out under title IV

[[Page 9947]]

of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (consisting of
the supportive housing program and related innovative
programs, the safe havens program, the section 8 assistance
program for single-room occupancy dwellings, and the shelter
plus care program) into a single program with specific
eligible activities;
(2) to codify in Federal law the continuum of care planning
process as a required and integral local function necessary
to generate the local strategies for ending homelessness; and
(3) to establish a Federal goal of ensuring that
individuals and families who become homeless return to
permanent housing within 30 days.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HOMELESSNESS.

(a) In General.--Section 103 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11302) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections
(c) and (d); and
(2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--For purposes of this Act, the terms
`homeless', `homeless individual', and `homeless person'
means--
``(1) an individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular,
and adequate nighttime residence;
``(2) an individual or family with a primary nighttime
residence that is a public or private place not designed for
or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for
human beings, including a car, park, abandoned building, bus
or train station, airport, or camping ground;
``(3) an individual or family living in a supervised
publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide
temporary living arrangements (including hotels and motels
paid for by Federal, State, or local government programs for
low-income individuals or by charitable organizations,
congregate shelters, and transitional housing);
``(4) an individual who resided in a shelter or place not
meant for human habitation and who is exiting an institution
where he or she temporarily resided;
``(5) an individual or family who--
``(A) will imminently lose their housing, including housing
they own, rent, or live in without paying rent, are sharing
with others, and rooms in hotels or motels not paid for by
Federal, State, or local government programs for low-income
individuals or by charitable organizations, as evidenced by--
``(i) a court order resulting from an eviction action that
notifies the individual or family that they must leave within
14 days;
``(ii) the individual or family having a primary nighttime
residence that is a room in a hotel or motel and where they
lack the resources necessary to reside there for more than 14
days; or
``(iii) credible evidence indicating that the owner or
renter of the housing will not allow the individual or family
to stay for more than 14 days, and any oral statement from an
individual or family seeking homeless assistance that is
found to be credible shall be considered credible evidence
for purposes of this clause;
``(B) has no subsequent residence identified; and
``(C) lacks the resources or support networks needed to
obtain other permanent housing; and
``(6) unaccompanied youth and homeless families with
children and youth defined as homeless under other Federal
statutes who--
``(A) have experienced a long term period without living
independently in permanent housing,
``(B) have experienced persistent instability as measured
by frequent moves over such period, and
``(C) can be expected to continue in such status for an
extended period of time because of chronic disabilities,
chronic physical health or mental health conditions,
substance addiction, histories of domestic violence or
childhood abuse, the presence of a child or youth with a
disability, or multiple barriers to employment.
``(b) Domestic Violence and Other Dangerous or Life-
Threatening Conditions.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this section, the Secretary shall consider to be homeless
any individual or family who is fleeing, or is attempting to
flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault,
stalking, or other dangerous or life-threatening conditions
in the individual's or family's current housing situation,
including where the health and safety of children are
jeopardized, and who have no other residence and lack the
resources or support networks to obtain other permanent
housing.''.
(b) Regulations.--Not later than the expiration of the 6-
month period beginning upon the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall
issue regulations that provide sufficient guidance to
recipients of funds under title IV of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act to allow uniform and consistent
implementation of the requirements of section 103 of such
Act, as amended by subsection (a) of this section. This
subsection shall take effect on the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(c) Clarification of Effect on Other Laws.--This section
and the amendments made by this section to section 103 of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11302) may
not be construed to affect, alter, limit, annul, or supersede
any other provision of Federal law providing a definition of
``homeless'', ``homeless individual'', or ``homeless person''
for purposes other than such Act, except to the extent that
such provision refers to such section 103 or the definition
provided in such section 103.

SEC. 4. UNITED STATES INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS.

(a) In General.--Title II of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11311 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 201 (42 U.S.C. 11311), by inserting before
the period at the end the following ``whose mission shall be
to coordinate the Federal response to homelessness and to
create a national partnership at every level of government
and with the private sector to reduce and end homelessness in
the nation while maximizing the effectiveness of the Federal
Government in contributing to the end of homelessness'';
(2) in section 202 (42 U.S.C. 11312)--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) by redesignating paragraph (16) as paragraph (22); and
(ii) by inserting after paragraph (15) the following:
``(16) The Commissioner of Social Security, or the designee
of the Commissioner.
``(17) The Attorney General of the United States, or the
designee of the Attorney General.
``(18) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
or the designee of the Director.
``(19) The Director of the Office of Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives, or the designee of the Director.
``(20) The Director of USA FreedomCorps, or the designee of
the Director.'';
(B) in subsection (c), by striking ``annually'' and
inserting ``four times each year, and the rotation of the
positions of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson required under
subsection (b) shall occur at the first meeting of each
year''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Administration.--The Executive Director of the
Council shall report to the Chairman of the Council.'';
(3) in section 203(a) (42 U.S.C. 11313(a))--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5),
(6), and (7) as paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), (9), (10), and
(11), respectively;
(B) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so redesignated
by subparagraph (A), the following:
``(1) not later than 12 months after the date of the
enactment of the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid
Transition to Housing Act of 2009, develop, make available
for public comment, and submit to the President and to
Congress a National Strategic Plan to End Homelessness, and
shall update such plan annually;'';
(C) in paragraph (5), as redesignated by subparagraph (A),
by striking ``at least 2, but in no case more than 5'' and
inserting ``not less than 5, but in no case more than 10'';
(D) by inserting after paragraph (5), as so redesignated by
subparagraph (A), the following:
``(6) encourage the creation of State Interagency Councils
on Homelessness and the formulation of jurisdictional 10-year
plans to end homelessness at State, city, and county levels;
``(7) annually obtain from Federal agencies their
identification of consumer-oriented entitlement and other
resources for which persons experiencing homelessness may be
eligible and the agencies' identification of improvements to
ensure access; develop mechanisms to ensure access by persons
experiencing homelessness to all Federal, State, and local
programs for which the persons are eligible, and to verify
collaboration among entities within a community that receive
Federal funding under programs targeted for persons
experiencing homelessness, and other programs for which
persons experiencing homelessness are eligible, including
mainstream programs identified by the Government
Accountability Office in the reports entitled `Homelessness:
Coordination and Evaluation of Programs Are Essential',
issued February 26, 1999, and `Homelessness: Barriers to
Using Mainstream Programs', issued July 6, 2000;
``(8) conduct research and evaluation related to its
functions as defined in this section;
``(9) develop joint Federal agency and other initiatives to
fulfill the goals of the agency;'';
(E) in paragraph (10), as so redesignated by subparagraph
(A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(F) in paragraph (11), as so redesignated by subparagraph
(A), by striking the period at the end and inserting a
semicolon;
(G) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(12) develop constructive alternatives to criminalizing
homelessness and eliminate laws and policies that prohibit
sleeping, feeding, sitting, resting, or lying in public
spaces when there are no suitable alternatives, result in the
destruction of a homeless person's property without due
process, or are selectively enforced against homeless
persons; and
``(13) not later than the expiration of the 6-month period
beginning upon completion of

[[Page 9948]]

the study requested in a letter to the Acting Comptroller
General from the Chair and Ranking Member of the House
Financial Services Committee and several other members
regarding various definitions of homelessness in Federal
statutes, convene a meeting of representatives of all Federal
agencies and committees of the House of Representatives and
the Senate having jurisdiction over any Federal program to
assist homeless individuals or families, local and State
governments, academic researchers who specialize in
homelessness, nonprofit housing and service providers that
receive funding under any Federal program to assist homeless
individuals or families, organizations advocating on behalf
of such nonprofit providers and homeless persons receiving
housing or services under any such Federal program, and
homeless persons receiving housing or services under any such
Federal program, at which meeting such representatives shall
discuss all issues relevant to whether the definitions of
`homeless' under paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 103(a)
of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, as amended by
section 3 of the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid
Transition to Housing Act of 2009, should be modified by the
Congress, including whether there is a compelling need for a
uniform definition of homelessness under Federal law, the
extent to which the differences in such definitions create
barriers for individuals to accessing services and to
collaboration between agencies, and the relative
availability, and barriers to access by persons defined as
homeless, of mainstream programs identified by the Government
Accountability Office in the two reports identified in
paragraph (7) of this subsection; and shall submit
transcripts of such meeting, and any majority and dissenting
recommendations from such meetings, to each committee of the
House of Representatives and the Senate having jurisdiction
over any Federal program to assist homeless individuals or
families not later than the expiration of the 60-day period
beginning upon conclusion of such meeting.''.
(4) in section 203(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 11313(b))--
(A) by striking ``Federal'' and inserting ``national'';
(B) by striking ``; and'' and inserting ``and pay for
expenses of attendance at meetings which are concerned with
the functions or activities for which the appropriation is
made;'';
(5) in section 205(d) (42 U.S.C. 11315(d)), by striking
``property.'' and inserting ``property, both real and
personal, public and private, without fiscal year limitation,
for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the work of the
Council.''; and
(6) by striking section 208 (42 U.S.C. 11318) and inserting
the following:

``SEC. 208. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 and such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal years 2011. Any amounts appropriated to
carry out this title shall remain available until
expended.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on, and shall apply beginning on, the date
of the enactment of this Act .

TITLE I--HOUSING ASSISTANCE GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

Subtitle A of title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11361 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by striking the subtitle heading and inserting the
following:

``Subtitle A--General Provisions'';

(2) by redesignating sections 401 and 402 (42 U.S.C. 11361,
11362) as sections 403 and 406, respectively; and
(3) by inserting before section 403 (as so redesignated by
paragraph (2) of this section) the following new section:

``SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS.

``For purposes of this title:
``(1) At risk of homelessness.--The term `at risk of
homelessness' means, with respect to an individual or family,
that the individual or family--
``(A) has income below 30 percent of median income for the
geographic area;
``(B) has insufficient resources immediately available to
attain housing stability; and
``(C)(i) has moved frequently because of economic reasons;
``(ii) is living in the home of another because of economic
hardship;
``(iii) has been notified that their right to occupy their
current housing or living situation will be terminated;
``(iv) lives in a hotel or motel;
``(v) lives in severely overcrowded housing;
``(vi) is exiting an institution; or
``(vii) otherwise lives in housing that has characteristics
associated with instability and an increased risk of
homelessness.
Such term includes all families with children and youth
defined as homeless under other Federal statutes.
``(2) Chronically homeless.--
``(A) In general.--The term `chronically homeless' means,
with respect to an individual or family, that the individual
or family--
``(i) is homeless and lives or resides in a place not meant
for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency
shelter;
``(ii) has been homeless and living or residing in a place
not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an
emergency shelter continuously for at least 1 year or on at
least 4 separate occasions in the last 3 years; and
``(iii) has an adult head of household (or a minor head of
household if no adult is present in the household) with a
diagnosable substance use disorder, serious mental illness,
developmental disability (as defined in section 102 of the
Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act
of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15002)), post traumatic stress disorder,
cognitive impairments resulting from a brain injury, or
chronic physical illness or disability, including the co-
occurrence of 2 or more of those conditions.
``(B) Rule of construction.--A person who currently lives
or resides in an institutional care facility, including a
jail, substance abuse or mental health treatment facility,
hospital or other similar facility, and has resided there for
fewer than 90 days shall be considered chronically homeless
if such person met all of the requirements described in
subparagraph (A) prior to entering that facility.
``(3) Collaborative applicant.--The term `collaborative
applicant' means an entity that--
``(A) carries out the duties specified in section 402;
``(B) serves as the applicant for project sponsors who
jointly submit a single application for a grant under
subtitle C in accordance with a collaborative process; and
``(C) if the entity is a legal entity and is awarded such
grant, receives such grant directly from the Secretary.
``(4) Collaborative application.--The term `collaborative
application' means an application for a grant under subtitle
C that--
``(A) satisfies section 422; and
``(B) is submitted to the Secretary by a collaborative
applicant.
``(5) Consolidated plan.--The term `Consolidated Plan'
means a comprehensive housing affordability strategy and
community development plan required in part 91 of title 24,
Code of Federal Regulations.
``(6) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means,
with respect to a subtitle, a public entity, a private
entity, or an entity that is a combination of public and
private entities, that is eligible to directly receive grant
amounts under such subtitle.
``(7) Families with children and youth defined as homeless
under other federal statutes.--The term `families with
children and youth defined as homeless under other Federal
statutes' means any children or youth that are defined as
`homeless' under any Federal statute other than this
subtitle, but are not defined as homeless under section 103,
and shall also include the parent, parents, or guardian of
such children or youth under subtitle B of title VII this Act
(42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.).
``(8) Geographic area.--The term `geographic area' means a
State, metropolitan city, urban county, town, village, or
other nonentitlement area, or a combination or consortia of
such, in the United States, as described in section 106 of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
5306).
``(9) Homeless individual with a disability.--
``(A) In general.--The term `homeless individual with a
disability' means an individual who is homeless, as defined
in section 103, and has a disability that--
``(i)(I) is expected to be long-continuing or of indefinite
duration;
``(II) substantially impedes the individual's ability to
live independently;
``(III) could be improved by the provision of more suitable
housing conditions; and
``(IV) is a physical, mental, or emotional impairment,
including an impairment caused by alcohol or drug abuse, post
traumatic stress disorder, or brain injury;
``(ii) is a developmental disability, as defined in section
102 of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of
Rights Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15002); or
``(iii) is the disease of acquired immunodeficiency
syndrome or any condition arising from the etiologic agency
for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
``(B) Rule.--Nothing in clause (iii) of subparagraph (A)
shall be construed to limit eligibility under clause (i) or
(ii) of subparagraph (A).
``(10) Legal entity.--The term `legal entity' means--
``(A) an entity described in section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)) and
exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code;
``(B) an instrumentality of State or local government; or
``(C) a consortium of instrumentalities of State or local
governments that has constituted itself as an entity.
``(11) Metropolitan city; urban county; nonentitlement
area.--The terms `metropolitan city', `urban county', and
`nonentitlement area' have the meanings given such terms in
section 102(a) of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302(a)).
``(12) New.--The term `new' means, with respect to housing,
that no assistance has been provided under this title for the
housing.

[[Page 9949]]

``(13) Operating costs.--The term `operating costs' means
expenses incurred by a project sponsor operating transitional
housing or permanent housing under this title with respect
to--
``(A) the administration, maintenance, repair, and security
of such housing;
``(B) utilities, fuel, furnishings, and equipment for such
housing; or
``(C) coordination of services as needed to ensure long-
term housing stability.
``(14) Outpatient health services.--The term `outpatient
health services' means outpatient health care services,
mental health services, and outpatient substance abuse
services.
``(15) Permanent housing.--The term `permanent housing'
means community-based housing without a designated length of
stay, and includes both permanent supportive housing and
permanent housing without supportive services.
``(16) Personally identifying information.--The term
`personally identifying information' means individually
identifying information for or about an individual, including
information likely to disclose the location of a victim of
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or
stalking, including--
``(A) a first and last name;
``(B) a home or other physical address;
``(C) contact information (including a postal, e-mail or
Internet protocol address, or telephone or facsimile number);
``(D) a social security number; and
``(E) any other information, including date of birth,
racial or ethnic background, or religious affiliation, that,
in combination with any other non-personally identifying
information, would serve to identify any individual.
``(17) Private nonprofit organization.--The term `private
nonprofit organization' means an organization--
``(A) no part of the net earnings of which inures to the
benefit of any member, founder, contributor, or individual;
``(B) that has a voluntary board;
``(C) that has an accounting system, or has designated a
fiscal agent in accordance with requirements established by
the Secretary; and
``(D) that practices nondiscrimination in the provision of
assistance.
``(18) Project.--The term `project' means, with respect to
activities carried out under subtitle C, eligible activities
described in section 423(a), undertaken pursuant to a
specific endeavor, such as serving a particular population or
providing a particular resource.
``(19) Project-based.--The term `project-based' means, with
respect to rental assistance, that the assistance is provided
pursuant to a contract that--
``(A) is between--
``(i) the recipient or a project sponsor; and
``(ii) an owner of a structure that exists as of the date
the contract is entered into; and
``(B) provides that rental assistance payments shall be
made to the owner and that the units in the structure shall
be occupied by eligible persons for not less than the term of
the contract.
``(20) Project sponsor.--The term `project sponsor' means,
with respect to proposed eligible activities, the
organization directly responsible for carrying out the
proposed eligible activities.
``(21) Recipient.--Except as used in subtitle B, the term
`recipient' means an eligible entity who--
``(A) submits an application for a grant under section 422
that is approved by the Secretary;
``(B) receives the grant directly from the Secretary to
support approved projects described in the application; and
``(C)(i) serves as a project sponsor for the projects; or
``(ii) awards the funds to project sponsors to carry out
the projects.
``(22) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development.
``(23) Serious mental illness.--The term `serious mental
illness' means a severe and persistent mental illness or
emotional impairment that seriously limits a person's ability
to live independently.
``(24) Solo applicant.--The term `solo applicant' means an
entity that is an eligible entity, directly submits an
application for a grant under subtitle C to the Secretary,
and, if awarded such grant, receives such grant directly from
the Secretary.
``(25) Sponsor-based.--The term `sponsor-based' means, with
respect to rental assistance, that the assistance is provided
pursuant to a contract that--
``(A) is between--
``(i) the recipient or a project sponsor; and
``(ii) an independent entity that--

``(I) is a private organization; and
``(II) owns or leases dwelling units; and

``(B) provides that rental assistance payments shall be
made to the independent entity and that eligible persons
shall occupy such assisted units.
``(26) State.--Except as used in subtitle B, the term
`State' means each of the several States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United
States.
``(27) Supportive services.--The term `supportive services'
means services that address the special needs of people
served by a project, including--
``(A) the establishment and operation of a child care
services program for families experiencing homelessness;
``(B) the establishment and operation of an employment
assistance program, including providing job training;
``(C) the provision of outpatient health services, food,
and case management;
``(D) the provision of assistance in obtaining permanent
housing, employment counseling, and nutritional counseling;
``(E) the provision of outreach services, advocacy, life
skills training, and housing search and counseling services;
``(F) the provision of mental health services, trauma
counseling, and victim services;
``(G) the provision of assistance in obtaining other
Federal, State, and local assistance available for residents
of supportive housing (including mental health benefits,
employment counseling, and medical assistance, but not
including major medical equipment);
``(H) the provision of legal services for purposes
including requesting reconsiderations and appeals of veterans
and public benefit claim denials and resolving outstanding
warrants that interfere with an individual's ability to
obtain and retain housing;
``(I) the provision of--
``(i) transportation services that facilitate an
individual's ability to obtain and maintain employment; and
``(ii) health care; and
``(J) other supportive services necessary to obtain and
maintain housing.
``(28) Tenant-based.--The term `tenant-based' means, with
respect to rental assistance, assistance that--
``(A) allows an eligible person to select a housing unit in
which such person will live using rental assistance provided
under subtitle C, except that if necessary to assure that the
provision of supportive services to a person participating in
a program is feasible, a recipient or project sponsor may
require that the person live--
``(i) in a particular structure or unit for not more than
the first year of the participation;
``(ii) within a particular geographic area for the full
period of the participation, or the period remaining after
the period referred to in subparagraph (A); and
``(B) provides that a person may receive such assistance
and move to another structure, unit, or geographic area if
the person has complied with all other obligations of the
program and has moved out of the assisted dwelling unit in
order to protect the health or safety of an individual who is
or has been the victim of domestic violence, dating violence,
sexual assault, or stalking, and who reasonably believed he
or she was imminently threatened by harm from further
violence if he or she remained in the assisted dwelling unit.
``(29) Transitional housing.--The term `transitional
housing' means housing the purpose of which is to facilitate
the movement of individuals and families experiencing
homelessness to permanent housing within 24 months or such
longer period as the Secretary determines necessary.
``(30) Unified funding agency.--The term `unified funding
agency' means a collaborative applicant that performs the
duties described in section 402(g).
``(31) Underserved populations.--The term `underserved
populations' includes populations underserved because of
geographic location, underserved racial and ethnic
populations, populations underserved because of special needs
(such as language barriers, disabilities, alienage status, or
age), and any other population determined to be underserved
by the Secretary, as appropriate.
``(32) Victim service provider.--The term `victim service
provider' means a private nonprofit organization whose
primary mission is to provide services to victims of domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Such
term includes rape crisis centers, battered women's shelters,
domestic violence transitional housing programs, and other
programs.
``(33) Victim services.--The term `victim services' means
services that assist domestic violence, dating violence,
sexual assault, or stalking victims, including services
offered by rape crisis centers and domestic violence
shelters, and other organizations, with a documented history
of effective work concerning domestic violence, dating
violence, sexual assault, or stalking.''.

SEC. 102. COMMUNITY HOMELESS ASSISTANCE PLANNING BOARDS.

Subtitle A of title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11361 et seq.) is amended by
inserting after section 401 (as added by section 101(3) of
this Act) the following new section:

``SEC. 402. COLLABORATIVE APPLICANTS.

``(a) Establishment and Designation.--A collaborative
applicant shall be established for a geographic area by the
relevant parties in that geographic area to--
``(1) submit an application for amounts under this
subtitle; and
``(2) perform the duties specified in subsection (f) and,
if applicable, subsection (g).

[[Page 9950]]

``(b) No Requirement to Be a Legal Entity.--An entity may
be established to serve as a collaborative applicant under
this section without being a legal entity.
``(c) Remedial Action.--If the Secretary finds that a
collaborative applicant for a geographic area does not meet
the requirements of this section, or if there is no
collaborative applicant for a geographic area, the Secretary
may take remedial action to ensure fair distribution of grant
amounts under subtitle C to eligible entities within that
area. Such measures may include designating another body as a
collaborative applicant, or permitting other eligible
entities to apply directly for grants.
``(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to displace conflict of interest or government fair
practices laws, or their equivalent, that govern applicants
for grant amounts under subtitles B and C.
``(e) Appointment of Agent.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), a
collaborative applicant may designate an agent to--
``(A) apply for a grant under section 422(c);
``(B) receive and distribute grant funds awarded under
subtitle C; and
``(C) perform other administrative duties.
``(2) Retention of duties.--Any collaborative applicant
that designates an agent pursuant to paragraph (1) shall
regardless of such designation retain all of its duties and
responsibilities under this title.
``(f) Duties.--A collaborative applicant shall--
``(1) design a collaborative process for the development of
an application under subtitle C, and for evaluating the
outcomes of projects for which funds are awarded under
subtitle B, in such a manner as to provide information
necessary for the Secretary--
``(A) to determine compliance with--
``(i) the program requirements under section 426; and
``(ii) the selection criteria described under section 427;
and
``(B) to establish priorities for funding projects in the
geographic area involved;
``(2) participate in the Consolidated Plan for the
geographic area served by the collaborative applicant; and
``(3) ensure operation of, and consistent participation by,
project sponsors in a community-wide homeless management
information system (in this subsection referred to as `HMIS')
that--
``(A) collects unduplicated counts of individuals and
families experiencing homelessness;
``(B) analyzes patterns of use of assistance provided under
subtitles B and C for the geographic area involved;
``(C) provides information to project sponsors and
applicants for needs analyses and funding priorities; and
``(D) is developed in accordance with standards established
by the Secretary, including standards that provide for--
``(i) encryption of data collected for purposes of HMIS;
``(ii) documentation, including keeping an accurate
accounting, proper usage, and disclosure, of HMIS data;
``(iii) access to HMIS data by staff, contractors, law
enforcement, and academic researchers;
``(iv) rights of persons receiving services under this
title;
``(v) criminal and civil penalties for unlawful disclosure
of data; and
``(vi) such other standards as may be determined necessary
by the Secretary.
``(g) Unified Funding.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to the duties described in
subsection (f), a collaborative applicant shall receive from
the Secretary and distribute to other project sponsors in the
applicable geographic area funds for projects to be carried
out by such other project sponsors, if--
``(A) the collaborative applicant--
``(i) applies to undertake such collection and distribution
responsibilities in an application submitted under this
subtitle; and
``(ii) is selected to perform such responsibilities by the
Secretary; or
``(B) the Secretary designates the collaborative applicant
as the unified funding agency in the geographic area, after--
``(i) a finding by the Secretary that the applicant--

``(I) has the capacity to perform such responsibilities;
and
``(II) would serve the purposes of this Act as they apply
to the geographic area; and

``(ii) the Secretary provides the collaborative applicant
with the technical assistance necessary to perform such
responsibilities as such assistance is agreed to by the
collaborative applicant.
``(2) Required actions by a unified funding agency.--A
collaborative applicant that is either selected or designated
as a unified funding agency for a geographic area under
paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) require each project sponsor who is funded by a grant
received under subtitle C to establish such fiscal control
and fund accounting procedures as may be necessary to assure
the proper disbursal of, and accounting for, Federal funds
awarded to the project sponsor under subtitle C in order to
ensure that all financial transactions carried out under
subtitle C are conducted, and records maintained, in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and
``(B) arrange for an annual survey, audit, or evaluation of
the financial records of each project carried out by a
project sponsor funded by a grant received under subtitle C.
``(h) Conflict of Interest.--No board member of a
collaborative applicant may participate in decisions of the
collaborative applicant concerning the award of a grant, or
provision of other financial benefits, to such member or the
organization that such member represents.''.

SEC. 103. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

Subtitle A of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
(42 U.S.C. 11361 et seq.) is amended by inserting after
section 403 (as so redesignated by section 101(2) of this
Act) the following new sections:

``SEC. 404. PREVENTING INVOLUNTARY FAMILY SEPARATION.

``(a) In General.--After the expiration of the 2-year
period that begins upon the date of the enactment of the
Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing
Act of 2009, and except as provided in subsection (b), any
project sponsor receiving funds under this title to provide
emergency shelter, transitional housing, or permanent housing
to families with children under age 18 shall not deny
admission to any family based on the age of any child under
age 18.
``(b) Exception.--Notwithstanding the requirement under
subsection (a), project sponsors of transitional housing
receiving funds under this title may target transitional
housing resources to families with children of a specific age
only if the project sponsor--
``(1) operates a transitional housing program that has a
primary purpose of implementing an evidence-based practice
that requires that housing units be targeted to families with
children in a specific age group; and
``(2) provides such assurances, as the Secretary shall
require, that an equivalent appropriate alternative living
arrangement for the whole family or household unit has been
secured.

``SEC. 405. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make available
technical assistance to private nonprofit organizations and
other nongovernmental entities, States, metropolitan cities,
urban counties, and counties that are not urban counties, to
implement effective planning processes for preventing and
ending homelessness, to improve their capacity to prepare
collaborative applications, to prevent the separation of
families in emergency shelter or other housing programs, and
to adopt and provide best practices in housing and services
for persons experiencing homeless.
``(b) Reservation.--The Secretary shall reserve not more
than 1 percent of the funds made available for any fiscal
year for carrying out subtitles B and C, to provide technical
assistance under subsection (a).''.

SEC. 104. PROTECTION OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION BY
VICTIM SERVICE PROVIDERS.

Subtitle A of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
(42 U.S.C. 11361 et seq.), as amended by the preceding
provisions of this title, is further amended by adding at the
end the following new section:

``SEC. 407. PROTECTION OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
BY VICTIM SERVICE PROVIDERS.

``In the course of awarding grants or implementing programs
under this title, the Secretary shall instruct any victim
service provider that is a recipient or subgrantee not to
disclose for purposes of the Homeless Management Information
System any personally identifying information about any
client. The Secretary may, after public notice and comment,
require or ask such recipients and subgrantees to disclose
for purposes of the Homeless Management Information System
non-personally identifying information that has been de-
identified, encrypted, or otherwise encoded. Nothing in this
section shall be construed to supersede any provision of any
Federal, State, or local law that provides greater protection
than this subsection for victims of domestic violence, dating
violence, sexual assault, or stalking.''.

SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``SEC. 408. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $2,200,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 and such sums as
may be necessary for fiscal year 2011.''.

TITLE II--EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANTS PROGRAM

SEC. 201. GRANT ASSISTANCE.

Subtitle B of title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11371 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by striking the subtitle heading and inserting the
following:

``Subtitle B--Emergency Solutions Grants Program'';

(2) by striking section 417 (42 U.S.C. 11377);
(3) by redesignating sections 413 through 416 (42 U.S.C.
11373-6) as sections 414 through 417, respectively; and
(4) by striking section 412 (42 U.S.C. 11372) and inserting
the following:

[[Page 9951]]

``SEC. 412. GRANT ASSISTANCE.

``The Secretary shall make grants to States and local
governments (and to private nonprofit organizations providing
assistance to persons experiencing homelessness or at risk of
homelessness, in the case of grants made with reallocated
amounts) for the purpose of carrying out activities described
in section 415.

``SEC. 413. AMOUNT AND ALLOCATION OF ASSISTANCE.

``(a) In General.--Of the amount made available to carry
out this subtitle and subtitle C for a fiscal year, the
Secretary shall allocate nationally 20 percent of such amount
for activities described in section 415. The Secretary shall
be required to certify that such allocation will not
adversely affect the renewal of existing projects under this
subtitle and subtitle C for those individuals or families who
are homeless.
``(b) Allocation.--An entity that receives a grant under
section 412, and serves an area that includes 1 or more
geographic areas (or portions of such areas) served by
collaborative applicants that submit applications under
subtitle C, shall allocate the funds made available through
the grant to carry out activities described in section 415,
in consultation with the collaborative applicants.''; and
(5) in section 414(b) (42 U.S.C. 11373(b)), as so
redesignated by paragraph (3) of this section, by striking
``amounts appropriated'' and all that follows through ``for
any'' and inserting ``amounts appropriated under section 408
and made available to carry out this subtitle for any''.

SEC. 202. ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act is amended by
striking section 415 (42 U.S.C. 11374), as so redesignated by
section 201(3) of this Act, and inserting the following new
section:

``SEC. 415. ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.

``(a) In General.--Assistance provided under section 412
may be used for the following activities:
``(1) The renovation, major rehabilitation, or conversion
of buildings to be used as emergency shelters.
``(2) The provision of essential services related to
emergency shelter or street outreach, including services
concerned with employment, health, education, family support
services for homeless youth, substance abuse services, victim
services, or mental health services, if--
``(A) such essential services have not been provided by the
local government during any part of the immediately preceding
12-month period or the Secretary determines that the local
government is in a severe financial deficit; or
``(B) the use of assistance under this subtitle would
complement the provision of those essential services.
``(3) Maintenance, operation, insurance, provision of
utilities, and provision of furnishings related to emergency
shelter.
``(4) Provision of rental assistance to provide short-term
or medium-term housing to homeless individuals or families or
individuals or families at risk of homelessness. Such rental
assistance may include tenant-based or project-based rental
assistance.
``(5) Housing relocation or stabilization services for
homeless individuals or families or individuals or families
at risk of homelessness, including housing search, mediation
or outreach to property owners, legal services, credit
repair, providing security or utility deposits, utility
payments, rental assistance for a final month at a location,
assistance with moving costs, or other activities that are
effective at--
``(A) stabilizing individuals and families in their current
housing; or
``(B) quickly moving such individuals and families to other
permanent housing.
``(b) Maximum Allocation for Emergency Shelter
Activities.--A grantee of assistance provided under section
412 for any fiscal year may not use an amount of such
assistance for activities described in paragraphs (1) through
(3) of subsection (a) that exceeds the greater of--
``(1) 60 percent of the aggregate amount of such assistance
provided for the grantee for such fiscal year; or
``(2) the amount expended by such grantee for such
activities during fiscal year most recently completed before
the effective date under section 503 of the Homeless
Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of
2009.''.

SEC. 203. PARTICIPATION IN HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
SYSTEM.

Section 416 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
(42 U.S.C. 11375), as so redesignated by section 201(3) of
this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(f) Participation in HMIS.--The Secretary shall ensure
that recipients of funds under this subtitle ensure the
consistent participation by emergency shelters and
homelessness prevention and rehousing programs in any
applicable community-wide homeless management information
system.''.

SEC. 204. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION.

Section 418 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
(42 U.S.C. 11378) is amended by striking ``5 percent'' and
inserting ``7.5 percent''.

SEC. 205. GAO STUDY OF ADMINISTRATIVE FEES.

Not later than the expiration of the 12-month period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall--
(1) conduct a study to examine the appropriate
administrative costs for administering the program authorized
under subtitle B of title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11371 et seq.); and
(2) submit to Congress a report on the findings of the
study required under paragraph (1).

TITLE III--CONTINUUM OF CARE PROGRAM

SEC. 301. CONTINUUM OF CARE.

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act is amended--
(1) by striking the subtitle heading for subtitle C of
title IV (42 U.S.C. 11381 et seq.) and inserting the
following:

``Subtitle C--Continuum of Care Program''; and

(2) by striking sections 421 and 422 (42 U.S.C. 11381 and
11382) and inserting the following new sections:

``SEC. 421. PURPOSES.

``The purposes of this subtitle are--
``(1) to promote community-wide commitment to the goal of
ending homelessness;
``(2) to provide funding for efforts by nonprofit providers
and State and local governments to quickly rehouse homeless
individuals and families while minimizing the trauma and
dislocation caused to individuals, families, and communities
by homelessness;
``(3) to promote access to, and effective utilization of,
mainstream programs described in section 203(a)(7) and
programs funded with State or local resources; and
``(4) to optimize self-sufficiency among individuals and
families experiencing homelessness.

``SEC. 422. CONTINUUM OF CARE APPLICATIONS AND GRANTS.

``(a) Projects.--The Secretary shall award grants, on a
competitive basis, and using the selection criteria described
in section 427, to carry out eligible activities under this
subtitle for projects that meet the program requirements
under section 426, either by directly awarding funds to
project sponsors or by awarding funds to unified funding
agencies.
``(b) Notification of Funding Availability.--The Secretary
shall release a notification of funding availability for
grants awarded under this subtitle for a fiscal year not
later than 3 months after the date of the enactment of the
appropriate Act making appropriations for the Department of
Housing and Urban Development for such fiscal year.
``(c) Applications.--
``(1) Submission to the secretary.--To be eligible to
receive a grant under subsection (a), a project sponsor or
unified funding agency in a geographic area shall submit an
application to the Secretary at such time and in such manner
as the Secretary may require, and containing such information
as the Secretary determines necessary--
``(A) to determine compliance with the program requirements
and selection criteria under this subtitle; and
``(B) to establish priorities for funding projects in the
geographic area.
``(2) Announcement of awards.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Secretary shall announce, within 5 months after the last
date for the submission of applications described in this
subsection for a fiscal year, the grants conditionally
awarded under subsection (a) for that fiscal year.
``(B) Transition.--For a period of up to 2 years beginning
after the effective date under section 503 of the Homeless
Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of
2009, the Secretary shall announce, within 6 months after the
last date for the submission of applications described in
this subsection for a fiscal year, the grants conditionally
awarded under subsection (a) for that fiscal year.
``(d) Obligation, Distribution, and Utilization of Funds.--
``(1) Requirements for obligation.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 9 months after the
announcement referred to in subsection (c)(2), each recipient
or project sponsor shall meet all requirements for the
obligation of those funds, including site control, matching
funds, and environmental review requirements, except as
provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C).
``(B) Acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction.--Not
later than 24 months after the announcement referred to in
subsection (c)(2), each recipient or project sponsor seeking
the obligation of funds for acquisition of housing,
rehabilitation of housing, or construction of new housing for
a grant announced under subsection (c)(2) shall meet all
requirements for the obligation of those funds, including
site control, matching funds, and environmental review
requirements.
``(C) Extensions.--At the discretion of the Secretary, and
in compelling circumstances, the Secretary may extend the
date by which a recipient or project sponsor shall meet the
requirements described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) if the
Secretary determines that

[[Page 9952]]

compliance with the requirements was delayed due to factors
beyond the reasonable control of the recipient or project
sponsor. Such factors may include difficulties in obtaining
site control for a proposed project, completing the process
of obtaining secure financing for the project, obtaining
approvals from State or local governments, or completing the
technical submission requirements for the project.
``(2) Obligation.--Not later than 45 days after a recipient
or project sponsor meets the requirements described in
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall obligate the funds for the
grant involved.
``(3) Distribution.--A recipient that receives funds
through such a grant--
``(A) shall distribute the funds to project sponsors (in
advance of expenditures by the project sponsors); and
``(B) shall distribute the appropriate portion of the funds
to a project sponsor not later than 45 days after receiving a
request for such distribution from the project sponsor.
``(4) Expenditure of funds.--The Secretary may establish a
date by which funds made available through a grant announced
under subsection (c)(2) for a homeless assistance project
shall be entirely expended by the recipient or project
sponsors involved. The date established under this paragraph
shall not occur before the expiration of the 24-month period
beginning on the date that funds are obligated for activities
described under paragraphs (1) or (2) of section 423(a). The
Secretary shall recapture the funds not expended by such
date. The Secretary shall reallocate the funds for another
homeless assistance and prevention project that meets the
requirements of this subtitle to be carried out, if possible
and appropriate, in the same geographic area as the area
served through the original grant.
``(e) Renewal Funding for Unsuccessful Applicants.--The
Secretary may renew funding for a specific project previously
funded under this subtitle that the Secretary determines
meets the purposes of this subtitle, and was included as part
of a total application that met the criteria of subsection
(c), even if the application was not selected to receive
grant assistance. The Secretary may renew the funding for a
period of not more than 1 year, and under such conditions as
the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
``(f) Considerations in Determining Renewal Funding.--When
providing renewal funding for leasing, operating costs, or
rental assistance for permanent housing, the Secretary shall
make adjustments proportional to increases in the fair market
rents in the geographic area.
``(g) More Than 1 Application for a Geographic Area.--If
more than 1 collaborative applicant applies for funds for a
geographic area, the Secretary shall award funds to the
collaborative applicant with the highest score based on the
selection criteria set forth in section 427.
``(h) Appeals.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a timely
appeal procedure for grant amounts awarded or denied under
this subtitle pursuant to a collaborative application or solo
application for funding.
``(2) Process.--The Secretary shall ensure that the
procedure permits appeals submitted by entities carrying out
homeless housing and services projects (including emergency
shelters and homelessness prevention programs), and all other
applicants under this subtitle.
``(i) Solo Applicants.--A solo applicant may submit an
application to the Secretary for a grant under subsection (a)
and be awarded such grant on the same basis as such grants
are awarded to other applicants based on the criteria
described in section 427, but only if the Secretary
determines that the solo applicant has attempted to
participate in the continuum of care process but was not
permitted to participate in a reasonable manner. The
Secretary may award such grants directly to such applicants
in a manner determined to be appropriate by the Secretary.
``(j) Flexibility to Serve Persons Defined as Homeless
Under Other Federal Laws.--
``(1) In general.--A collaborative applicant may use not
more than 10 percent of funds awarded under this subtitle
(continuum of care funding) for any of the types of eligible
activities specified in paragraphs (1) through (7) of section
423(a) to serve families with children and youth defined as
homeless under other Federal statutes, or homeless families
with children and youth defined as homeless under section
103(a)(6), but only if the applicant demonstrates that the
use of such funds is of an equal or greater priority or is
equally or more cost effective in meeting the overall goals
and objectives of the plan submitted under section
427(b)(1)(B), especially with respect to children and
unaccompanied youth.
``(2) Limitations.--The 10 percent limitation under
paragraph (1) shall not apply to collaborative applicants in
which the rate of homelessness, as calculated in the most
recent point in time count, is less than one-tenth of 1
percent of total population.
``(3) Treatment of certain populations.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 103(a) and
subject to subparagraph (B), funds awarded under this
subtitle may be used for eligible activities to serve
unaccompanied youth and homeless families and children
defined as homeless under section 103(a)(6) only pursuant to
paragraph (1) of this subsection and such families and
children shall not otherwise be considered as homeless for
purposes of this subtitle.
``(B) At risk of homelessness.--Subparagraph (A) may not be
construed to prevent any unaccompanied youth and homeless
families and children defined as homeless under section
103(a)(6) from qualifying for, and being treated for purposes
of this subtitle as, at risk of homelessness or from
eligibility for any projects, activities, or services carried
out using amounts provided under this subtitle for which
individuals or families that are at risk of homelessness are
eligible.''.

SEC. 302. ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act is amended by
striking section 423 (42 U.S.C. 11383) and inserting the
following new section:

``SEC. 423. ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.

``(a) In General.--Grants awarded under section 422 to
qualified applicants shall be used to carry out projects that
serve homeless individuals or families that consist of one or
more of the following eligible activities:
``(1) Construction of new housing units to provide
transitional or permanent housing.
``(2) Acquisition or rehabilitation of a structure to
provide transitional or permanent housing, other than
emergency shelter, or to provide supportive services.
``(3) Leasing of property, or portions of property, not
owned by the recipient or project sponsor involved, for use
in providing transitional or permanent housing, or providing
supportive services.
``(4) Provision of rental assistance to provide
transitional or permanent housing to eligible persons. The
rental assistance may include tenant-based, project-based, or
sponsor-based rental assistance. Project-based rental
assistance, sponsor-based rental assistance, and operating
cost assistance contracts carried out by project sponsors
receiving grants under this section may, at the discretion of
the applicant and the project sponsor, have an initial term
of 15 years, with assistance for the first 5 years paid with
funds authorized for appropriation under this Act, and
assistance for the remainder of the term treated as a renewal
of an expiring contract as provided in section 429. Project-
based rental assistance may include rental assistance to
preserve existing permanent supportive housing for homeless
individuals and families.
``(5) Payment of operating costs for housing units assisted
under this subtitle or for the preservation of housing that
will serve homeless individuals and families and for which
another form of assistance is expiring or otherwise no longer
available.
``(6) Supportive services for individuals and families who
are currently homeless, who have been homeless in the prior
six months but are currently residing in permanent housing,
or who were previously homeless and are currently residing in
permanent supportive housing.
``(7) Provision of rehousing services, including housing
search, mediation or outreach to property owners, credit
repair, providing security or utility deposits, rental
assistance for a final month at a location, assistance with
moving costs, or other activities that--
``(A) are effective at moving homeless individuals and
families immediately into housing; or
``(B) may benefit individuals and families who in the prior
6 months have been homeless, but are currently residing in
permanent housing.
``(8) In the case of a collaborative applicant that is a
legal entity, performance of the duties described under
section 402(f)(3).
``(9) Operation of, participation in, and ensuring
consistent participation by project sponsors in, a community-
wide homeless management information system.
``(10) In the case of a collaborative applicant that is a
legal entity, payment of administrative costs related to
meeting the requirements described in paragraphs (1) and (2)
of section 402(f), for which the collaborative applicant may
use not more than 3 percent of the total funds made available
in the geographic area under this subtitle for such costs.
``(11) In the case of a collaborative applicant that is a
unified funding agency under section 402(g), payment of
administrative costs related to meeting the requirements of
that section, for which the unified funding agency may use
not more than 3 percent of the total funds made available in
the geographic area under this subtitle for such costs, in
addition to funds used under paragraph (10).
``(12) Payment of administrative costs to project sponsors,
for which each project sponsor may use not more than 10
percent of the total funds made available to that project
sponsor through this subtitle for such costs.
``(b) Minimum Grant Terms.--The Secretary may impose
minimum grant terms of up to 5 years for new projects
providing permanent housing.

[[Page 9953]]

``(c) Use Restrictions.--
``(1) Acquisition, rehabilitation, and new construction.--A
project that consists of activities described in paragraph
(1) or (2) of subsection (a) shall be operated for the
purpose specified in the application submitted for the
project under section 422 for not less than 15 years.
``(2) Other activities.--A project that consists of
activities described in any of paragraphs (3) through (12) of
subsection (a) shall be operated for the purpose specified in
the application submitted for the project under section 422
for the duration of the grant period involved.
``(3) Conversion.--If the recipient or project sponsor
carrying out a project that provides transitional or
permanent housing submits a request to the Secretary to carry
out instead a project for the direct benefit of low-income
persons, and the Secretary determines that the initial
project is no longer needed to provide transitional or
permanent housing, the Secretary may approve the project
described in the request and authorize the recipient or
project sponsor to carry out that project.
``(d) Repayment of Assistance and Prevention of Undue
Benefits.--
``(1) Repayment.--If a recipient or project sponsor
receives assistance under section 422 to carry out a project
that consists of activities described in paragraph (1) or (2)
of subsection (a) and the project ceases to provide
transitional or permanent housing--
``(A) earlier than 10 years after operation of the project
begins, the Secretary shall require the recipient or project
sponsor to repay 100 percent of the assistance; or
``(B) not earlier than 10 years, but earlier than 15 years,
after operation of the project begins, the Secretary shall
require the recipient or project sponsor to repay 20 percent
of the assistance for each of the years in the 15-year period
for which the project fails to provide that housing.
``(2) Prevention of undue benefits.--Except as provided in
paragraph (3), if any property is used for a project that
receives assistance under subsection (a) and consists of
activities described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection
(a), and the sale or other disposition of the property occurs
before the expiration of the 15-year period beginning on the
date that operation of the project begins, the recipient or
project sponsor who received the assistance shall comply with
such terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe to
prevent the recipient or project sponsor from unduly
benefitting from such sale or disposition.
``(3) Exception.--A recipient or project sponsor shall not
be required to make the repayments, and comply with the terms
and conditions, required under paragraph (1) or (2) if--
``(A) the sale or disposition of the property used for the
project results in the use of the property for the direct
benefit of very low-income persons;
``(B) all of the proceeds of the sale or disposition are
used to provide transitional or permanent housing meeting the
requirements of this subtitle;
``(C) project-based rental assistance or operating cost
assistance from any Federal program or an equivalent State or
local program is no longer made available and the project is
meeting applicable performance standards, provided that the
portion of the project that had benefitted from such
assistance continues to meet the tenant income and rent
restrictions for low-income units under section 42(g) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
``(D) there are no individuals and families in the
geographic area who are homeless, in which case the project
may serve individuals and families at risk of homelessness.
``(e) Staff Training.--The Secretary may allow reasonable
costs associated with staff training to be included as part
of the activities described in subsection (a).
``(f) Eligibility for Permanent Housing.--Any project that
receives assistance under subsection (a) and that provides
project-based or sponsor-based permanent housing for homeless
individuals or families with a disability, including projects
that meet the requirements of subsection (a) and subsection
(d)(2)(A) of section 428 may also serve individuals who had
previously met the requirements for such project prior to
moving into a different permanent housing project.
``(g) Administration of Rental Assistance.--Provision of
permanent housing rental assistance shall be administered by
a State, unit of general local government, or public housing
agency.''.

SEC. 303. HIGH PERFORMING COMMUNITIES.

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act is amended by
striking section 424 (42 U.S.C. 11384) and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 424. INCENTIVES FOR HIGH-PERFORMING COMMUNITIES.

``(a) Designation as a High-Performing Community.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall designate, on an
annual basis, which collaborative applicants represent high-
performing communities.
``(2) Consideration.--In determining whether to designate a
collaborative applicant as a high-performing community under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall establish criteria to
ensure that the requirements described under paragraphs
(1)(B) and (2)(B) of subsection (d) are measured by comparing
homeless individuals and families under similar
circumstances, in order to encourage projects in the
geographic area to serve homeless individuals and families
with more severe barriers to housing stability.
``(3) 2-year phase in.--In each of the first 2 years after
the effective date under section 503 of the Homeless
Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of
2009, the Secretary shall designate not more than 10
collaborative applicants as high-performing communities.
``(4) Excess of qualified applicants.--If, during the 2-
year period described under paragraph (2), more than 10
collaborative applicants could qualify to be designated as
high-performing communities, the Secretary shall designate
the 10 that have, in the discretion of the Secretary, the
best performance based on the criteria described under
subsection (d).
``(5) Time limit on designation.--The designation of any
collaborative applicant as a high-performing community under
this subsection shall be effective only for the year in which
such designation is made. The Secretary, on an annual basis,
may renew any such designation.
``(b) Application.--
``(1) In general.--A collaborative applicant seeking
designation as a high-performing community under subsection
(a) shall submit an application to the Secretary at such
time, and in such manner as the Secretary may require.
``(2) Content of application.--In any application submitted
under paragraph (1), a collaborative applicant shall include
in such application--
``(A) a report showing how any money received under this
subtitle in the preceding year was expended; and
``(B) information that such applicant can meet the
requirements described under subsection (d).
``(3) Publication of application.--The Secretary shall--
``(A) publish any report or information submitted in an
application under this section in the geographic area
represented by the collaborative applicant; and
``(B) seek comments from the public as to whether the
collaborative applicant seeking designation as a high-
performing community meets the requirements described under
subsection (d).
``(c) Use of Funds.--Funds awarded under section 422(a) to
a project sponsor who is located in a high-performing
community may be used--
``(1) for any of the eligible activities described in
section 423; or
``(2) for any of the eligible activities described in
paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 415(a).
``(d) Definition of High-Performing Community.--For
purposes of this section, the term `high-performing
community' means a geographic area that demonstrates through
reliable data that all five of the following requirements are
met for that geographic area:
``(1) Term of homelessness.--The mean length of episodes of
homelessness for that geographic area--
``(A) is less than 20 days; or
``(B) for individuals and families in similar circumstances
in the preceding year was at least 10 percent less than in
the year before.
``(2) Families leaving homelessness.--Of individuals and
families--
``(A) who leave homelessness, fewer than 5 percent of such
individuals and families become homeless again at any time
within the next 2 years; or
``(B) in similar circumstances who leave homelessness, the
percentage of such individuals and families who become
homeless again within the next 2 years has decreased by at
least 20 percent from the preceding year.
``(3) Community action.--The communities that compose the
geographic area have--
``(A) actively encouraged homeless individuals and families
to participate in homeless assistance services available in
that geographic area; and
``(B) included each homeless individual or family who
sought homeless assistance services in the data system used
by that community for determining compliance with this
subsection.
``(4) Effectiveness of previous activities.--If recipients
in the geographic area have used funding awarded under
section 422(a) for eligible activities described under
section 415(a) in previous years based on the authority
granted under subsection (c), that such activities were
effective at reducing the number of individuals and families
who became homeless in that community.
``(5) Flexibility to serve persons defined as homeless
under other federal laws.--With respect to collaborative
applicants exercising the authority under section 422(j) to
serve homeless families with children and youth defined as
homeless under other Federal statutes, effectiveness in
achieving the goals and outcomes identified in subsection
427(b)(1)(F) according to such standards as the Secretary
shall promulgate.
``(e) Cooperation Among Entities.--A collaborative
applicant designated as a high-performing community under
this section shall cooperate with the Secretary in
distributing information about successful efforts within the
geographic area represented by

[[Page 9954]]

the collaborative applicant to reduce homelessness.''.

SEC. 304. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.

Section 426 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
(42 U.S.C. 11386) is amended--
(1) by striking subsections (a), (b), and (c) and inserting
the following:
``(a) Site Control.--The Secretary shall require that each
application include reasonable assurances that the applicant
will own or have control of a site for the proposed project
not later than the expiration of the 12-month period
beginning upon notification of an award for grant assistance,
unless the application proposes providing supportive housing
assistance under section 423(a)(3) or housing that will
eventually be owned or controlled by the families and
individuals served. An applicant may obtain ownership or
control of a suitable site different from the site specified
in the application. If any recipient or project sponsor fails
to obtain ownership or control of the site within 12 months
after notification of an award for grant assistance, the
grant shall be recaptured and reallocated under this
subtitle.
``(b) Required Agreements.--The Secretary may not provide
assistance for a proposed project under this subtitle unless
the collaborative applicant involved agrees--
``(1) to ensure the operation of the project in accordance
with the provisions of this subtitle;
``(2) to monitor and report to the Secretary the progress
of the project;
``(3) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that
individuals and families experiencing homelessness are
involved, through employment, provision of volunteer
services, or otherwise, in constructing, rehabilitating,
maintaining, and operating facilities for the project and in
providing supportive services for the project;
``(4) to require certification from all project sponsors
that--
``(A) they will maintain the confidentiality of records
pertaining to any individual or family provided family
violence prevention or treatment services through the
project;
``(B) that the address or location of any family violence
shelter project assisted under this subtitle will not be made
public, except with written authorization of the person
responsible for the operation of such project;
``(C) they will establish policies and practices that are
consistent with, and do not restrict the exercise of rights
provided by, subtitle B of title VII, and other laws relating
to the provision of educational and related services to
individuals and families experiencing homelessness;
``(D) in the case of programs that provide housing or
services to families, they will designate a staff person to
be responsible for ensuring that children being served in the
program are enrolled in school and connected to appropriate
services in the community, including early childhood programs
such as Head Start, part C of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, and programs authorized under
subtitle B of title VII of this Act(42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.);
and
``(E) they will provide data and reports as required by the
Secretary pursuant to the Act;
``(5) if a collaborative applicant is a unified funding
agency under section 402(g) and receives funds under subtitle
C to carry out the payment of administrative costs described
in section 423(a)(11), to establish such fiscal control and
fund accounting procedures as may be necessary to assure the
proper disbursal of, and accounting for, such funds in order
to ensure that all financial transactions carried out with
such funds are conducted, and records maintained, in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
``(6) to monitor and report to the Secretary the provision
of matching funds as required by section 430;
``(7) to take the educational needs of children into
account when families are placed in emergency or transitional
shelter and will, to the maximum extent practicable, place
families with children as close as possible to their school
of origin so as not to disrupt such children's education; and
``(8) to comply with such other terms and conditions as the
Secretary may establish to carry out this subtitle in an
effective and efficient manner.'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c);
(3) in the first sentence of subsection (c) (as so
redesignated by paragraph (2) of this subsection), by
striking ``recipient'' and inserting ``recipient or project
sponsor'';
(4) by striking subsection (e);
(5) by redesignating subsections (f), (g), and (h), as
subsections (d), (e), and (f), respectively;
(6) in the first sentence of subsection (e) (as so
redesignated by paragraph (5) of this section), by striking
``recipient'' each place it appears and inserting ``recipient
or project sponsor'';
(7) by striking subsection (i); and
(8) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (g).

SEC. 305. SELECTION CRITERIA, ALLOCATION AMOUNTS, AND
FUNDING.

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act is amended--
(1) by repealing section 429 (42 U.S.C. 11389); and
(2) by redesignating sections 427 and 428 (42 U.S.C. 11387,
11388) as sections 432 and 433, respectively; and
(3) by inserting after section 426 the following new
sections:

``SEC. 427. SELECTION CRITERIA.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award funds to
recipients through a national competition between geographic
areas based on criteria established by the Secretary.
``(b) Required Criteria.--
``(1) In general.--The criteria established under
subsection (a) shall include--
``(A) the previous performance of the recipient regarding
homelessness, including performance related to funds provided
under section 412 (except that recipients applying from
geographic areas where no funds have been awarded under this
subtitle, or under subtitles C, D, E, or F of title IV of
this Act, as in effect prior to the date of the enactment of
the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to
Housing Act of 2009, shall receive full credit for
performance under this subparagraph), measured by criteria
that shall be announced by the Secretary, that shall take
into account barriers faced by individual homeless people,
and that shall include--
``(i) the length of time individuals and families remain
homeless;
``(ii) the extent to which individuals and families who
leave homelessness experience additional spells of
homelessness;
``(iii) the thoroughness of grantees in the geographic area
in reaching homeless individuals and families;
``(iv) overall reduction in the number of homeless
individuals and families;
``(v) jobs and income growth for homeless individuals and
families;
``(vi) success at reducing the number of individuals and
families who become homeless;
``(vii) other accomplishments by the recipient related to
reducing homelessness; and
``(viii) for collaborative applicants that have exercised
the authority under section 422(j) to serve families with
children and youth defined as homeless under other Federal
statutes, success in achieving the goals and outcomes
identified in section 427(b)(1)(F);
``(B) the plan of the recipient, which shall describe--
``(i) how the number of individuals and families who become
homeless will be reduced in the community;
``(ii) how the length of time that individuals and families
remain homeless will be reduced;
``(iii) how the recipient will collaborate with local
education authorities to assist in the identification of
individuals and families who become or remain homeless and
are informed of their eligibility for services under subtitle
B of title VII of this Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.);
``(iv) the extent to which the recipient will--

``(I) address the needs of all relevant subpopulations;
``(II) incorporate comprehensive strategies for reducing
homelessness, including the interventions referred to in
section 428(d);
``(III) set quantifiable performance measures;
``(IV) set timelines for completion of specific tasks;
``(V) identify specific funding sources for planned
activities; and
``(VI) identify an individual or body responsible for
overseeing implementation of specific strategies; and

``(v) whether the recipient proposes to exercise authority
to use funds under section 422(j), and if so, how the
recipient will achieve the goals and outcomes identified in
section 427(b)(1)(F);
``(C) the methodology of the recipient used to determine
the priority for funding local projects under section
422(c)(1), including the extent to which the priority-setting
process--
``(i) uses periodically collected information and analysis
to determine the extent to which each project has resulted in
rapid return to permanent housing for those served by the
project, taking into account the severity of barriers faced
by the people the project serves;
``(ii) considers the full range of opinions from
individuals or entities with knowledge of homelessness in the
geographic area or an interest in preventing or ending
homelessness in the geographic area;
``(iii) is based on objective criteria that have been
publicly announced by the recipient; and
``(iv) is open to proposals from entities that have not
previously received funds under this subtitle;
``(D) the extent to which the amount of assistance to be
provided under this subtitle to the recipient will be
supplemented with resources from other public and private
sources, including mainstream programs identified by the
Government Accountability Office in the two reports described
in section 203(a)(7);
``(E) demonstrated coordination by the recipient with the
other Federal, State, local, private, and other entities
serving individuals and families experiencing homelessness
and at risk of homelessness in the planning and operation of
projects;

[[Page 9955]]

``(F) for collaborative applicants exercising the authority
under section 422(j) to serve homeless families with children
and youth defined as homeless under other Federal statutes,
program goals and outcomes, which shall include--
``(i) preventing homelessness among the subset of such
families with children and youth who are at highest risk of
becoming homeless, as such term is defined for purposes of
this title; or
``(ii) achieving independent living in permanent housing
among such families with children and youth, especially those
who have a history of doubled-up and other temporary housing
situations or are living in a temporary housing situation due
to lack of available and appropriate emergency shelter,
through the provision of eligible assistance that directly
contributes to achieving such results including assistance to
address chronic disabilities, chronic physical health or
mental health conditions, substance addiction, histories of
domestic violence or childhood abuse, or multiple barriers to
employment; and
``(G) such other factors as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate to carry out this subtitle in an effective and
efficient manner.
``(2) Additional criteria.--In addition to the criteria
required under paragraph (1), the criteria established under
paragraph (1) shall also include the need within the
geographic area for homeless services, determined as follows
and under the following conditions:
``(A) Notice.--The Secretary shall inform each
collaborative applicant, at a time concurrent with the
release of the notice of funding availability for the grants,
of the pro rata estimated grant amount under this subtitle
for the geographic area represented by the collaborative
applicant.
``(B) Amount.--
``(i) Formula.--Such estimated grant amounts shall be
determined by a formula, which shall be developed by the
Secretary, by regulation, not later than the expiration of
the 2-year period beginning upon the date of the enactment of
the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to
Housing Act of 2009, that is based upon factors that are
appropriate to allocate funds to meet the goals and
objectives of this subtitle.
``(ii) Combinations or consortia.--For a collaborative
applicant that represents a combination or consortium of
cities or counties, the estimated need amount shall be the
sum of the estimated need amounts for the cities or counties
represented by the collaborative applicant.
``(iii) Authority of secretary.--Subject to the
availability of appropriations, the Secretary shall increase
the estimated need amount for a geographic area if necessary
to provide 1 year of renewal funding for all expiring
contracts entered into under this subtitle for the geographic
area.
``(3) Homelessness counts.--The Secretary shall not require
that communities conduct an actual count of homeless people
other than those described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of
section 103(a) of this Act (42 U.S.C. 11302(a)).
``(c) Adjustments.--The Secretary may adjust the formula
described in subsection (b)(2) as necessary--
``(1) to ensure that each collaborative applicant has
sufficient funding to renew all qualified projects for at
least one year; and
``(2) to ensure that collaborative applicants are not
discouraged from replacing renewal projects with new projects
that the collaborative applicant determines will better be
able to meet the purposes of this Act.

``SEC. 428. ALLOCATION OF AMOUNTS AND INCENTIVES FOR SPECIFIC
ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.

``(a) Minimum Allocation for Permanent Housing for Homeless
Individuals and Families With Disabilities.--
``(1) In general.--From the amounts made available to carry
out this subtitle for a fiscal year, a portion equal to not
less than 30 percent of the sums made available to carry out
subtitle B and this subtitle, shall be used for permanent
housing for homeless individuals with disabilities and
homeless families that include such an individual who is an
adult or a minor head of household if no adult is present in
the household.
``(2) Calculation.--In calculating the portion of the
amount described in paragraph (1) that is used for activities
that are described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall not
count funds made available to renew contracts for existing
projects under section 429.
``(3) Adjustment.--The 30 percent figure in paragraph (1)
shall be reduced proportionately based on need under section
427(b)(2) in geographic areas for which subsection (e)
applies in regard to subsection (d)(2)(A).
``(4) Suspension.--The requirement established in paragraph
(1) shall be suspended for any year in which funding
available for grants under this subtitle after making the
allocation established in paragraph (1) would not be
sufficient to renew for 1 year all existing grants that would
otherwise be fully funded under this subtitle.
``(5) Termination.--The requirement established in
paragraph (1) shall terminate upon a finding by the Secretary
that since the beginning of 2001 at least 150,000 new units
of permanent housing for homeless individuals and families
with disabilities have been funded under this subtitle.
``(b) Set-Aside for Permanent Housing for Homeless Families
With Children.--From the amounts made available to carry out
this subtitle for a fiscal year, a portion equal to not less
than 10 percent of the sums made available to carry out
subtitle B and this subtitle for that fiscal year shall be
used to provide or secure permanent housing for homeless
families with children.
``(c) Treatment of Amounts for Permanent or Transitional
Housing.--Nothing in this Act may be construed to establish a
limit on the amount of funding that an applicant may request
under this subtitle for acquisition, construction, or
rehabilitation activities for the development of permanent
housing or transitional housing.
``(d) Incentives for Proven Strategies.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide bonuses or
other incentives to geographic areas for using funding under
this subtitle for activities that have been proven to be
effective at reducing homelessness generally, reducing
homelessness for a specific subpopulation, or achieving
homeless prevention and independent living goals as set forth
in section 427(b)(1)(F).
``(2) Rule of construction.--For purposes of this
subsection, activities that have been proven to be effective
at reducing homelessness generally or reducing homelessness
for a specific subpopulation includes--
``(A) permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless
individuals and families;
``(B) for homeless families, rapid rehousing services,
short-term flexible subsidies to overcome barriers to
rehousing, support services concentrating on improving
incomes to pay rent, coupled with performance measures
emphasizing rapid and permanent rehousing and with leveraging
funding from mainstream family service systems such as
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Child Welfare
services; and
``(C) any other activity determined by the Secretary, based
on research and after notice and comment to the public, to
have been proven effective at reducing homelessness
generally, reducing homelessness for a specific
subpopulation, or achieving homeless prevention and
independent living goals as set forth in section
427(b)(1)(F).
``(3) Balance of incentives for proven strategies.--To the
extent practicable, in providing bonuses or incentives for
proven strategies, the Secretary shall seek to maintain a
balance among strategies targeting homeless individuals,
families, and other subpopulations. The Secretary shall not
implement bonuses or incentives that specifically discourage
collaborative applicants from exercising their flexibility to
serve families with children and youth defined as homeless
under other Federal statutes.
``(e) Incentives for Successful Implementation of Proven
Strategies.--If any geographic area demonstrates that it has
fully implemented any of the activities described in
subsection (d) for all homeless individuals and families or
for all members of subpopulations for whom such activities
are targeted, that geographic area shall receive the bonus or
incentive provided under subsection (d), but may use such
bonus or incentive for any eligible activity under either
section 423 or paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 415(a) for
homeless people generally or for the relevant subpopulation.

``SEC. 429. RENEWAL FUNDING AND TERMS OF ASSISTANCE FOR
PERMANENT HOUSING.

``(a) In General.--Renewal of expiring contracts for
leasing, rental assistance, or operating costs for permanent
housing contracts may be funded either--
``(1) under the appropriations account for this title; or
``(2) the section 8 project-based rental assistance
account.
``(b) Renewals.--The sums made available under subsection
(a) shall be available for the renewal of contracts in the
case of tenant-based assistance, successive 1-year terms, and
in the case of project-based assistance, successive terms of
up to 15 years at the discretion of the applicant or project
sponsor and subject to the availability of annual
appropriations, for rental assistance and housing operation
costs associated with permanent housing projects funded under
this subtitle, or under subtitle C or F (as in effect on the
day before the effective date of the Homeless Emergency
Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009). The
Secretary shall determine whether to renew a contract for
such a permanent housing project on the basis of
certification by the collaborative applicant for the
geographic area that--
``(1) there is a demonstrated need for the project; and
``(2) the project complies with program requirements and
appropriate standards of housing quality and habitability, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(c) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as prohibiting the Secretary from renewing
contracts under this subtitle in accordance with criteria set
forth in a provision of this subtitle other than this
section.

``SEC. 430. MATCHING FUNDING.

``(a) In General.--A collaborative applicant in a
geographic area in which funds are awarded under this
subtitle shall specify contributions from any source other
than a

[[Page 9956]]

grant awarded under this subtitle, including renewal funding
of projects assisted under subtitles C, D, and F of this
title as in effect before the effective date under section
503 of the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition
to Housing Act of 2009, that shall be made available in the
geographic area in an amount equal to not less than 25
percent of the funds provided to recipients in the geographic
area, except that grants for leasing shall not be subject to
any match requirement.
``(b) Limitations on In-Kind Match.--The cash value of
services provided to the residents or clients of a project
sponsor by an entity other than the project sponsor may count
toward the contributions in subsection (a) only when
documented by a memorandum of understanding between the
project sponsor and the other entity that such services will
be provided.
``(c) Countable Activities.--The contributions required
under subsection (a) may consist of--
``(1) funding for any eligible activity described under
section 423; and
``(2) subject to subsection (b), in-kind provision of
services of any eligible activity described under section
423.

``SEC. 431. APPEAL PROCEDURE.

``(a) In General.--With respect to funding under this
subtitle, if certification of consistency with the
consolidated plan pursuant to section 403 is withheld from an
applicant who has submitted an application for that
certification, such applicant may appeal such decision to the
Secretary.
``(b) Procedure.--The Secretary shall establish a procedure
to process the appeals described in subsection (a).
``(c) Determination.--Not later than 45 days after the date
of receipt of an appeal described in subsection (a), the
Secretary shall determine if certification was unreasonably
withheld. If such certification was unreasonably withheld,
the Secretary shall review such application and determine if
such applicant shall receive funding under this subtitle.''.

SEC. 306. RESEARCH.

There is authorized to be appropriated $8,000,000, for each
of fiscal years 2010 and 2011, for research into the efficacy
of interventions for homeless families, to be expended by the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development over the 2 years
at 3 different sites to provide services for homeless
families and evaluate the effectiveness of such services.

TITLE IV--RURAL HOUSING STABILITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

SEC. 401. RURAL HOUSING STABILITY ASSISTANCE.

Subtitle G of title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11408 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by striking the subtitle heading and inserting the
following:

``Subtitle G--Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program''; and

(2) in section 491--
(A) by striking the section heading and inserting ``rural
housing stability grant program.'';
(B) in subsection (a)--
(i) by striking ``rural homelessness grant program'' and
inserting ``rural housing stability grant program'';
(ii) by inserting ``in lieu of grants under subtitle C''
after ``eligible organizations''; and
(iii) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), and
inserting the following:
``(1) rehousing or improving the housing situations of
individuals and families who are homeless or in the worst
housing situations in the geographic area;
``(2) stabilizing the housing of individuals and families
who are in imminent danger of losing housing; and
``(3) improving the ability of the lowest-income residents
of the community to afford stable housing.'';
(C) in subsection (b)(1)--
(i) by redesignating subparagraphs (E), (F), and (G) as
subparagraphs (I), (J), and (K), respectively; and
(ii) by striking subparagraph (D) and inserting the
following:
``(D) construction of new housing units to provide
transitional or permanent housing to homeless individuals and
families and individuals and families at risk of
homelessness;
``(E) acquisition or rehabilitation of a structure to
provide supportive services or to provide transitional or
permanent housing, other than emergency shelter, to homeless
individuals and families and individuals and families at risk
of homelessness;
``(F) leasing of property, or portions of property, not
owned by the recipient or project sponsor involved, for use
in providing transitional or permanent housing to homeless
individuals and families and individuals and families at risk
of homelessness, or providing supportive services to such
homeless and at-risk individuals and families;
``(G) provision of rental assistance to provide
transitional or permanent housing to homeless individuals and
families and individuals and families at risk of
homelessness, such rental assistance may include tenant-based
or project-based rental assistance;
``(H) payment of operating costs for housing units assisted
under this title;'';
(D) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``appropriated'' and
inserting ``transferred'';
(E) in subsection (c)--
(i) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``appropriated'' and
inserting ``transferred''; and
(ii) in paragraph (3), by striking ``appropriated'' and
inserting ``transferred'';
(F) in subsection (d)--
(i) in paragraph (5), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a
semicolon;
(ii) in paragraph (6)--

(I) by striking ``an agreement'' and all that follows
through ``families'' and inserting the following: ``a
description of how individuals and families who are homeless
or who have the lowest incomes in the community will be
involved by the organization''; and
(II) by striking the period at the end, and inserting a
semicolon; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) a description of consultations that took place within
the community to ascertain the most important uses for
funding under this section, including the involvement of
potential beneficiaries of the project; and
``(8) a description of the extent and nature of
homelessness and of the worst housing situations in the
community.'';
(G) by striking subsections (f) and (g) and inserting the
following:
``(f) Matching Funding.--
``(1) In general.--An organization eligible to receive a
grant under subsection (a) shall specify matching
contributions from any source other than a grant awarded
under this subtitle, that shall be made available in the
geographic area in an amount equal to not less than 25
percent of the funds provided for the project or activity,
except that grants for leasing shall not be subject to any
match requirement.
``(2) Limitations on in-kind match.--The cash value of
services provided to the beneficiaries or clients of an
eligible organization by an entity other than the
organization may count toward the contributions in paragraph
(1) only when documented by a memorandum of understanding
between the organization and the other entity that such
services will be provided.
``(3) Countable activities.--The contributions required
under paragraph (1) may consist of--
``(A) funding for any eligible activity described under
subsection (b); and
``(B) subject to paragraph (2), in-kind provision of
services of any eligible activity described under subsection
(b).
``(g) Selection Criteria.--The Secretary shall establish
criteria for selecting recipients of grants under subsection
(a), including--
``(1) the participation of potential beneficiaries of the
project in assessing the need for, and importance of, the
project in the community;
``(2) the degree to which the project addresses the most
harmful housing situations present in the community;
``(3) the degree of collaboration with others in the
community to meet the goals described in subsection (a);
``(4) the performance of the organization in improving
housing situations, taking account of the severity of
barriers of individuals and families served by the
organization;
``(5) for organizations that have previously received
funding under this section, the extent of improvement in
homelessness and the worst housing situations in the
community since such funding began;
``(6) the need for such funds, as determined by the formula
established under section 427(b)(2); and
``(7) any other relevant criteria as determined by the
Secretary.'';
(H) in subsection (h)--
(i) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by striking ``The'' and inserting ``Not later than 18
months after funding is first made available pursuant to the
amendments made by title IV of the Homeless Emergency
Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009,
the''; and
(ii) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``providing housing
and other assistance to homeless persons'' and inserting
``meeting the goals described in subsection (a)'';
(iii) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``address
homelessness in rural areas'' and inserting ``meet the goals
described in subsection (a) in rural areas''; and
(iv) in paragraph (2)--

(I) by striking ``The'' and inserting ``Not later than 24
months after funding is first made available pursuant to the
amendment made by title IV of the Homeless Emergency
Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009,
the'';
(II) by striking ``, not later than 18 months after the
date on which the Secretary first makes grants under the
program,''; and
(III) by striking ``prevent and respond to homelessness''
and inserting ``meet the goals described in subsection (a)'';

(I) in subsection (k)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``rural homelessness
grant program'' and inserting ``rural housing stability grant
program''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2)--

(I) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``; or'' and inserting
a semicolon;
(II) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``rural census
tract.'' and inserting ``county where at least 75 percent of
the population is rural; or''; and

[[Page 9957]]

(III) by adding at the end the following:

``(C) any area or community, respectively, located in a
State that has population density of less than 30 persons per
square mile (as reported in the most recent decennial
census), and of which at least 1.25 percent of the total
acreage of such State is under Federal jurisdiction, provided
that no metropolitan city (as such term is defined in section
102 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974) in
such State is the sole beneficiary of the grant amounts
awarded under this section.'';
(J) in subsection (l)--
(i) by striking the subsection heading and inserting
``Program Funding.--''; and
(ii) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall determine the total
amount of funding attributable under section 427(b)(2) to
meet the needs of any geographic area in the Nation that
applies for funding under this section. The Secretary shall
transfer any amounts determined under this subsection from
the Community Homeless Assistance Program and consolidate
such transferred amounts for grants under this section,
except that the Secretary shall transfer an amount not less
than 5 percent of the amount available under subtitle C for
grants under this section. Any amounts so transferred and not
used for grants under this section due to an insufficient
number of applications shall be transferred to be used for
grants under subtitle C.''; and
(K) by adding at the end the following:
``(m) Determination of Funding Source.--For any fiscal
year, in addition to funds awarded under subtitle B, funds
under this title to be used in a city or county shall only be
awarded under either subtitle C or subtitle D.''.

SEC. 402. GAO STUDY OF HOMELESSNESS AND HOMELESS ASSISTANCE
IN RURAL AREAS.

(a) Study and Report.--Not later than the expiration of the
12-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
conduct a study to examine homelessness and homeless
assistance in rural areas and rural communities and submit a
report to the Congress on the findings and conclusion of the
study. The report shall contain the following matters:
(1) A general description of homelessness, including the
range of living situations among homeless individuals and
homeless families, in rural areas and rural communities of
the United States, including tribal lands and colonias.
(2) An estimate of the incidence and prevalence of
homelessness among individuals and families in rural areas
and rural communities of the United States.
(3) An estimate of the number of individuals and families
from rural areas and rural communities who migrate annually
to non-rural areas and non-rural communities for homeless
assistance.
(4) A description of barriers that individuals and families
in and from rural areas and rural communities encounter when
seeking to access homeless assistance programs, and
recommendations for removing such barriers.
(5) A comparison of the rate of homelessness among
individuals and families in and from rural areas and rural
communities compared to the rate of homelessness among
individuals and families in and from non-rural areas and non-
rural communities.
(6) A general description of homeless assistance for
individuals and families in rural areas and rural communities
of the United States.
(7) A description of barriers that homeless assistance
providers serving rural areas and rural communities encounter
when seeking to access Federal homeless assistance programs,
and recommendations for removing such barriers.
(8) An assessment of the type and amount of Federal
homeless assistance funds awarded to organizations serving
rural areas and rural communities and a determination as to
whether such amount is proportional to the distribution of
homeless individuals and families in and from rural areas and
rural communities compared to homeless individuals and
families in non-rural areas and non-rural communities.
(9) An assessment of the current roles of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Agriculture,
and other Federal departments and agencies in administering
homeless assistance programs in rural areas and rural
communities and recommendations for distributing Federal
responsibilities, including homeless assistance program
administration and grantmaking, among the departments and
agencies so that service organizations in rural areas and
rural communities are most effectively reached and supported.
(b) Acquisition of Supporting Information.--In carrying out
the study under this section, the Comptroller General shall
seek to obtain views from the following persons:
(1) The Secretary of Agriculture.
(2) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
(3) The Secretary of Health and Human Services.
(4) The Secretary of Education.
(5) The Secretary of Labor.
(6) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
(7) The Executive Director of the United States Interagency
Council on Homelessness.
(8) Project sponsors and recipients of homeless assistance
grants serving rural areas and rural communities.
(9) Individuals and families in or from rural areas and
rural communities who have sought or are seeking Federal
homeless assistance services.
(10) National advocacy organizations concerned with
homelessness, rural housing, and rural community development.
(c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act.

TITLE V--REPEALS AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS

SEC. 501. REPEALS.

Subtitles D, E, and F of title IV of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11391 et seq., 11401 et
seq., and 11403 et seq.) are hereby repealed.

SEC. 502. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Consolidated Plan.--Section 403(1) of the McKinney-
Vento Homeless Assistance Act (as so redesignated by section
101(2) of this Act), is amended--
(1) by striking ``current housing affordability strategy''
and inserting ``consolidated plan''; and
(2) by inserting before the comma the following:
``(referred to in such section as a `comprehensive housing
affordability strategy')''.
(b) Persons Experiencing Homelessness.--Section 103 of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11302), as
amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is further
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Persons Experiencing Homelessness.--Any references in
this Act to homeless individuals (including homeless persons)
or homeless groups (including homeless persons) shall be
considered to include, and to refer to, individuals
experiencing homelessness or groups experiencing
homelessness, respectively.''.
(c) Rural Housing Stability Assistance.--Title IV of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act is amended by
redesignating subtitle G (42 U.S.C. 11408 et seq.), as
amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, as subtitle
D.

SEC. 503. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Except as specifically provided otherwise in this Act, this
Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on,
and shall apply beginning on--
(1) the expiration of the 18-month period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this Act, or
(2) the expiration of the 3-month period beginning upon
publication by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
of final regulations pursuant to section 504,

whichever occurs first.

SEC. 504. REGULATIONS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 12 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall promulgate regulations governing the
operation of the programs that are created or modified by
this Act.
(b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 505. AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents in section 101(b) of the McKinney-
Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11301 note) is
amended by striking the item relating to the heading for
title IV and all that follows through the item relating to
section 492 and inserting the following new items:

``TITLE IV--HOUSING ASSISTANCE

``Subtitle A--General Provisions

``Sec. 401. Definitions.
``Sec. 402. Collaborative applicants.
``Sec. 403. Housing affordability strategy.
``Sec. 404. Preventing involuntary family separation
``Sec. 405. Technical assistance.
``Sec. 406. Discharge coordination policy.
``Sec. 407. Protection of personally identifying information by victim
service providers.
``Sec. 408. Authorization of appropriations.

``Subtitle B--Emergency Solutions Grants Program

``Sec. 411. Definitions.
``Sec. 412. Grant assistance.
``Sec. 413. Amount and allocation of assistance.
``Sec. 414. Allocation and distribution of assistance.
``Sec. 415. Eligible activities.
``Sec. 416. Responsibilities of recipients.
``Sec. 417. Administrative provisions.
``Sec. 418. Administrative costs.

``Subtitle C--Continuum of Care Program

``Sec. 421. Purposes.
``Sec. 422. Continuum of care applications and grants.
``Sec. 423. Eligible activities.
``Sec. 424. Incentives for high-performing communities.
``Sec. 425. Supportive services.
``Sec. 426. Program requirements.
``Sec. 427. Selection criteria.
``Sec. 428. Allocation of amounts and incentives for specific eligible
activities.

[[Page 9958]]

``Sec. 429. Renewal funding and terms of assistance for permanent
housing.
``Sec. 430. Matching funding.
``Sec. 431. Appeal procedure.
``Sec. 432. Regulations.
``Sec. 433. Reports to Congress.

``Subtitle D--Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program

``Sec. 491. Rural housing stability assistance.
``Sec. 492. Use of FHMA inventory for transitional housing for homeless
persons and for turnkey housing.''.
______

By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
S. 812. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make
permanent the special rule for contributions of qualified conservation
contributions; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural
Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2009, along with my good friend,
Senator Grassley from Iowa.
As we all know, the country, including my home State of Montana, is
losing precious agricultural and ranch lands at a record pace. While
providing Montana and the Nation with the highest quality food and
fiber, these farms and ranches also provide habitat for wildlife and
the open spaces, land that many of us take for granted and assume will
always be there. Conservation easements have been tremendously
successful in preserving open space and wildlife habitat. Montana has
begun to recognize the importance of using conservation easements to
preserve these lands. We currently have more than 1.5 million acres
covered by conservation easements. To some, that may seem like a large
amount, but this is Montana, a State that covers 93,583,532 acres.
To assure that open space and habitat will be there for future
generations, we must help our hardworking farmers and ranchers preserve
this precious heritage and their way-of-life. The Congress recognized
this by providing targeted income tax relief to small farmers and
ranchers who wish to make a charitable contribution of a qualified
conservation easement. The provision allows eligible farmers and
ranchers to increase the amounts of deduction that may be taken
currently for charitable contributions of qualified conservation
easements by raising the Adjusted Gross Income, AGI, limitations to 100
percent and extending the carryover period from 5 years to 15 years. In
the case of all landowners, the AGI limitation was raised from 30
percent to 50 percent. This provision will expire at the end of this
year.
The number of acres protected and easements held by state and local
land trusts has grown as a result of this incentive. According to the
Land Trust Alliance, America's Land Trusts protected 535,000 more acres
with conservation easements in the first two years with the new tax
incentive than in the previous two years, a 36 percent increase. In
2006 and 2007, land trusts added over 6,000 easements, about 2,000 more
than the 2 years before the incentive.
The Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2009 would make this
allowable deduction permanent, building on the success of conservation
easements. Our farmers and ranchers will be able to preserve their
important agricultural and ranching lands for future generations, while
continuing to operate their businesses. Landowners, conservationists,
the Federal Government, and local communities are working together to
preserve our precious natural resources.
This legislation is vitally important to Montana, and to every other
State in the Nation.
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. 812

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 ``Rural Heritage Conservation
Extension Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. SPECIAL RULE FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF QUALIFIED
CONSERVATION CONTRIBUTIONS MADE PERMANENT.

(a) In General.--
(1) Individuals.--Subparagraph (E) of section 170(b)(1) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to contributions
of qualified conservation contributions) is amended by
striking clause (vi).
(2) Corporations.--Subparagraph (B) of section 170(b)(2) of
such Code (relating to qualified conservation contributions)
is amended by striking clause (iii).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Menendez):
S. 815. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to exempt
surviving spouses of United States citizens from the numerical
limitations described in section 201 of such Act; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the Immigration and Nationality
Act, INA, imposes what has become known as the ``widow penalty,''
requiring the deportation of individuals whose pending applications for
green cards are rejected because their citizen spouse died within the
first two years of marriage. Today, joined by Senators Durbin,
Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry and Menendez, I am introducing the Fairness
to Surviving Spouses Act of 2009. My bill will amend the INA to remedy
this unintended and unjustified administrative procedure.
This legislation is needed because, under current law, when a US
citizen marries a non-citizen, the non-citizen is eligible to become a
legal permanent resident and receive a green card. During the first two
years of marriage, the only way this can be accomplished is through a
petition that the citizen files on the non-citizen spouse's behalf. The
non-citizen cannot self-petition for legal permanent resident status
during this time.
If, however, the citizen spouse dies while the petition, through no
fault of the couple, remains pending--and delays in the process are
often caused due to bureaucratic delay--the petition automatically is
denied, and the non-citizen is immediately deemed ineligible for legal
permanent residence and therefore becomes deportable. This is the case
even if ample evidence of a bona fide marriage, such as cohabitation,
and shared finances, exists. It is even the case if a couple had a U.S.
born child.
Because of the widow penalty, law-abiding and well-intentioned widows
who have played by the rules face immediate deportation. During the
110th Congress, efforts to persuade the US Citizenship and Immigration
Services, CIS, to address the issue administratively were unsuccessful.
In the current administration, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet
Napolitano has directed that the Department of Homeland Security review
a number of immigration issues, including the widow penalty. Although
this review is welcome, there is some question regarding the
Secretary's authority to end the penalty administratively. That is why
a clean legislative fix is needed, as scores of women and children face
immediate deportation today.
There have been more than 200 widow penalty victims throughout the
country, including a woman whose husband died while serving overseas as
a contractor in Iraq; a woman whose husband died trying to rescue
people who were drowning in the San Francisco Bay; a woman whose
husband was killed while on duty with the U.S. Border Patrol; and a
woman who was apprehended by Federal agents when she went to meet with
immigration authorities to plead her case, placed in shackles, and sent
to a detention facility.
The widow penalty has received national extensive national media
attention, including from 60 Minutes, which profiled Raquel Williams, a
widow who lives with her in-laws in Orlando, in a segment entitled,
``For Better or For Worse--A Loss of Love and Country.'' After she was
deemed deportable following the sudden death of her husband from sleep
apnea and heart problems, Ms. Williams and her in-laws have been
telling their story to raise awareness about this issue.

[[Page 9959]]

The harsh and unfair widow penalty can be eliminated by allowing the
petition to be adjudicated even though the citizen spouse has died. The
proposed legislation affects only a small group of individuals who
still would be required to demonstrate that they had a bona fide
marriage before receiving a green card. Thus, USCIS would retain the
discretion to deny petitions, but they would no longer deny them
automatically in response to the death of the citizen spouse.
Today, Rep. Jim McGovern is introducing identical legislation in the
House. His bill passed out of the House Judiciary Committee during the
110th Congress with bipartisan support, including from Republicans who
led the charge against comprehensive immigration reform. The widows who
face deportation today should not be forced to wait for the Congress to
take up comprehensive immigration reform. This legislation is needed
now because it simply corrects an arbitrary and unjust sanction, one
which would never have occurred but for the Government's failure to act
more in a more timely manner and the unfortunate fact that the citizen
spouse died before the couple's second anniversary.
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. 815

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RELIEF FOR SURVIVING SPOUSES.

(a) In General.--The second sentence of section
201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)) is amended by inserting ``(or, if
married to such citizen for less than 2 years at the time of
the citizen's death, an alien who proves by a preponderance
of the evidence that the marriage was entered into in good
faith and not solely for the purpose of obtaining an
immigration benefit)'' after ``for at least 2 years at the
time of the citizen's death''.
(b) Applicability.--
(1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall
apply to all applications and petitions relating to immediate
relative status under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i))
pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Transition cases.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, an alien described in subparagraph (B) who seeks
immediate relative status pursuant to the amendment made by
subsection (a) shall file a petition under section
204(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(ii)) not later than the date that is 2
years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(B) Aliens described.--An alien is described in this
subparagraph if--
(i) the alien's United States citizen spouse died before
the date of the enactment of this Act;
(ii) the alien and the citizen spouse were married for less
than 2 years at the time of the citizen spouse's death; and
(iii) the alien has not remarried.
______

By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Merkley, and Mr. Begich):
S. 817. A bill to establish a Salmon Stronghold Partnership program
to conserve wild Pacific salmon and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pacific
Salmon Stronghold Conservation Act of 2009, together with my colleague
from Alaska Senator Murkowski. I am grateful for all the input and
collaboration from key stakeholders in Washington State that I have
received on this legislation. I am especially grateful for the input
from the Quileute Tribe, the Wild Salmon Center, and Bill Ruckelshaus.
Wild Pacific salmon are central to the culture, economy, and
environment of western North America. While current Federal, State, and
local salmon recovery efforts are focused on recovering salmon listed
under the Endangered Species Act, ESA, seeking to restore what we've
lost--the Salmon Stronghold Act seeks to protect what we have. Current
efforts to recover threatened or endangered salmon stocks are vital.
This is why I have consistently fought for increased funding for the
Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund, PCSRF, and will continue to proudly
do so.
The PCSRF, since its inception in 2000, has allowed my home State of
Washington to focus the efforts of counties and conservation districts,
on average, to remove 300 barriers to fish passage and to open 300
miles of habitat each year. That's 2,400 barriers removed and 2,400
miles of habitat restored. In 2008, for every Federal dollar spent on
this program it leveraged about $2 local and State dollars.
I will continue the fight to protect this salmon recovery funding.
But more must be done. A key purpose of this act is to complement
existing Federal, State and local salmon recovery efforts by directing
new Federal resources to conserve healthy salmon populations. This
legislation will utilize sound science to identify and sustain core
centers of salmon abundance, productivity, and diversity in the
healthiest remaining salmon ecosystems throughout the Pacific States.
This bill establishes a new regional Salmon Stronghold Partnership
program that provides federal support and resources to protect a
network of the healthiest remaining wild Pacific salmon ecosystems in
North America. The bill promotes enhanced coordination and cooperation
of Federal, tribal, State and local governments, public and private
land managers, fisheries managers, power authorities, and non-
governmental organizations in efforts to protect salmon strongholds.
It is time to increase funding for recovery efforts, but also focus
on prevention. It is time to adopt the kind of comprehensive solution
that can solidify the place wild Pacific salmon hold in American
culture for generations to come.
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. 817

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Pacific
Salmon Stronghold Conservation Act of 2009''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings; purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Salmon Stronghold Partnership.
Sec. 5. Information and assessment.
Sec. 6. Salmon stronghold watershed grants and technical assistance
program.
Sec. 7. Interagency cooperation.
Sec. 8. International cooperation.
Sec. 9. Acquisition and transfer of real property interests.
Sec. 10. Administrative provisions.
Sec. 11. Limitations.
Sec. 12. Reports to Congress.
Sec. 13. Authorization of appropriations.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Several species of salmon native to the rivers of the
United States are highly migratory, interacting with salmon
originating from Canada, Japan, Russia, and South Korea and
spending portions of their life history outside of the
territorial waters of the United States. Recognition of the
migratory and transboundary nature of salmon species has led
countries of the North Pacific to seek enhanced coordination
and cooperation through multilateral and bi-lateral
agreements.
(2) Salmon are a keystone species, sustaining more than 180
other species in freshwater and marine ecosystems. They are
also an indicator of ecosystem health and potential impacts
of climate change.
(3) Salmon are a central part of the culture, economy, and
environment of Western North America.
(4) Economic activities relating to salmon generate
billions of dollars of economic activity and provide
thousands of jobs.
(5) During the anticipated rapid environmental change
during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act, maintaining key ecosystem processes and functions,
population abundance, and genetic integrity will be vital to
ensuring the health of salmon populations.
(6) Salmon strongholds provide critical production zones
for commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries.
(7) Taking into consideration the frequency with which
fisheries have collapsed

[[Page 9960]]

during the period preceding the date of the enactment of this
Act, using scientific research to correctly identify and
conserve core centers of abundance, productivity, and
diversity is vital to sustain salmon populations and
fisheries in the future.
(8) Measures being undertaken as of the date of the
enactment of this Act to recover threatened or endangered
salmon stocks, including Federal, State, and local programs
to restore salmon habitat, are vital. These measures will be
complemented and enhanced by identifying and sustaining core
centers of abundance, productivity, and diversity in the
healthiest remaining salmon ecosystems throughout the range
of salmon species.
(9) The effects of climate change are affecting salmon
habitat at all life history stages and future habitat
conservation must consider climate change projections to
safeguard natural systems under future climate conditions.
(10) Greater coordination between public and private
entities can assist salmon strongholds by marshaling and
focusing resources on scientifically-supported, high priority
conservation actions.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to expand Federal support and resources for the
protection and restoration of the healthiest remaining salmon
strongholds in North America to sustain core centers of
salmon abundance, productivity, and diversity in order to
ensure the long-term viability of salmon populations--
(A) in the States of California, Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington, by focusing resources on cooperative, incentive-
based efforts to conserve the roughly 20 percent of salmon
habitat that supports approximately two-thirds of salmon
abundance; and
(B) in the State of Alaska, a regional stronghold that
produces more than one-third of all salmon, by increasing
resources available to public and private organizations
working cooperatively to conserve regional core centers of
salmon abundance and diversity;
(2) to maintain and enhance economic benefits related to
fishing or associated with healthy salmon stronghold
habitats, including flood protection, recreation, water
quantity and quality, carbon sequestration, climate change
mitigation and adaptation, and other ecosystem services; and
(3) to complement and add to existing Federal, State, and
local salmon recovery efforts by using sound science to
identify and sustain core centers of salmon abundance,
productivity, and diversity in the healthiest remaining
salmon ecosystems throughout their range.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Assistant Administrator for the National Marine Fisheries
Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
(2) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Salmon Stronghold
Partnership Board established under section 4.
(3) Charter.--The term ``charter'' means the charter of the
Board developed under section 4(g).
(4) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
(5) Ecosystem services.--The term ``ecosystem services''
means an ecological benefit generated from a healthy,
functioning ecosystem, including clean water, pollutant
filtration, regulation of river flow, prevention of soil
erosion, regulation of climate, and fish production.
(6) Program.--Except as otherwise provided, the term
``program'' means the salmon stronghold watershed grants and
technical assistance program established under section 6(a).
(7) Salmon.--The term ``salmon'' means any of the wild
anadromous Oncorhynchus species that occur in the Western
United States, including--
(A) chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta);
(B) pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha);
(C) sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka);
(D) chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha);
(E) coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch); and
(F) steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
(8) Salmon stronghold.--The term ``salmon stronghold''
means all or part of a watershed or that meets biological
criteria for abundance, productivity, diversity (life history
and run timing), habitat quality, or other biological
attributes important to sustaining viable populations of
salmon throughout their range, as defined by the Board.
(9) Salmon stronghold partnership.--The term ``Salmon
Stronghold Partnership'' means the Salmon Stronghold
Partnership established under section 4(a)(1).
(10) Secretary.--Except as otherwise provided, the term
``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Commerce.

SEC. 4. SALMON STRONGHOLD PARTNERSHIP.

(a) In General.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a Salmon
Stronghold Partnership that is a cooperative, incentive-
based, public-private partnership among appropriate Federal,
State, tribal, and local governments, private landowners, and
nongovernmental organizations working across political
boundaries, government jurisdictions, and land ownerships to
identify and conserve salmon strongholds.
(2) Membership.--To the extent possible, the membership of
the Salmon Stronghold Partnership shall include each entity
described under subsection (b).
(3) Leadership.--The Salmon Stronghold Partnership shall be
managed by a Board established by the Secretary to be known
as the Salmon Stronghold Partnership Board.
(b) Salmon Stronghold Partnership Board.--
(1) In general.--The Board shall consist of representatives
with strong scientific or technical credentials and expertise
as follows:
(A) 1 representative from each of--
(i) the National Marine Fisheries Service, as appointed by
the Administrator;
(ii) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, as
appointed by the Director;
(iii) the Forest Service, as appointed by the Chief of the
Forest Service;
(iv) the Environmental Protection Agency, as appointed by
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
(v) the Bonneville Power Administration, as appointed by
the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration;
(vi) the Bureau of Land Management, as appointed by the
Director of the Bureau of Land Management; and
(vii) the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, as
appointed by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council.
(B) 1 representative from the natural resources staff of
the office of the Governor or of an appropriate natural
resource agency of a State, as appointed by the Governor,
from each of the States of--
(i) Alaska;
(ii) California;
(iii) Idaho;
(iv) Oregon; and
(v) Washington.
(C) Not less than 3 and not more than 5 representatives
from Indian tribes or tribal commissions located within the
range of a salmon species, as appointed by such Indian tribes
or tribal commissions, in consultation with the Board.
(D) 1 representative from each of 3 non-governmental
organizations with salmon conservation and management
expertise, as selected by the Board.
(E) 1 national or regional representative from an
association of counties, as selected by the Board.
(F) Representatives of other entities with significant
resources regionally dedicated to the protection of salmon
ecosystems that the Board determines are appropriate, as
selected by the Board.
(2) Failure to appoint.--If a representative described in
subparagraph (B), (C), (D), (E), or (F) of paragraph (1) is
not appointed to the Board or otherwise fails to participate
in the Board, the Board shall carry out its functions until
such representative is appointed or joins in such
participation.
(c) Meetings.--
(1) Frequency.--Not less frequently than 3 times each year,
the Board shall meet to provide opportunities for input from
a broader set of stakeholders.
(2) Notice.--Prior to each meeting, the Board shall give
timely notice of the meeting to the public, the government of
each county, and tribal government in which a salmon
stronghold is identified by the Board.
(d) Board Consultation.--The Board shall seek expertise
from fisheries experts from agencies, colleges, or
universities, as appropriate.
(e) Chairperson.--The Board shall nominate and select a
Chairperson from among the members of the Board.
(f) Committees.--The Board--
(1) shall establish a standing science advisory committee
to assist the Board in the development, collection,
evaluation, and peer review of statistical, biological,
economic, social, and other scientific information; and
(2) may establish additional standing or ad hoc committees
as the Board determines are necessary.
(g) Charter.--The Board shall develop a written charter
that--
(1) provides for the members of the Board described in
subsection (b);
(2) may be signed by a broad range of partners, to reflect
a shared understanding of the purposes, intent, and
governance framework of the Salmon Stronghold Partnership;
and
(3) includes--
(A) the defining criteria for a salmon stronghold;
(B) the process for identifying salmon strongholds; and
(C) the process for reviewing and awarding grants under the
program, including--
(i) the number of years for which such a grant may be
awarded;
(ii) the process for renewing such a grant;
(iii) the eligibility requirements for such a grant;
(iv) the reporting requirements for projects awarded such a
grant; and
(v) the criteria for evaluating the success of a project
carried out with such a grant.

[[Page 9961]]

(h) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Board.

SEC. 5. INFORMATION AND ASSESSMENT.

The Administrator shall carry out specific information and
assessment functions associated with salmon strongholds, in
coordination with other regional salmon efforts, including--
(1) triennial assessment of status and trends in salmon
strongholds;
(2) geographic information system and mapping support to
facilitate conservation planning;
(3) projections of climate change impacts on all habitats
and life history stages of salmon;
(4) development and application of models and other tools
to identify salmon conservation actions projected to have the
greatest positive impacts on salmon abundance, productivity,
or diversity within salmon strongholds; and
(5) measurement of the effectiveness of the Salmon
Stronghold Partnership activities.

SEC. 6. SALMON STRONGHOLD WATERSHED GRANTS AND TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--The Administrator, in consultation with
the Director, shall establish a salmon stronghold watershed
grants and technical assistance program, as described in this
section.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the program shall be to
support salmon stronghold protection and restoration
activities, including--
(1) to fund the administration of the Salmon Stronghold
Partnership in carrying out the charter;
(2) to encourage cooperation among the entities represented
on the Board, local authorities, and private entities to
establish a network of salmon strongholds, and assist locally
in specific actions that support the Salmon Stronghold
Partnership;
(3) to support entities represented on the Board--
(A) to develop strategies focusing on salmon conservation
actions projected to have the greatest positive impacts on
abundance, productivity, or diversity in salmon strongholds;
and
(B) to provide financial assistance to the Salmon
Stronghold Partnership to increase local economic
opportunities and resources for actions or practices that
provide long-term or permanent conservation and that maintain
key ecosystem services in salmon strongholds, including--
(i) payments for ecosystem services; and
(ii) demonstration projects designed for specific salmon
strongholds;
(4) to maintain a forum to share best practices and
approaches, employ consistent and comparable metrics,
forecast and address climate impacts, and monitor, evaluate,
and report regional status and trends of salmon ecosystems in
coordination with related regional and State efforts;
(5) to carry out activities and existing conservation
programs in, and across, salmon strongholds on a regional
scale to achieve the goals of the Salmon Stronghold
Partnership;
(6) to accelerate the implementation of recovery plans in
salmon strongholds that have salmon populations listed as
threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);
(7) to develop and make information available to the public
pertaining to the Salmon Stronghold Partnership; and
(8) to conduct education outreach to the public, in
coordination with other programs, to encourage increased
stewardship of salmon strongholds.
(c) Selection.--Projects that will be carried out with
assistance from the program shall be selected and
administered as follows:
(1) Site-based projects.--A project that will be carried
out with assistance from the program within 1 State shall be
selected as follows:
(A) State selection.--If a State has a competitive grant
process relating to salmon conservation in effect as of the
date of enactment of this Act and has a proven record of
implementing an efficient, cost-effective, and competitive
grant program for salmon conservation or has a viable plan to
provide accountability under the program--
(i) the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, in
consultation with the Board, shall provide program funds to
the State; and
(ii) the State shall select and administer projects to be
carried out in such State, in accordance with subsection (d).
(B) National fish and wildlife foundation selection.--If a
State does not meet the criteria described in subparagraph
(A)--
(i) the Administrator, in consultation with the Director,
shall provide funds to the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation; and
(ii) the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, in
consultation with the Board, shall select and administer
projects to be carried out in such State, in accordance with
subsection (d).
(2) Multisite and programmatic initiatives.--For a project
that will be carried out with assistance from the program in
more than 1 State or that is a programmatic initiative that
affect more than 1 State--
(A) the Administrator, in consultation with the Director,
shall provide funds to the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation; and
(B) the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, in
consultation with the Board, shall select and administer such
projects to be carried out, in accordance with subsection
(d).
(d) Criteria for Approval.--
(1) Criteria developed by the board.--
(A) Requirement to develop.--The Board shall develop and
provide criteria for the prioritization of projects funded
under the program in a manner that enables projects to be
individually ranked in sequential order by the magnitude of
the project's positive impacts on salmon abundance,
productivity, or diversity.
(B) Specific requirements.--The criteria required by
subparagraph (A) shall require that a project that receives
assistance under the program--
(i) contributes to the conservation of salmon;
(ii) meets the criteria for eligibility established in the
charter;
(iii)(I) addresses a factor limiting or threatening to
limit abundance, productivity, diversity, habitat quality, or
other biological attributes important to sustaining viable
salmon populations within a salmon stronghold; or
(II) is a programmatic action that supports the Salmon
Stronghold Partnership;
(iv) addresses limiting factors to healthy ecosystem
processes or sustainable fisheries management;
(v) has the potential for conservation benefits and broadly
applicable results; and
(vi) meets the requirements for--

(I) cost sharing described in subsection (e); and
(II) the limitation on administrative expenses described in
subsection (f).

(C) Schedule for development.--The Board shall--
(i) develop and provide the criteria required by
subparagraph (A) prior to the initial solicitation of
projects under the program; and
(ii) revise such criteria not less often than once each
year.
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Federal share.--
(A) Non-federal land.--For any fiscal year, the Federal
share of the cost of a project that receives assistance under
the program and that is carried out on land that is not owned
by the United States shall not exceed 50 percent of the total
cost of the project.
(B) Federal land.--For any fiscal year, the Federal share
of the cost of a project that receives assistance under the
program and that is carried out on land that is owned by the
United States, including the acquisition of inholdings, may
be up to 100 percent of the total cost of the project.
(2) Non-federal share.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the non-
Federal share of the cost of a project that receives
assistance under the program may not be derived from Federal
grant programs, but may include in-kind contributions.
(B) Bonneville power administration.--Any amounts provided
by the Bonneville Power Administration directly or through a
grant to another entity used to carry out a project that
receives assistance under the program shall be credited
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project.
(f) Administrative Expenses.--Of the amount available to a
State or the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation under the
program for each fiscal year, such State and the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation shall not expend more than 5
percent of such amount for administrative and reporting
expenses necessary to carry out this section.
(g) Reports.--
(1) Reports to states or nfwf.--Each person who receives
assistance through a State or the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation under the program for a project shall provide
periodic reports to the State or the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation, as appropriate, that includes the
information required by the State or the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation to evaluate the progress and success of
the project.
(2) Reports to the administration.--Not less frequently
than once every 3 years, each State that is provided program
funds under subsection (c)(1)(A) and the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation shall provide reports to the
Administrator that include the information required by the
Administrator to evaluate the implementation of the program.

SEC. 7. INTERAGENCY COOPERATION.

The head of each Federal agency or department responsible
for acquiring, managing, or disposing of Federal land that is
within a salmon stronghold shall, to the extent consistent
with the mission of the agency or department and existing
law, cooperate with the Administrator and the Director--
(1) to conserve the salmon strongholds; and
(2) to effectively coordinate and streamline Salmon
Stronghold Partnership activities and delivery of
overlapping, incentive-based programs that affect the salmon
stronghold.

SEC. 8. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

(a) Authority To Cooperate.--The Administrator and the
Board may share status and trends data, innovative
conservation strategies, conservation planning methodologies,

[[Page 9962]]

and other information with North Pacific countries, including
Canada, Japan, Russia, and South Korea, and appropriate
international entities to promote conservation of salmon and
salmon habitat.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Administrator and the Board, or entities that are members
of the Board, should and are encouraged to provide
information to North Pacific countries, including Canada,
Japan, Russia, and South Korea, and appropriate international
entities to support the development of a network of salmon
strongholds across the nations of the North Pacific.

SEC. 9. ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS.

(a) Use of Real Property.--No project that will result in
the acquisition by the Secretary or the Secretary of the
Interior of any land or interest in land, in whole or in
part, may receive funds under this Act unless the project is
consistent with the purposes of this Act.
(b) Private Property Protection.--No Federal funds made
available to carry out this Act may be used to acquire any
real property or any interest in any real property without
the written consent of the 1 or more owners of the property
or interest in property.
(c) Transfer of Real Property.--No land or interest in
land, acquired in whole or in part by the Secretary of the
Interior with Federal funds made available under this Act to
carry out a salmon stronghold conservation project may be
transferred to a State, other public agency, or other entity
unless--
(1) the Secretary of the Interior determines that the
State, agency, or entity is committed to manage, in
accordance with this Act and the purposes of this Act, the
property being transferred; and
(2) the deed or other instrument of transfer contains
provisions for the reversion of the title to the property to
the United States if the State, agency, or entity fails to
manage the property in accordance with this Act and the
purposes of this Act.
(d) Requirement.--Any real property interest conveyed under
subsection (c) shall be subject to such terms and conditions
as will ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that the
interest will be administered in accordance with this Act and
the purposes of this Act.

SEC. 10. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

(a) Contracts, Grants, and Transfers of Funds.--In carrying
out this Act, the Secretary may--
(1) consistent with a recommendation of the Board and
notwithstanding sections 6304 and 6305 of title 31, United
States Code, and the Federal Financial Assistance Management
Improvement Act of 1999 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note; Public Law 106-
107), enter into cooperative agreements, contracts, and
grants;
(2) notwithstanding any other provision of law, apply for,
accept, and use grants from any person to carry out the
purposes of this Act; and
(3) make funds available to any Federal agency or
department to be used by the agency or department to award
financial assistance for any salmon stronghold protection,
restoration, or enhancement project that the Secretary
determines to be consistent with this Act.
(b) Donations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may--
(A) enter into an agreement with any organization described
in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
authorize the organization to carry out activities under this
Act; and
(B) accept donations of funds or services for use in
carrying out this Act.
(2) Property.--The Secretary of the Interior may accept
donations of property for use in carrying out this Act.
(3) Use of donations.--Donations accepted under this
section--
(A) shall be considered to be gifts or bequests to, or for
the use of, the United States; and
(B) may be used directly by the Secretary (or, in the case
of donated property under paragraph (2), the Secretary of the
Interior) or provided to other Federal agencies or
departments through interagency agreements.
(c) Interagency Financing.--The Secretary may participate
in interagency financing, including receiving appropriated
funds from other agencies or departments to carry out this
Act.
(d) Staff.--Subject to the availability of appropriations,
the Administrator may hire such additional full-time
employees as are necessary to carry out this Act.

SEC. 11. LIMITATIONS.

Nothing in this Act may be construed--
(1) to create a reserved water right, express or implied,
in the United States for any purpose, or affect the
management or priority of water rights under State law;
(2) to affect existing water rights under Federal or State
law;
(3) to affect any Federal or State law in existence on the
date of enactment of this Act regarding water quality or
water quantity;
(4) to affect the authority, jurisdiction, or
responsibility of any agency or department of the United
States or of a State to manage, control, or regulate fish and
resident wildlife under a Federal or State law or regulation;
(5) to authorize the Secretary or the Secretary of the
Interior to control or regulate hunting or fishing under
State law;
(6) to abrogate, abridge, affect, modify, supersede, or
otherwise alter any right of a federally recognized Indian
tribe under any applicable Federal or tribal law or
regulation; or
(7) to diminish or affect the ability of the Secretary or
the Secretary of the Interior to join the adjudication of
rights to the use of water pursuant to subsections (a), (b),
or (c) of section 208 of the Department of Justice
Appropriation Act, 1953 (43 U.S.C. 666).

SEC. 12. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

Not less frequently than once every 3 years, the
Administrator, in consultation with the Director, shall
submit to Congress a report describing the activities carried
out under this Act, including the recommendations of the
Administrator, if any, for legislation relating to the Salmon
Stronghold Partnership.

SEC. 13. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Grants.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
the Administrator, to be distributed by the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation as a fiscal agent, to provide grants
under the program, $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009
through 2013.
(2) Board.--The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
shall, from the amount appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations in paragraph (1), make
available sufficient funds to the Board to carry out its
duties under this Act.
(b) Technical Assistance.--For each of fiscal years 2009
through 2013, there is authorized to be appropriated to the
Administrator $300,000 to provide technical assistance under
the program and to carry out section 5.
(c) Availability of Funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant
to an authorization of appropriations in this section are
authorized to remain available until expended.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Burr, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Hatch,
and Mrs. Murray):
S. 818. A bill to reauthorize the Enhancing Education Through
Technology Act of 2001, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators
Burr, Kennedy, Hatch and Murray to introduce the Achievement Through
Technology and Innovation, ATTAIN, Act of 2009.
This bill would amend title II of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to rename part D, Achievement through Technology
and Innovation, and reauthorize it through FY2014. I am very pleased
that ATTAIN is supported by the Consortium for School Networking,
International Society for Technology and Education, Software and
Information Industry Association, State Educational Technology
Directors Association, and many other education groups.
In 2002, Congress enacted the No Child Left Behind Act to close the
achievement gap between low-income, underperforming students and their
more affluent peers. Without a renewed dedication to the quality of
programs used in our schools, this goal, as well as providing an
excellent education for students, will be difficult to achieve. While
there is no question that we have made progress in recent years in
advancing educational opportunity, I remain concerned about the number
of schools that are failing to meet the performance criteria set out in
the No Child Left Behind Act.
The bill I am introducing represents a critical step forward in
advancing learning technologies for millions of students across the
country. Many schools lack the resources necessary for the 21st century
classroom and to meet the needs and expectations of today's students.
Furthermore, technology and e-learning in our schools are a must if we
are to meet our Nation's science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics education needs and to provide students with the skills
necessary to succeed in the 21st century knowledge-based, global
economy.
By authorizing the Enhancing Education Through Technology Act, EETT,
as part of NCLB, Congress recognized that Federal leadership and
investment is needed to serve as a catalyst for State and local
education initiatives aimed at school innovation and improved student
achievement. EETT has shown to be effective, particularly in my home
State of New Mexico. As you know, many schools often do not have access
to learning resources that enable their students to gain an academic
background with the technological skills and knowledge

[[Page 9963]]

necessary to succeed in college or the modern workplace. Through EETT,
programs such as the Online Teaching and Learning Opportunities Year 2,
have become bright spots of opportunity in some of our Nation's most
isolated communities and have brought technical training, professional
development and advanced technology resources to teachers and students.
Notwithstanding this record of success, it is critical that states such
as New Mexico have the opportunity to further advance the use of
learning technologies to deliver innovative instruction and curriculum.
To this end, the ATTAIN Act has three main objectives. First, to
ensure that through technology every student has access to
individualized, rigorous, and relevant learning to meet the goals of
NCLB and to prepare all students for the 21st century. Second, to build
upon and increase the use of evidence-based and innovative systemic
school redesign that centers around technology. And finally, to provide
meaningful professional development around technology that leads to
changes in teaching and curriculum and improves student technology
literacy.
The future of our students' success depends on the quality of their
educational experience. I want to thank Senators Burr, Kennedy, Hatch,
and Murray for their leadership and commitment to improving education
in this country. They remain tireless advocates for our Nation's
students, and I am pleased to be working with them on this legislation
as we begin reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act.
This legislation is an integral step in advancing State and local
learning technologies for millions of students across the country, and
I urge 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. 818

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION.

Part D of title II of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6751 et seq.) is amended to
read as follows:

``PART D--ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION

``SEC. 2401. SHORT TITLE.

``This part may be cited as the `Achievement Through
Technology and Innovation Act of 2009' or the `ATTAIN Act'.

``SEC. 2402. FINDINGS, PURPOSES, AND GOALS.

``(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
``(1) Learning technologies in our Nation's schools are
critical--
``(A) to meet the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 of raising student achievement, closing the achievement
gap, and ensuring high-quality teaching; and
``(B) to ensure that our Nation's students are prepared to
compete in the 21st century knowledge-based global economy.
``(2) Increased professional development opportunities are
needed if teachers are to be highly qualified and effective
in a 21st century classroom with today's digital native
students, including professional development opportunities--
``(A) in the use of learning technologies to deliver
innovative instruction and curriculum; and
``(B) to use data to inform instruction.
``(3) Scientifically based research, conducted with Federal
funding, demonstrates that systemic redesign initiatives
centered around technology have shown great promise in
improving teaching and learning, including the following:
``(A) In Utah, Missouri, and Maine, the eMINTS program
provides schools and teachers with educational technology
tools, curriculum, and more than 200 hours of professional
development to change how teachers teach and students learn.
In classrooms in the same school (1 with eMINTS and 1
without), the student achievement of students in the eMINTS
classroom was repeatedly over 10 percent higher than the
control classroom.
``(B) In West Virginia, students receiving access to online
foreign language courses performed at least as well as
students in face-to-face versions of the classes, providing
comparable high-quality instruction for students in rural
areas who otherwise would not have access to such courses.
``(C) In Michigan's Freedom to Learn technology program,
proficiency on Michigan Education Assessment Program (MEAP)
tests of 8th grade mathematics increased from 31 percent in
2004 to 63 percent in 2005 in 1 middle school, and science
achievement increased from 68 percent of students proficient
in 2003 to 80 percent in 2004.
``(D) In Texas, the Technology Immersion Pilot (TIP),
implemented in middle schools, demonstrated that discipline
referrals went down by more than \1/2\ with the changes in
teaching and learning; while in 1 school, the percentage of
6th graders who passed the reading portion of the 2006 State
assessment (TAKS) test was up 17 points from 2004, and the
percentage of 7th graders who passed the mathematics portion
of the TAKS rose 13 points. The students participating in the
Technology Immersion Pilot have become more responsible for
their learning, more engaged in the classroom, and much more
knowledgeable about the role of technology in problem solving
and learning.
``(E) In Iowa, after connecting teachers with sustainable
professional development and technology-based curriculum
interventions, students taught by such teachers had scores
that increased by 14 points in 8th grade mathematics, 16
points in 4th grade mathematics, and 13 points in 4th grade
reading compared with control groups.
``(4) Technology and e-learning in our Nation's schools are
necessary to meet our Nation's science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education needs and to
provide students with 21st century skills, including
technology literacy, information literacy, communication
skills, problem solving skills, and the ability for self-
directed life-long learning.
``(5) A 2003 Department of Commerce report credits United
States industry's investments in information technology
between 1989 and 2001 with `producing positive and probably
lasting changes in the Nation's economic potential', but
finds United States education last in intensity of
information technology in 55 industry sectors.
``(6) Many of our Nation's schools lack the resources
necessary for the 21st century classroom and to meet the
needs and expectations of today's digital native students,
including--
``(A) software, digital content, and broadband resources;
and
``(B) other technologies.
``(7) According to the Department of Education's National
Educational Technology Trends Study (NETTS 2007),
insufficient or outdated technology presented a substantial
barrier to technology use for teaching and learning for more
than 40 percent of students, while the lack of support
specialists was a barrier to technology use for more than 50
percent of students.
``(8) Federal leadership and investment is needed to serve
as a catalyst for State and local education initiatives aimed
at school innovation and improved student achievement through
leveraging educational technologies. According to the
Department of Education's National Educational Technology
Trends Study (NETTS 2007), `Because funds generated locally
through bonds or taxes frequently have legal restrictions
requiring them to be spent on hardware and connectivity
purchases only, Federal and State funds supporting the use of
technology resources fill a critical gap.'.
``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this part are the
following:
``(1) To ensure that through technology every student has
access to individualized, rigorous, and relevant learning to
meet the goals of this part, and to prepare all students and
the United States for the 21st century.
``(2) To evaluate, build upon, and increase the use of
evidence-based and innovative systemic school redesigns that
center on the use of technology that leads to school
improvement and increased student achievement.
``(3) To increase ongoing, meaningful professional
development around technology that--
``(A) leads to changes in teaching and curriculum;
``(B) improves student achievement, including in core
academic subjects;
``(C) improves student technology literacy; and
``(D) is aligned with professional development activities
supported under section 2123.
``(c) Goals.--The goals of this part are the following:
``(1) To improve student academic achievement with respect
to State academic standards through the use of professional
development and systemic school redesigns that center on the
use of technology and the applications of technology.
``(2) To improve professional development to ensure every
school administrator--
``(A) possesses the leadership skills necessary for
effective technology integration and every teacher possesses
the knowledge and skills to use technology across the
curriculum;
``(B) uses technology and curriculum redesign as key
components of changing teaching and learning and improving
student achievement;
``(C) uses technology for data analysis to enable
individualized instruction; and
``(D) uses technology to improve student technology
literacy.
``(3) To ensure that every student is technologically
literate by the end of 8th grade, regardless of the student's
race, ethnicity, gender, family income, geographic location,
or disability.

[[Page 9964]]

``(4) To improve student engagement, opportunity,
attendance, graduation rates, and technology access through
enhanced or redesigned curriculum or instruction.
``(5) To more effectively use data to inform instruction,
address individualized student needs, and support school
decisionmaking.

``SEC. 2403. DEFINITION OF STUDENT TECHNOLOGY LITERACY.

``In this part:
``(1) Local educational agency.--
``(A) In general.--The term `local educational agency'
includes a consortium of local educational agencies.
``(B) Implementing regulations.--The Secretary shall
promulgate regulations implementing subparagraph (A).
``(2) Student technology literacy.--The term `student
technology literacy' means student knowledge and skills in
using contemporary information, communication, and learning
technologies in a manner necessary for successful employment,
life-long learning, and citizenship in the knowledge-based,
digital, and global 21st century, which includes, at a
minimum, the ability--
``(A) to effectively communicate and collaborate;
``(B) to analyze and solve problems;
``(C) to access, evaluate, manage, and create information
and otherwise gain information literacy;
``(D) to demonstrate creative thinking, construct
knowledge, and develop innovative products and processes; and
``(E) to do so in a safe and ethical manner.

``SEC. 2404. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this part, $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2010,
and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 5
succeeding fiscal years.
``(b) Allocation of Funds Between State and Local and
National Initiatives.--Of the funds made available under
subsection (a) for a fiscal year--
``(1) 3 percent or $10,000,000, whichever amount is less,
shall be available to carry out subpart 2, of which--
``(A) $2,000,000 shall be available to carry out section
2411(1); and
``(B) 1.5 percent or $4,000,000, whichever amount is less,
shall be available to carry out section 2412; and
``(2) the remainder of the funds made available under
subsection (a) shall be available to carry out subpart 1.
``(c) Limitation.--
``(1) Local administrative costs.--Of the funds made
available to a local educational agency under this part for a
fiscal year, not more than 3 percent may be used by the local
educational agency for administrative costs.
``(2) State administrative costs.--Of the funds made
available to a State educational agency under section
2406(a)(1), not more than 60 percent may be used by the State
educational agency for administrative costs.

``Subpart 1--State and Local Grants

``SEC. 2405. ALLOTMENT AND REALLOTMENT.

``(a) Reservations and Allotment.--From the amount made
available to carry out this subpart under section 2404(b)(2)
for a fiscal year--
``(1) the Secretary shall reserve--
``(A) \3/4\ of 1 percent for the Secretary of the Interior
for programs under this subpart for schools operated or
funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and
``(B) \1/2\ of 1 percent to provide assistance under this
subpart to the outlying areas; and
``(2) subject to subsection (b), the Secretary shall use
the remainder to award grants by allotting to each State
educational agency an amount that bears the same relationship
to such remainder for such year as the amount received under
part A of title I for such year by such State educational
agency bears to the amount received under such part for such
year by all State educational agencies.
``(b) Minimum Allotment.--The amount of any State
educational agency's allotment under subsection (a)(2) for
any fiscal year shall not be less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of
the amount made available for allotments to State educational
agencies under this part for such year.
``(c) Reallotment of Unused Funds.--If any State
educational agency does not apply for an allotment under this
subpart for a fiscal year, or does not use the State
educational agency's entire allotment under this subpart for
that fiscal year, the Secretary shall reallot the amount of
the State educational agency's allotment, or the unused
portion of the allotment, to the remaining State educational
agencies that use their entire allotments under this subpart
in accordance with this section.
``(d) State Educational Agency Defined.--In this section,
the term `State educational agency' does not include an
agency of an outlying area or the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

``SEC. 2406. USE OF ALLOTMENT BY STATE.

``(a) In General.--Of the amount provided to a State
educational agency under section 2405(a)(2) for a fiscal
year--
``(1) the State educational agency may use not more than 5
percent of such amount or $100,000, whichever amount is
greater, to carry out activities under section 2408(a);
``(2) the State educational agency shall use 2.5 percent of
such amount or $50,000, whichever amount is greater, to carry
out activities under section 2408(b); and
``(3) the State educational agency shall distribute the
remainder as follows:
``(A) The State educational agency shall use 60 percent of
the remainder to award Improving Teaching and Learning
through Technology subgrants to local educational agencies
having applications approved under section 2409(c) for the
activities described in section 2410(b) by allotting to each
such local educational agency an amount that bears the same
relationship to 60 percent of the remainder for such year as
the amount received under part A of title I for such year by
such local educational agency bears to the amount received
under such part for such year by all local educational
agencies within the State, subject to subsection (b)(2).
``(B) The State educational agency shall use 40 percent of
the remainder to award Systemic School Redesign through
Technology Integration subgrants, through a State-determined
competitive process, to local educational agencies having
applications approved under section 2409(b) for the
activities described in section 2410(a).
``(b) Sufficient Amounts.--
``(1) Special rule.--In awarding subgrants under subsection
(a)(3)(B), the State educational agency shall--
``(A) ensure the subgrants are of sufficient size and scope
to be effective, consistent with the purposes of this part;
``(B) ensure subgrants are of sufficient duration to be
effective, consistent with the purposes of this part,
including by awarding subgrants for a period of not less than
2 years that may be renewed for not more than an additional 3
years;
``(C) give preference in the awarding of subgrants to local
educational agencies that serve schools in need of
improvement, as identified under section 1116, including
those schools with high populations of--
``(i) students with limited English proficiency;
``(ii) students with disabilities; or
``(iii) other subgroups of students who have not met the
State's student academic achievement standards; and
``(D) ensure an equitable distribution of subgrants under
subsection (a)(3)(B) among urban and rural areas of the
State, according to the demonstrated need for assistance
under this subpart of the local educational agencies serving
the areas.
``(2) Minimum subgrant.--The amount of any local
educational agency's subgrant under subsection (a)(3)(A) for
any fiscal year shall be not less than $3,000.
``(c) Reallotment of Unused Funds.--If any local
educational agency does not apply for a subgrant under
subsection (a)(3)(A) for a fiscal year, or does not use the
local educational agency's entire allotment under this
subpart for that fiscal year, the State shall reallot the
amount of the local educational agency's allotment, or the
unused portion of the allotment, to the remaining local
educational agencies that use their entire allotments under
this subpart in accordance with this section.

``SEC. 2407. STATE APPLICATIONS.

``(a) In General.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this subpart, a State educational agency shall submit to the
Secretary, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary
may specify, an application containing the contents described
in subsection (b) and such other information as the Secretary
may reasonably require.
``(b) Contents.--Each State educational agency application
submitted under subsection (a) shall include each of the
following:
``(1) A description of how the State educational agency
will support local educational agencies that receive
subgrants under this subpart in meeting, and help improve the
local educational agencies' capacity to meet, the purposes
and goals of this part and the requirements of this subpart,
including through technical assistance.
``(2) A description of the State educational agency's long-
term goals and strategies for improving student academic
achievement, including in core academic subjects and in
student technology literacy, through the effective use of
technology in classrooms and schools throughout the State.
``(3) A description of the priority area upon which the
State educational agency will focus the State educational
agency's guidance, technical assistance, and other assistance
under this subpart, and other local support under this
subpart, such that the priority area shall be identified by
the State educational agency from among the core academic
subjects, grade levels, and student subgroup populations that
may be causing the most number of local educational agencies
in the State to not make adequate yearly progress, as defined
in section 1111(b)(2)(C).
``(4) A description of how the State educational agency
will support local educational agencies that receive
subgrants under this subpart in implementing, and will help
improve the local educational agency's capacity to implement,
professional development programs pursuant to section
2410(b)(1)(A).
``(5) A description of how the State educational agency
will ensure that teachers, paraprofessionals, library and
media personnel, and administrators served by the

[[Page 9965]]

State educational agency possess the knowledge and skills--
``(A) to use technology across the curriculum;
``(B) to use technology and curriculum redesign as key
components of changing teaching and learning and improving
student achievement;
``(C) to use technology for data analysis to enable
individualized instruction; and
``(D) to use technology to improve student technology
literacy.
``(6) A description of the process, activities, and
performance measures that the State educational agency will
use to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of activities
described in section 2408(b).
``(7) Identification of the State challenging academic
content standards and challenging student academic
achievement standards that the State educational agency will
use to ensure that each student is technology literate by the
end of the 8th grade consistent with the definition of
student technology literacy, and a description of how the
State educational agency will assess, not less than once by
the end of 8th grade, student performance in gaining
technology literacy only for the purpose of tracking progress
towards achieving the 8th grade technology literacy goal but
not for meeting adequate yearly progress goals, including
through embedding such assessment items in other State tests
or performance-based assessments portfolios, or through other
valid and reliable means, except that nothing in this subpart
shall be construed to require States to develop a separate
test to assess student technology literacy.
``(8) An assurance that financial assistance provided under
this subpart will supplement, and not supplant, State and
local funds.
``(9) A description of how the State educational agency
will, in providing technical and other assistance to local
educational agencies, give priority to those local
educational agencies identified by the State educational
agency as having the highest need for assistance under this
subpart, including those local educational agencies with the
highest percentage or number--
``(A) of students from families with incomes below the
poverty line;
``(B) of students not achieving at the State proficiency
level;
``(C) of student populations identified under section
2406(b)(1)(C); or
``(D) of schools identified as in need of improvement under
section 1116.
``(10) A description of how the State educational agency
will ensure that each subgrant awarded under section
2406(a)(3)(B) is of sufficient size, scope, and duration to
be effective as required under section 2406(b), and that such
subgrants are appropriately targeted and equitably
distributed as required under section 2406(b) to carry out
the purposes of this part effectively.
``(11) A description of how the State educational agency
consulted with local educational agencies in the development
of the State application.

``SEC. 2408. STATE ACTIVITIES.

``(a) Mandatory and Permissive Activities.--
``(1) Mandatory activities.--From funds made available
under section 2406(a)(1), a State educational agency shall
carry out each of the following activities:
``(A) Identify the State challenging academic content
standards and challenging student academic achievement
standards that the State educational agency will use to
ensure that each student is technology literate by the end of
the 8th grade consistent with the definition of student
technology literacy.
``(B) Assess not less than once by the end of the 8th grade
student performance in gaining technology literacy consistent
with subparagraph (A), including through embedding such
assessment items in other State tests, performance-based
assessments, or portfolios, or through other means, except
that such assessments shall be used only to track student
technology literacy and shall not be used to determine
adequate yearly progress.
``(C) Publish the results of the State educational agency's
technology literacy assessment administered under
subparagraph (B) not less than 3 months after the assessment
is administered such that the results are made widely
available to local educational agencies, parents, and
citizens, including through presentation on the Internet, and
transmit such results to the Secretary.
``(D) Provide guidance, technical assistance, and other
assistance in the priority area identified by the State
pursuant to section 2407(b)(3) to local educational agencies
receiving subgrants of less than $10,000 under section
2406(a)(3)(A) with a priority given to those local
educational agencies with the highest need for assistance
described in section 2407(b)(9).
``(E) Provide technical assistance to local educational
agencies, with a priority given to those local educational
agencies identified by the State as having the highest need
for assistance under this subpart, including those local
educational agencies with the highest percentage or number of
(i) students from families with incomes below the poverty
line, (ii) students not achieving at the State proficiency
level, (iii) student populations described in section
2406(b)(1)(C), and (iv) schools identified as in need of
improvement under section 1116, in the following ways:
``(i) Submitting applications for funding under this part.
``(ii) Carrying out activities authorized under section
2410, including implementation of systemic school redesigns
as described in section 2409(b).
``(iii) Developing local educational technology plans and
integrating such plans with the local educational agency's
plans for improving student achievement under sections 1111
and 1112, and, if applicable, section 1116.
``(F) Provide guidance, technical assistance, and other
assistance to local educational agencies regarding the local
educational agency's plans to assess, and, as needed, update
the computers, software, servers, and other technologies
throughout the local educational agency in terms of the
functional capabilities, age, and other specifications of the
technology, including to ensure such technologies can
process, at scale, new applications and online services such
as video conferencing, video streaming, virtual simulations,
and distance learning.
``(2) Permissive activities.--From funds made available
under section 2406(a)(1), a State educational agency may
carry out 1 or more of the following activities:
``(A) State leadership activities and technical assistance
that assist local educational agencies that receive subgrants
under this subpart in achieving the purposes and goals of
this part.
``(B) Assist local educational agencies that receive
subgrants under this subpart in the development and
utilization of research-based or innovative strategies for
the delivery of specialized or rigorous academic courses and
curricula through the use of technology, including distance
learning technologies.
``(C) Assisting local educational agencies that receive
subgrants under this subpart in providing sustained and
intensive, high-quality professional development pursuant to
section 2410(b)(1)(A), including through assistance in a
review of relevant research.
``(b) Activities Relating to Research.--From funds made
available under section 2406(a)(2), a State educational
agency shall carry out 1 or more of the following activities:
``(1) Conduct scientifically based or other rigorous
research to evaluate the impact of 1 or more programs or
activities carried out under subsection (a) in meeting the
purposes and goals of this part.
``(2) Provide technical assistance to local educational
agencies in carrying out evaluation research activities as
required under section 2410(a)(1).
``(3) Create 1 or more evaluation research protocols,
designs, performance measurement systems, or other tools to
assist local educational agencies in carrying out evaluation
activities as required under section 2410(a)(1).
``(4) Collect and disseminate the findings of the
evaluation research activities carried out by local
educational agencies under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).

``SEC. 2409. LOCAL APPLICATIONS.

``(a) In General.--Each local educational agency desiring a
subgrant from a State educational agency under this subpart
shall submit to the State educational agency an application
containing a new or updated local long-range strategic
educational technology plan, and such other information as
the State educational agency may reasonably require, at such
time and in such manner as the State educational agency may
require. The application shall contain each of the following:
``(1) A description of how the local educational agency
will align and coordinate the local educational agency's use
of funds under this subpart with--
``(A) the school district technology plan;
``(B) the school district plans and activities for
improving student achievement, including plans and activities
under sections 1111 and 1112, and sections 1116 and 2123, as
applicable; and
``(C) funds available from other Federal, State, and local
sources.
``(2) An assurance that financial assistance provided under
this subpart will supplement, and not supplant other funds
available to carry out activities assisted under this
section.
``(3) A description of the process used to assess and, as
needed, update the computers, software, servers, and other
technologies throughout the local educational agency in terms
of their functional capabilities, age, and other
specifications, in order to ensure technologies can process,
at scale, new applications and online services, such as video
conferencing, video streaming, virtual simulations, and
distance learning courses.
``(4) Such other information as the State educational
agency may reasonably require.
``(b) Competitive Grants; Systemic School Redesign Through
Technology Integration.--In addition to components included
in subsection (a), a local educational agency submitting an
application for a subgrant under section 2406(a)(3)(B) shall
submit to the State educational agency an application
containing each of the following:
``(1) A description of how the local educational agency
will use the subgrant funds

[[Page 9966]]

to implement systemic school redesign, which is a
comprehensive set of programs, practices, and technologies
that--
``(A) collectively lead to school or school district change
and improvement, including in the use of technology and in
improved student achievement; and
``(B) incorporate all of the following elements:
``(i) Reform or redesign of curriculum, instruction,
assessment, use of data, or other standards-based school or
classroom practices through the use of technology in order to
increase student learning opportunity, student technology
literacy, student access to technology, and student
engagement in learning.
``(ii) Improvement of educator quality, knowledge and
skills through ongoing, sustainable, timely, and contextual
professional development described in section 2410(b)(1)(A).
``(iii) Development of student technology literacy and
other skills necessary for 21st century learning and success.
``(iv) Ongoing use of formative assessments and other
timely data sources and data systems to more effectively
identify individual student learning needs and guide
personalized instruction, learning, and appropriate
interventions that address individual student learning needs.
``(v) Engagement of school district leaders, school
leaders, and classroom educators.
``(vi) Programs, practices, and technologies that are
research-based or innovative, such that research-based
systemic redesigns are based on a review of the best
available research evidence, and innovative systemic
redesigns are based on development and use of new redesigns,
programs, practices, and technologies.
``(2) An assurance that the local educational agency will
use not less than 25 percent of the subgrant funds to
implement a program of professional development described in
section 2410(b)(1)(A).
``(3) A description of how the local educational agency
will evaluate the impact of 1 or more programs or activities
carried out under this subpart in meeting 1 or more of the
purposes or goals of this part.
``(c) Formula Grants; Improving Teaching and Learning
Through Technology.--In addition to components included in
subsection (a), a local educational agency that submits an
application for a subgrant under section 2406(a)(3)(A) shall
submit to the State educational agency an application
containing each of the following:
``(1) An assurance that the local educational agency will
use not less than 40 percent of the subgrant funds for--
``(A) professional development described in section
2410(b)(1)(A); and
``(B) technology tools, applications, and other resources
related specifically to such professional development
activities.
``(2) A description of how the local educational agency
will implement a program of professional development required
under paragraph (1)(A).
``(3) A description of how the local educational agency
will employ technology tools, applications, and other
resources in professional development and to improve student
learning and achievement in the area of priority identified
by the local educational agency pursuant to paragraph (4).
``(4) A description of the priority area upon which the
local educational agency will focus the subgrant funds
provided under this subpart, such that such priority area
shall be identified from among the core academic subjects,
grade levels, and student subgroup populations in which the
most number of students served by the local educational
agency are not proficient.
``(d) Combined Applications.--A local educational agency
that submits an application to the State educational agency
for subgrant funds awarded under section 2406(a)(3)(B) may,
upon notice to the State educational agency, submit a single
application that will also be considered by the State
educational agency as an application for subgrant funds
awarded under section 2406(a)(3)(A), if the application
addresses each application requirement under subsections (a),
(b), and (c).
``(e) Consortium Applications.--For any fiscal year, a
local educational agency applying for a subgrant described in
section 2406(a)(3) may apply as part of a consortium in which
more than 1 local educational agency jointly submits a
subgrant application under this subpart, except that no local
educational agency may receive more than 1 subgrant under
this subpart.

``SEC. 2410. LOCAL ACTIVITIES.

``(a) Competitive Grants; Systemic School Redesign Through
Technology Integration.--From subgrant funds made available
to a local educational agency under section 2406(a)(3)(B),
the local educational agency--
``(1) shall use not less than 5 percent of such subgrant
funds to evaluate the impact of 1 or more programs or
activities carried out under the subgrant in meeting 1 or
more of the purposes or goals of this part as approved by the
State educational agency as part of the local application
described in section 2409(b)(3); and
``(2) shall use the remaining funds to implement a plan for
systemic school redesign, which may take place in 1 or more
schools served by the local educational agency or across all
schools served by the local educational agency, in accordance
with section 2409(b)(1), including each of the following:
``(A) Using not less than 25 percent of subgrant funds to
improve teacher quality and skills through support for the
following:
``(i) Professional development activities, as described in
subsection (b)(1)(A).
``(ii) The acquisition and implementation of technology
tools, applications, and other resources to be employed in
the professional development activities described in clause
(i).
``(B) Acquiring and effectively implementing technology
tools, applications, and other resources in conjunction with
enhancing or redesigning the curriculum or instruction in
order to--
``(i) increase student learning opportunity or access,
student engagement in learning, or student attendance or
graduation rates;
``(ii) improve student achievement in 1 or more of the core
academic subjects; and
``(iii) improve student technology literacy.
``(C) Acquiring and effectively implementing technology
tools, applications, and other resources to--
``(i) conduct ongoing formative assessments and use other
timely data sources and data systems to more effectively
identify individual student learning needs and guide
personalized instruction, learning, and appropriate
interventions that address those individualized student
learning needs;
``(ii) support individualized student learning, including
through instructional software and digital content that
supports the learning needs of each student, or through
providing access to high-quality courses and instructors,
including mathematics, science, and foreign language courses,
often not available except through technology and online
learning, especially in rural and high-poverty schools; and
``(iii) conduct such other activities as appropriate
consistent with the goals and purposes of research-based and
innovative systemic school redesign, including activities
that increase parental involvement through improved
communication with teachers and access to student assignments
and grades.
``(b) Formula Grants; Improving Teaching and Learning
Through Technology.--From funds made available to a local
educational agency under section 2406(a)(3)(A), the local
educational agency shall carry out activities to improve
student learning, student technology literacy, and
achievement in the area of priority identified by the local
educational agency under section 2409(c)(4), including each
of the following:
``(1) The local educational agency shall use not less than
40 percent of subgrant funds for professional development
activities that are aligned with activities supported under
section 2123 to improve teacher quality and skills through
support for the following:
``(A) Training of teachers, paraprofessionals, library and
media personnel, and administrators, which--
``(i) shall include the development, acquisition, or
delivery of--

``(I) training that is ongoing, sustainable, timely, and
directly related to up-to-date teaching content areas;
``(II) training in strategies and pedagogy in the core
academic subjects that involve use of technology and
curriculum redesign as key components of changing teaching
and learning and improving student achievement;
``(III) training in the use of technology to ensure every
educator is technologically literate, including possessing
the knowledge and skills--

``(aa) to use technology across the curriculum;
``(bb) to use technology and curriculum redesign as key
components of innovating teaching and learning and improving
student achievement;
``(cc) to use technology for data analysis to enable
individualized instruction; and
``(dd) to use technology to improve student technology
literacy; and

``(IV) training that includes ongoing communication and
follow-up with instructors, facilitators, and peers; and

``(ii) may include--

``(I) the use of instructional technology specialists,
mentors, or coaches to work directly with teachers, including
through the preparation of 1 or more teachers as technology
leaders or master teachers who are provided with the means to
serve as experts and train other teachers in the effective
use of technology; and
``(II) the use of technology, such as distance learning and
online virtual educator-to-educator peer communities, as a
means for delivering professional development.

``(B) The acquisition and implementation of technology
tools, applications, and other resources to be employed in
the professional development activities described in
subparagraph (A).
``(2) The local educational agency shall use the funds that
remain after application of paragraph (1) to acquire or
implement technology tools, applications, and other resources
to improve student learning, student technology literacy, and
student achievement in the area of priority identified by the
local educational agency, including through 1 or more of the
following:

[[Page 9967]]

``(A) Conducting ongoing formative assessment and using
other timely data sources and data systems to more
effectively identify individual student learning needs and
guide personalized instruction, learning, and appropriate
interventions that address those individualized student
learning needs.
``(B) Supporting individualized student learning, including
through instructional software and digital content that
supports the learning needs of each student served by the
local educational agency under the subgrant, or through
providing access to high-quality courses and instructors,
including mathematics, science, and foreign language courses,
often not available except through technology such as online
learning, especially in rural and high-poverty schools.
``(C) Increasing parental involvement through improved
communication with teachers and access to student assignments
and grades.
``(D) Enhancing accountability, instruction, and data-
driven decisionmaking through data systems that allow for
management, analysis, and disaggregating of student, teacher,
and school data.
``(E) Such other activities as are appropriate and
consistent with the goals and purposes of this part.
``(c) Multiple Grants.--A local educational agency that
receives a grant under subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (B)
of section 2406(a)(3) may use all such grant funds for
activities authorized under subsection (a).

``Subpart 2--National Activities

``SEC. 2411. NATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

``From the amount made available to carry out national
activities under section 2404(b)(1) (other than the amounts
made available to carry out subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
section 2404(b)(1)), the Secretary, working through and in
coordination with the Director of the Office of Educational
Technology and collaborating, as appropriate, with the
National Center for Achievement Through Technology authorized
under section 2412, shall carry out the following activities:
``(1) National report.--The Secretary shall annually
conduct and publish a national report on student technology
literacy to determine the extent to which students have
gained student technology literacy by the end of the 8th
grade. In conducting the study, the Secretary shall--
``(A) consult first with experts and stakeholders,
including educators and education leaders, education
technology experts from education and industry, and the
business and higher education communities seeking secondary
school graduates with student technology literacy; and
``(B) employ a random stratified sample methodology of
student technology literacy performance using a cost-
effective assessment that is a readily available, valid, and
reliable assessment instrument.
``(2) Student technology literacy.--The Secretary shall
publish each year the results of the State technology
literacy assessments carried out under section 2408(a)(1)(C).
``(3) National education technology plan.--Based on the
Nation's progress and an assessment by the Secretary of the
continuing and future needs of the Nation's schools in
effectively using technology to provide all students the
opportunity to meet challenging State academic content and
student academic achievement standards, the Secretary shall
update and publish, in a form readily accessible to the
public, a national long-range technology plan not less often
than once every 5 years, and shall implement such plan.
``(4) Other national activities.--From the funds remaining
after carrying out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), the
Secretary shall carry out 1 or more of the following
activities:
``(A) Support efforts to increase student technology
literacy, including through outreach to education, business,
and elected leaders aimed at building understanding of the
knowledge and skills students need to succeed in the 21st
century through the use of technology for life-long learning,
citizenship, and workplace success.
``(B) Support the work of the National Center for
Achievement Through Technology in serving as a national
resource for the improvement of technology implementation in
education through identification and dissemination of
promising practices and exemplary programs that effectively
use educational technologies.
``(C) Support efforts to increase the capacity of State and
local education officials to budget for technology
acquisition and implementation, including taking into account
the long-term costs of such acquisition and implementation,
how technology investments may increase effectiveness and
efficiencies that ultimately save other educational costs or
provide improved outcomes, and how spending for technology in
education shall be considered in a comprehensive cost-benefit
analysis and not simply as a supplemental expense.
``(D) Support staff at the Department and other Federal
agencies in their understanding of education technology, the
role of technology in Federal education programs, and how
Federal grantees can be supported in integrating education
technologies into the grantees' programs as appropriate.
``(E) Convene stakeholders in an effort to outline and
support a national research and development agenda aimed at
supporting public-private partnerships to leverage evolving
technologies to meet evolving educational needs.
``(F) Convene practitioners and leaders from local and
State education, business and industry, higher education, or
other stakeholder communities--
``(i) to carry out the activities under this paragraph,
including convening an annual forum on leadership and
classroom technology best practices;
``(ii) to otherwise address challenges and opportunities in
the use of technology to improve teaching, learning, teacher
quality, student achievement, student technology literacy,
and the efficiency and productivity of the education
enterprise; and
``(iii) to otherwise support school innovation and our
Nation's competitiveness.
``(G) Support efforts to ensure teachers and other
educators have the knowledge and skills to teach in the 21st
century through the use of technology, including by providing
assistance to and sharing information with State accrediting
agencies, colleges of teacher education, and other
educational institutions and government entities involved in
the preparation and certification of teachers, to ensure such
teachers possess the knowledge and skills prior to entering
the teaching force.
``(H) Support efforts to assist principals,
superintendents, and other senior school and school district
administrators in adapting to, and leading their schools
with, 21st century technology tools and 21st century
knowledge and skills, including the following:
``(i) Developing a blueprint for the job skills required
and the coursework and experience necessary to be prepared
for school leadership.
``(ii) Supporting the development of professional
development and training programs that help education leaders
obtain the knowledge and skills, including through
collaborative efforts with up-to-date programs and
institutions.
``(iii) Developing materials, resources, self-assessments,
and other tools to meet the activities described in clauses
(i) and (ii).
``(I) Undertake other activities that--
``(i) lead to the improvement of--

``(I) our Nation's educational system in using educational
technologies to improve teaching, learning, and student
achievement; and
``(II) student technology literacy and related 21st century
college preparedness and workforce competitiveness; and

``(ii) complement other such efforts undertaken by public
and private agencies and organizations.

``SEC. 2412. NATIONAL CENTER FOR ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH
TECHNOLOGY.

``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to establish
a National Center for Achievement Through Technology that--
``(1) provides national leadership regarding improvement in
the use of technology in education, with a focus on
elementary and secondary education, including technology's
role in improving--
``(A) student achievement;
``(B) student technology literacy; and
``(C) teacher quality;
``(2) serves as a national resource for the improvement of
technology implementation in education through identification
and dissemination of promising practices and exemplary
programs that effectively use educational technologies to
improve teaching and learning, teacher quality, student
engagement and opportunity, student achievement and
technology literacy, and the efficiency and productivity of
the education enterprise, including serving as a national
resource for the related research and research on the
conditions and practices that support the effective use of
technology in education; and
``(3) provides an annual report to Congress that--
``(A) synthesizes the promising practices and exemplary
programs that effectively use educational technologies to
improve the teaching and learning described in paragraph (2);
and
``(B) includes the related research and research on the
conditions and practices that support the effective use of
technology in education described in paragraph (2).
``(b) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--From amounts made available under
section 2404(b)(1)(B), the Director of the Office of
Educational Technology shall award a grant, on a competitive
basis, to an eligible entity to enable the eligible entity to
establish a National Center for Achievement Through
Technology (in this section referred to as the `Center').
``(2) Coordination with the institute.--The Director of the
Office of Educational Technology shall award the grant under
paragraph (1) in coordination with the Director of the
Institute of Education Sciences, but the Director of the
Office of Educational Technology shall administer the grant
program under this section.
``(3) Definition of eligible entity.--In this section the
term `eligible entity' means an entity that is--

[[Page 9968]]

``(A) a research organization or research institution with
education technology as one of the organization or
institution's primary areas of focus; or
``(B) a partnership that consists of a research
organization or research institution described in
subparagraph (A) and 1 or more education institutions or
agencies, nonprofit organizations, or research organizations
or institutions.
``(4) Duration.--The grant awarded under this section shall
be not less than 2 years in duration, and shall be renewable
at the discretion of the Director of the Office of
Educational Technology for not more than an additional 3
years.
``(5) Peer review.--In awarding the grant under this
section, the Director of the Office of Educational Technology
shall consider the recommendations of a peer review panel,
which shall be composed of representatives of the following
stakeholder communities:
``(A) Teachers and other educators who use technologies.
``(B) Local and State education leaders who administer
programs employing technologies.
``(C) Businesses that develop educational technologies.
``(D) Researchers who study educational technologies.
``(E) Related education, educational technology, and
business organizations.
``(c) National Center for Achievement Through Technology
Activities.--The Center shall carry out the following
activities:
``(1) Promising practices, exemplary programs and
research.--The Center shall identify and compile promising
practices, exemplary programs, quantitative and qualitative
research, and other information and evidence demonstrating--
``(A) the broad uses and positive impacts of technology in
elementary and secondary education; and
``(B) the factors and steps important to technology's
improvement and to the effective use of technology with
students so that specific technologies are considered in the
context of the comprehensive educational program or practice
in which the technologies are used--
``(i) across a curriculum to improve teaching, learning,
and student achievement, including in the core academic
subjects;
``(ii) to support the teaching and learning of student
technology literacy;
``(iii) for formative and summative assessment, including
to inform instruction and data-driven decisionmaking, to
individualize instruction, and for accountability purposes;
``(iv) to improve student learning and achievement,
including through--

``(I) improving student interest and engagement;
``(II) increasing student access to courses and instructors
through distance learning and expanded student learning time;
and
``(III) individualizing curriculum and instruction to meet
unique student learning needs, learning styles, and pace;

``(v) to improve teacher quality, including through
professional development and timely and ongoing training and
support; and
``(vi) to improve the efficiency and productivity of the
classroom and school enterprise, including through data
management and analysis, resource management, and
communications; and
``(C) the policies, budgeting, technology infrastructure,
conditions, practices, teacher training, school leadership,
and other implementation factors important to improving the
effectiveness of technology in elementary and secondary
education as outlined in subparagraph (B), including in--
``(i) the knowledge and skills teachers and other educators
need to teach in the 21st century through the use of
technology, including knowledge and skills necessary--

``(I) to use technology and curriculum redesign as key
components of changing teaching and learning;
``(II) to use technology for data analysis to enable
individualized instruction; and
``(III) to use technology to improve student technology
literacy;

``(ii) the knowledge and skills principals,
superintendents, and other senior school and school district
administrators need to effectively lead in 21st century
schools using technology, including the job skills required
and the coursework and experience necessary to be prepared
for school leadership; and
``(iii) the budgeting for technology acquisition and
implementation, including taking into account the long-term
costs of such acquisition and implementation, how technology
investments may increase effectiveness and efficiencies that
ultimately save other educational costs or provide improved
outcomes, and how spending for technology in education shall
be considered in a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis and
not simply as a supplemental expense.
``(2) Original research.--The Center may conduct, directly
or through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements,
original research as necessary to fill important gaps in
research necessary to address the areas described in
paragraph (1) with a focus on the policies, budgeting,
technology infrastructure, conditions, practices, teacher
training, school leadership, and other implementation factors
important to improving the effectiveness of technology in
elementary and secondary education.
``(3) Outreach.--The Center shall consult with appropriate
stakeholders, including at least the stakeholders described
in subsection (b)(5), in determining priorities for the
activities described in paragraph (1), in gathering
information pursuant to paragraph (1), and in determining the
need for original research pursuant to paragraph (2). The
Center shall establish 1 or more informal advisory groups to
provide the consultation.
``(4) Dissemination.--The Center shall disseminate widely
the information identified and compiled pursuant to paragraph
(1) to teachers and other educators, local, regional, State,
and Federal education leaders, public and elected officials,
the network of federally funded educational resource centers
and labs, businesses that develop educational technologies,
colleges of teacher education and teacher accrediting
agencies, researchers who study educational technologies,
other interested stakeholders, and related educator,
education leader, and business organizations, including
through--
``(A) development and ongoing update of a database accessed
through the Internet;
``(B) development, distribution, and delivery of reports,
tools, best practices, conference presentations, and other
publications; and
``(C) partnerships with organizations representing
stakeholders, including educators, education leaders, and
technology providers.
``(d) Center Operations.--
``(1) Grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements.--As
appropriate, the Center shall award grants to, or enter into
contracts or cooperative agreements with, individuals, public
or private institutions, agencies, organizations, or
consortia of such institutions, agencies, or organizations to
carry out the activities of the Center, including awarding a
grant or entering into a contract or cooperative agreement to
disseminate the Center's findings pursuant to subsection
(c)(4).
``(2) Report.--The Center shall submit an annual report on
March 1 to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Education and
Labor of the House of Representatives that provides a summary
synthesis of promising and exemplary practices and programs,
and related research, that effectively use educational
technologies to improve teaching and learning as described in
subsection (c)(1), including the conditions and practices
that support the effective use of technology in education, in
order to inform Federal education policymaking and
oversight.''.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Casey, and Mr. Menendez):
S. 819. A bill to provide for enhanced treatment, support, services,
and research for individuals with autism spectrum disorders and their
families; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 819

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Autism
Treatment Acceleration Act of 2009''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Parental rights rule of construction.
Sec. 4. Definitions; technical amendment to the Public Health Service
Act.
Sec. 5. Autism Care Centers Demonstration Project.
Sec. 6. Planning and demonstration grants for services for adults.
Sec. 7. National Registry.
Sec. 8. Multimedia campaign.
Sec. 9. Interdepartmental Autism Coordinating Committee.
Sec. 10. National Network for Autism Spectrum Disorders Research and
Services.
Sec. 11. National training initiatives on autism spectrum disorders.
Sec. 12. Amendments relating to health insurance.
Sec. 13. Authorization of appropriations.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Autism (sometimes called ``classical autism'') is the
most common condition in a group of developmental disorders
known as autism spectrum disorders.
(2) Autism spectrum disorders include autism as well as
Asperger syndrome, Retts syndrome, childhood disintegrative
disorder, and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise
specified (usually referred to as PDD-NOS), as well as other
related developmental disorders.

[[Page 9969]]

(3) Individuals with autism spectrum disorders have the
same rights as other individuals to exert control and choice
over their own lives, to live independently, and to
participate fully in, and contribute to, their communities
and society through full integration and inclusion in the
economic, political, social, cultural, and educational
mainstream of society. Individuals with autism spectrum
disorders have the right to a life with dignity and purpose.
(4) While there is no uniform prevalence or severity of
symptoms associated with autism spectrum disorders, the
National Institutes of Health has determined that autism
spectrum disorders are characterized by 3 distinctive
behaviors: impaired social interaction, problems with verbal
and nonverbal communication, and unusual, repetitive, or
severely limited activities and interests.
(5) Both children and adults with autism spectrum disorders
can show difficulties in verbal and nonverbal communication,
social interactions, and sensory processing. Individuals with
autism spectrum disorders exhibit different symptoms or
behaviors, which may range from mild to significant, and
require varying degrees of support from friends, families,
service providers, and communities.
(6) Individuals with autism spectrum disorders often need
assistance in the areas of comprehensive early intervention,
health, recreation, job training, employment, housing,
transportation, and early, primary, and secondary education.
With access to, and assistance with, these types of services
and supports, individuals with autism spectrum disorders can
live rich, full, and productive lives. Greater coordination
and streamlining within the service delivery system will
enable individuals with autism spectrum disorders and their
families to access assistance from all sectors throughout an
individual's lifespan.
(7) A 2007 report from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention found that the prevalence of autism spectrum
disorders is estimated to be 1 in 150 people in the United
States.
(8) The Harvard School of Public Health reported that the
cost of caring for and treating individuals with autism
spectrum disorders in the United States is more than
$35,000,000,000 annually (an estimated $3,200,000 over an
individual's lifetime).
(9) Although the overall incidence of autism is consistent
around the globe, researchers with the Journal of Paediatrics
and Child Health have found that males are 4 times more
likely to develop an autism spectrum disorder than females.
Autism spectrum disorders know no racial, ethnic, or social
boundaries, nor differences in family income, lifestyle, or
educational levels, and can affect any child.
(10) Individuals with autism spectrum disorders from low-
income, rural, and minority communities often face
significant obstacles to accurate diagnosis and necessary
specialized services, supports, and education.
(11) There is strong consensus within the research
community that intensive treatment as soon as possible
following diagnosis not only can reduce the cost of lifelong
care by two-thirds, but also yields the most positive life
outcomes for children with autism spectrum disorders.
(12) Individuals with autism spectrum disorders and their
families experience a wide range of medical issues. Few
common standards exist for the diagnosis and management of
many aspects of clinical care. Behavioral difficulties may be
attributed to the overarching disorder rather than to the
pain and discomfort of a medical condition, which may go
undetected and untreated. The health care and other
treatments available in different communities can vary
widely. Many families, lacking access to comprehensive and
coordinated health care, must fend for themselves to find the
best health care, treatments, and services in a complex
clinical world.
(13) Effective health care, treatment, and services for
individuals with autism spectrum disorders depends upon a
continuous exchange among researchers and caregivers.
Evidence-based and promising autism practices should move
quickly into communities, allowing individuals with autism
spectrum disorders and their families to benefit from the
newest research and enabling researchers to learn from the
life experiences of the people whom their work most directly
affects.
(14) There is a critical shortage of appropriately trained
personnel across numerous important disciplines who can
assess, diagnose, treat, and support children and adults with
autism spectrum disorders and their families. Practicing
professionals, as well as those in training to become
professionals, need the most up-to-date practices informed by
the most current research findings.
(15) The appropriate goals of the Nation regarding
individuals with autism spectrum disorder are the same as the
appropriate goals of the Nation regarding individuals with
disabilities in general, as established in the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.): to assure
equality of opportunity, full participation, independent
living, and economic self-sufficiency for such individuals.
(16) Finally, individuals with autism spectrum disorders
are often denied health care benefits solely because of their
diagnosis, even though proven, effective treatments for
autism spectrum disorders do exist.

SEC. 3. PARENTAL RIGHTS RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to modify the legal
rights of parents or legal guardians under Federal, State, or
local law regarding the care of their children.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS; TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE ACT.

Part R of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 280i et seq.) is amended--
(1) by inserting after the header for part R the following:

``Subpart 1--Surveillance and Research Program; Education, Early
Detection, and Intervention; and Reporting'';

(2) in section 399AA(d), by striking ``part'' and inserting
``subpart''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:

``Subpart 2--Care for People With Autism Spectrum Disorders, Registry,
and Public Education

``SEC. 399GG. DEFINITIONS.

``Except as otherwise provided, in this subpart:
``(1) Autism spectrum disorder.--The term `autism spectrum
disorder' means a developmental disability that causes
substantial impairments in the areas of social interaction,
emotional regulation, communication, and the integration of
higher-order cognitive processes and which may be
characterized by the presence of unusual behaviors and
interests. Such term includes autistic disorder, pervasive
developmental disorder (not otherwise specified), Asperger
syndrome, Retts disorder, childhood disintegrative disorder,
and other related developmental disorders.
``(2) Adult with autism spectrum disorder.--The term `adult
with autism spectrum disorder' means an individual with an
autism spectrum disorder who has attained 22 years of age.
``(3) Affected individual.--The term `affected individual'
means an individual with an autism spectrum disorder.
``(4) Autism.--The term `autism' means an autism spectrum
disorder or a related developmental disability.
``(5) Autism management team.--The term `autism management
team' means a group of autism care providers, including
behavioral specialists, physicians, psychologists, social
workers, family therapists, nurse practitioners, nurses,
educators, other appropriate personnel, and family members
who work in a coordinated manner to treat individuals with
autism spectrum disorders and their families. Such team shall
determine the specific structure and operational model of its
specific autism care center, taking into consideration
cultural, regional, and geographical factors.
``(6) Care management model.--The term `care management
model' means a model of care that with respect to autism--
``(A) is centered on the relationship between an individual
with an autism spectrum disorder and his or her family and
their personal autism care coordinator;
``(B) provides services to individuals with autism spectrum
disorders to improve the management and coordination of care
provided to patients and their families; and
``(C) has established, where practicable, effective
referral relationships between the autism care coordinator
and the major medical, educational, and behavioral
specialties and ancillary services in the region.
``(7) Child with autism spectrum disorder.--The term `child
with autism spectrum disorder' means an individual with an
autism spectrum disorder who has not attained 22 years of
age.
``(8) Interventions.--The term `interventions' means the
educational methods and positive behavioral support
strategies designed to improve or ameliorate symptoms
associated with autism spectrum disorders.
``(9) Network.--The term `Network' means the Network for
Autism Spectrum Disorders Research and Services described in
section 10 of the Autism Treatment Acceleration Act of 2009.
``(10) Personal primary care coordinator.--The term
`personal primary care coordinator' means a physician, nurse,
nurse practitioner, psychologist, social worker, family
therapist, educator, or other appropriate personnel (as
determined by the Secretary) who has extensive expertise in
treatment and services for individuals with autism spectrum
disorders, who--
``(A) practices in an autism care center; and
``(B) has been trained to coordinate and manage
comprehensive autism care for the whole person.
``(11) Project.--The term `project' means the autism care
center demonstration project established under section 399HH.
``(12) Services.--The term `services' means services to
assist individuals with autism spectrum disorders to live
more independently in their communities and to improve their
quality of life.
``(13) Treatments.--The term `treatments' means the health
services, including mental health and behavioral therapy
services, designed to improve or ameliorate symptoms
associated with autism spectrum disorders.

[[Page 9970]]

``(14) Autism care center.--In this subpart, the term
`autism care center' means a center that is directed by a
primary care coordinator who is an expert in autism spectrum
disorder treatment and practice and provides an array of
medical, psychological, behavioral, educational, and family
services to individuals with autism and their families. Such
a center shall--
``(A) incorporate the attributes of the care management
model;
``(B) offer, through on-site service provision or through
detailed referral and coordinated care arrangements, an
autism management team of appropriate providers, including
behavioral specialists, physicians, psychologists, social
workers, family therapists, nurse practitioners, nurses,
educators, and other appropriate personnel; and
``(C) have the capability to achieve improvements in the
management and coordination of care for targeted
beneficiaries.''.

SEC. 5. AUTISM CARE CENTERS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

Part R of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 280i), as amended by section 4, is further amended by
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 399HH. AUTISM CARE CENTER DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

``(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of the Autism Treatment Acceleration Act of 2009,
the Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Health
Resources and Services Administration, shall establish a
demonstration project for the implementation of an Autism
Care Center Program (referred to in this section as the
`Program') to provide grants and other assistance to improve
the effectiveness and efficiency in providing comprehensive
care to individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders
and their families.
``(b) Goals.--The Program shall be designed--
``(1) to increase--
``(A) comprehensive autism spectrum disorder care delivery;
``(B) access to appropriate health care services,
especially wellness and prevention care, at times convenient
for patients;
``(C) patient satisfaction;
``(D) communication among autism spectrum disorder health
care providers, behaviorists, educators, specialists,
hospitals, and other autism spectrum disorder care providers;
``(E) school placement and attendance;
``(F) successful transition to postsecondary education,
vocational or job training and placement, and comprehensive
adult services for individuals with autism spectrum
disorders, focusing in particular upon the transitional
period for individuals between the ages of 18 and 25;
``(G) the quality of health care services, taking into
account nationally-developed standards and measures;
``(H) development, review, and promulgation of common
clinical standards and guidelines for medical care to
individuals with autism spectrum disorders;
``(I) development of clinical research projects to support
clinical findings in a search for recommended practices; and
``(J) the quality of life of individuals with autism
spectrum disorders, including communication abilities, social
skills, community integration, and employment and other
related services; and
``(2) to decrease--
``(A) inappropriate emergency room utilization, which can
be accomplished through initiatives such as expanded hours of
care;
``(B) avoidable hospitalizations;
``(C) the duplication of health care services;
``(D) the inconvenience of multiple provider locations;
``(E) health disparities and inequalities that individuals
with autism spectrum disorders face; and
``(F) preventable and inappropriate involvement with the
juvenile and criminal justice systems.
``(c) Eligible Entities.--To be eligible to receive
assistance under the Program, an entity shall--
``(1) be a State or a public or private nonprofit entity;
``(2) agree to establish and implement an autism care
center that--
``(A) enables targeted beneficiaries to designate a
personal primary care coordinator in such center to be their
source of first contact and to recommend comprehensive and
coordinated care for the whole of the individual;
``(B) provides for the establishment of a coordination of
care committee that is composed of clinicians and
practitioners trained in and working in autism spectrum
disorder intervention;
``(C) establishes a network of physicians, psychologists,
family therapists, behavioral specialists, social workers,
educators, and health centers that have volunteered to
participate as consultants to patient-centered autism care
centers to provide high-quality care, focusing on autism
spectrum disorder care, at the appropriate times and places
and in a cost-effective manner;
``(D) works in cooperation with hospitals, local public
health departments, and the network of patient-centered
autism care centers, to coordinate and provide health care;
``(E) utilizes health information technology to facilitate
the provision and coordination of health care by network
participants; and
``(F) collaborates with other entities to further the goals
of the program, particularly by collaborating with entities
that provide transitional adult services to individuals
between the ages of 18 and 25 with autism spectrum disorder,
to ensure successful transition of such individuals to
adulthood; and
``(3) submit to the Secretary an application, at such time,
in such manner, and containing such information as the
Secretary may require, including--
``(A) a description of the treatments, interventions, or
services that the eligible entity proposes to provide under
the Program;
``(B) a demonstration of the capacity of the eligible
entity to provide or establish such treatments,
interventions, and services within such entity;
``(C) a demonstration of the capacity of the eligible
entity to monitor and evaluate the outcomes of the
treatments, interventions, and services described in
subparagraph (A);
``(D) estimates of the number of individuals and families
who will be served by the eligible entity under the Program,
including an estimate of the number of such individuals and
families in medically underserved areas;
``(E) a description of the ability of the eligible entity
to enter into partnerships with community-based or nonprofit
providers of treatments, interventions, and services, which
may include providers that act as advocates for individuals
with autism spectrum disorders and local governments that
provide services for individuals with autism spectrum
disorders at the community level;
``(F) a description of the ways in which access to such
treatments and services may be sustained following the
Program period;
``(G) a description of the ways in which the eligible
entity plans to collaborate with other entities to develop
and sustain an effective protocol for successful transition
from children's services to adult services for individuals
with autism spectrum disorder, particularly for individuals
between the ages of 18 and 25; and
``(H) a description of the compliance of the eligible
entity with the integration requirement provided under
section 302 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12182).
``(d) Grants.--The Secretary shall award 3-year grants to
eligible entities whose applications are approved under
subsection (c). Such grants shall be used to--
``(1) carry out a program designed to meet the goals
described in subsection (b) and the requirements described in
subsection (c); and
``(2) facilitate coordination with local communities to be
better prepared and positioned to understand and meet the
needs of the communities served by autism care centers.
``(e) Advisory Councils.--
``(1) In general.--Each recipient of a grant under this
section shall establish an autism care center advisory
council, which shall advise the autism care center regarding
policies, priorities, and services.
``(2) Membership.--Each recipient of a grant shall appoint
members of the recipient's advisory council, which shall
include a variety of autism care center service providers,
individuals from the public who are knowledgeable about
autism spectrum disorders, individuals receiving services
through the Program, and family members of such individuals.
At least 60 percent of the membership shall be comprised of
individuals who have received, or are receiving, services
through the Program or who are family members of such
individuals.
``(3) Chairperson.--The recipient of a grant shall appoint
a chairperson to the advisory council of the recipient's
autism care center who shall be--
``(A) an individual with autism spectrum disorder who has
received, or is receiving, services through the Program; or
``(B) a family member of such an individual.
``(f) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall enter into a
contract with an independent third-party organization with
expertise in evaluation activities to conduct an evaluation
and, not later than 180 days after the conclusion of the 3-
year grant program under this section, submit a report to the
Secretary, which may include measures such as whether and to
what degree the treatments, interventions, and services
provided through the Program have resulted in improved
health, educational, employment, and community integration
outcomes for individuals with autism spectrum disorders, or
other measures, as the Secretary determines appropriate.
``(g) Administrative Expenses.--Of the amounts appropriated
to carry out this section, the Secretary shall allocate not
more than 7 percent for administrative expenses, including
the expenses related to carrying out the evaluation described
in subsection (f).
``(h) Supplement Not Supplant.--Amounts provided to an
entity under this section shall be used to supplement, not
supplant, amounts otherwise expended for existing treatments,
interventions, and services

[[Page 9971]]

for individuals with autism spectrum disorders.''.

SEC. 6. PLANNING AND DEMONSTRATION GRANTS FOR SERVICES FOR
ADULTS.

Part R of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 280i), as amended by section 5, is further amended by
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 399II. PLANNING AND DEMONSTRATION GRANT FOR SERVICES
FOR ADULTS.

``(a) In General.--In order to enable selected eligible
entities to provide appropriate services to adults with
autism spectrum disorders, to enable such adults to be as
independent as possible, the Secretary shall establish--
``(1) a one-time, single-year planning grant program for
eligible entities; and
``(2) a multiyear service provision demonstration grant
program for selected eligible entities.
``(b) Purpose of Grants.--Grants shall be awarded to
eligible entities to provide all or part of the funding
needed to carry out programs that focus on critical aspects
of adult life, such as--
``(1) postsecondary education, vocational training, self-
advocacy skills, and employment;
``(2) residential services and supports, housing, and
transportation;
``(3) nutrition, health and wellness, recreational and
social activities; and
``(4) personal safety and the needs of individuals with
autism spectrum disorders who become involved with the
criminal justice system.
``(c) Eligible Entity.--An eligible entity desiring to
receive a grant under this section shall be a State or other
public or private nonprofit organization, including an autism
care center.
``(d) Planning Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award one-time
grants to eligible entities to support the planning and
development of initiatives that will expand and enhance
service delivery systems for adults with autism spectrum
disorders.
``(2) Application.--In order to receive such a grant, an
eligible entity shall--
``(A) submit an application at such time and containing
such information as the Secretary may require; and
``(B) demonstrate the ability to carry out such planning
grant in coordination with the State Developmental
Disabilities Council and organizations representing or
serving individuals with autism spectrum disorders and their
families.
``(e) Implementation Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award grants to
eligible entities that have received a planning grant under
subsection (d) to enable such entities to provide appropriate
services to adults with autism spectrum disorders.
``(2) Application.--In order to receive a grant under
paragraph (1), the eligible entity shall submit an
application at such time and containing such information as
the Secretary may require, including--
``(A) the services that the eligible entity proposes to
provide and the expected outcomes for adults with autism
spectrum disorders who receive such services;
``(B) the number of adults and families who will be served
by such grant, including an estimate of the adults and
families in underserved areas who will be served by such
grant;
``(C) the ways in which services will be coordinated among
both public and nonprofit providers of services for adults
with disabilities, including community-based services;
``(D) where applicable, the process through which the
eligible entity will distribute funds to a range of
community-based or nonprofit providers of services, including
local governments, and such entity's capacity to provide such
services;
``(E) the process through which the eligible entity will
monitor and evaluate the outcome of activities funded through
the grant, including the effect of the activities upon adults
with autism spectrum disorders who receive such services;
``(F) the plans of the eligible entity to coordinate and
streamline transitions from youth to adult services;
``(G) the process by which the eligible entity will ensure
compliance with the integration requirement provided under
section 302 of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12182); and
``(H) a description of how such services may be sustained
following the grant period.
``(f) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall contract with a
third-party organization with expertise in evaluation to
evaluate such demonstration grant program and, not later than
180 days after the conclusion of the grant program under
subsection (e), submit a report to the Secretary. The
evaluation and report may include an analysis of whether and
to what extent the services provided through the grant
program described in this section resulted in improved
health, education, employment, and community integration
outcomes for adults with autism spectrum disorders, or other
measures, as the Secretary determines appropriate.
``(g) Administrative Expenses.--Of the amounts appropriated
to carry out this section, the Secretary shall set aside not
more than 7 percent for administrative expenses, including
the expenses related to carrying out the evaluation described
in subsection (f).
``(h) Supplement, Not Supplant.--Demonstration grant funds
provided under this section shall supplement, not supplant,
existing treatments, interventions, and services for
individuals with autism spectrum disorders.''.

SEC. 7. NATIONAL REGISTRY.

Part R of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 280i), as amended by section 6, is further amended by
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 399JJ. NATIONAL REGISTRY FOR AUTISM SPECTRUM
DISORDERS.

``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, in consultation with
national health organizations and professional societies with
experience and expertise relating to autism spectrum
disorders, shall establish a voluntary population-based
registry of cases of autism spectrum disorders. Such registry
shall be known as the `National Registry for Autism Spectrum
Disorders' (referred to in this section as the `Registry').
The Secretary shall ensure that the Registry maintains the
privacy of individuals and the highest level of medical and
scientific research ethics.
``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the Registry is to
facilitate the collection, analysis, and dissemination of
data related to autism spectrum disorders that can increase
understanding of causal factors, rates, and trends of autism
spectrum disorders.
``(c) Activities.--In carrying out the Registry, the
Secretary may--
``(1) implement a surveillance and monitoring system that
is based on thorough and complete medical diagnosis data,
clinical history, and medical findings;
``(2) collect standardized information concerning the
environmental, medical, social, and genetic circumstances
that may correlate with diagnosis of autism spectrum
disorders;
``(3) promote the use of standardized autism spectrum
disorder investigation and reporting tools of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, as well as standardized
autism spectrum disorder protocols;
``(4) establish a standardized classification system for
defining subcategories of autism spectrum disorders for
surveillance research activities; and
``(5) support multidisciplinary reviews of autism spectrum
disorders.''.

SEC. 8. MULTIMEDIA CAMPAIGN.

Part R of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 280i), as amended by section 7, is further amended by
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 399KK. MULTIMEDIA CAMPAIGN.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in order to enhance
existing awareness campaigns and provide for the
implementation of new campaigns, shall award grants to public
and nonprofit private entities for the purpose of carrying
out multimedia campaigns to increase public education and
awareness and reduce stigma concerning--
``(1) healthy developmental milestones for infants and
children that may assist in the early identification of the
signs and symptoms of autism spectrum disorders; and
``(2) autism spectrum disorders through the lifespan and
the challenges that individuals with autism spectrum
disorders face, which may include transitioning into
adulthood, securing appropriate job training or postsecondary
education, securing and holding jobs, finding suitable
housing, interacting with the correctional system, increasing
independence, and attaining a good quality of life.
``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (a), an entity shall--
``(1) submit to the Secretary an application at such time,
in such manner, and containing such information as the
Secretary may require; and
``(2) provide assurance that the multimedia campaign
implemented under such grant will provide information that is
tailored to the intended audience, which may be a diverse
public audience or a specific audience, such as health
professionals, criminal justice professionals, or emergency
response professionals.''.

SEC. 9. INTERDEPARTMENTAL AUTISM COORDINATING COMMITTEE.

(a) Establishment.--There is established a committee, to be
known as the ``Interdepartmental Autism Coordinating
Committee,'' (referred to in this section as the
``Committee'') to coordinate all Federal efforts concerning
autism spectrum disorders.
(b) Responsibilities.--In carrying out its duties under
this section, the Committee shall--
(1) develop and annually update a summary of developments
in research on autism spectrum disorders, services for people
on the autism spectrum and their families, and programs that
focus on people on the autism spectrum;
(2) monitor governmental and nongovernmental activities
with respect to autism spectrum disorders;
(3) make recommendations to the Secretary of Health and
Human Services and other relevant heads of agencies (referred
to

[[Page 9972]]

in this subsection as the ``agency heads'') regarding any
appropriate changes to such activities and any ethical
considerations relating to those activities;
(4) make recommendations to the agency heads regarding
public participation in decisions relating to autism spectrum
disorders;
(5) develop and annually update a strategic plan, including
proposed budgetary requirements, for conducting and
supporting research related to autism spectrum disorders,
services for individuals on the autism spectrum and their
families, and programs that focus on such individuals and
their families; and
(6) annually submit to Congress and the President such
strategic plan and any updates to such plan.
(c) Membership.--
(1) Federal members.--The Committee shall be composed of--
(A) the Director of the National Institutes of Health, and
the directors of such national research institutes of the
National Institutes of Health as the Director determines
appropriate;
(B) the heads of other agencies within the Department of
Health and Human Services, as the Secretary determines
appropriate; and
(C) representatives of the Department of Education, the
Department of Defense, and other Federal agencies that
provide services to individuals with autism spectrum
disorders and their families or that have programs that
affect individuals with autism spectrum disorders, as the
Secretary determines appropriate.
(2) Non-federal members.--Not less than 2/5 of the total
membership of the Committee shall be composed of public
members to be appointed by the Secretary, of which--
(A) at least one such member shall be an individual with an
autism spectrum disorder;
(B) at least one such member shall be a parent or legal
guardian of an individual with an autism spectrum disorder;
(C) at least one such member shall be a representative of a
nongovernmental organization that provides services to
individuals with autism spectrum disorders or their families;
and
(D) at least one such member shall be a representative of a
leading research, advocacy, and service organization for
individuals with autism spectrum disorders and their
families.
(d) Administrative Support; Terms of Service; Other
Provisions.--The following provisions shall apply with
respect to the Committee:
(1) The Committee shall receive necessary and appropriate
administrative support from the Secretary.
(2) Members of the Committee appointed under subsection
(c)(2) shall serve for a term of 4 years and may be
reappointed for one or more additional 4-year terms. The term
of any member appointed under subsection (c)(2)(C) or
subsection (c)(2)(D) shall expire if the member no longer
represents the organization described in such subsections.
Any member appointed to fill a vacancy for an unexpired term
shall be appointed for the remainder of such term. A member
may serve after the expiration of the member's term until a
successor has taken office.
(3) The Committee shall be chaired by the Secretary or the
Secretary's designee. The Committee shall meet at the call of
the chairperson and not fewer than 2 times each year.
(4) All meetings of the Committee or its subcommittees
shall be public and shall include appropriate time periods
for questions and presentations by the public.
(5) The Committee may convene workshops and conferences.
(e) Subcommittees: Establishment and Membership.--
(1) Establishment of subcommittees.--In carrying out its
functions, the Committee may establish--
(A) a subcommittee on research on autism spectrum
disorders;
(B) a subcommittee on services for individuals with autism
spectrum disorders and their families and programs that focus
on individuals with autism spectrum disorders; and
(C) such other subcommittees as the Committee determines
appropriate.
(2) Membership.--Subcommittees may include as members
individuals who are not members of the Committee.
(3) Meetings.--Subcommittees may hold such meetings as are
necessary.
(f) Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee.--Part R of
title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280i)
is amended by striking section 399CC (42 U.S.C. 284i-2).

SEC. 10. NATIONAL NETWORK FOR AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS
RESEARCH AND SERVICES.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Services.--The term ``services'' means services to
assist individuals with autism spectrum disorders to live
more independently in their communities and improve the
quality of life of such individuals.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
(3) Treatments.--The term ``treatments'' means the health
services, including mental health and behavioral therapy
services, designed to improve or ameliorate symptoms
associated with autism spectrum disorders.
(4) Autism care center.--In this subpart, the term ``autism
care center'' means a center that is directed by a primary
care coordinator who is an expert in autism spectrum disorder
treatment and practice and provides an array of medical,
psychological, behavioral, educational, and family services
to individuals with autism and their families. Such a center
shall--
(A) incorporate the attributes of the care management
model;
(B) offer, through on-site service provision or through
detailed referral and coordinated care arrangements, an
autism management team of appropriate providers, including
behavioral specialists, physicians, psychologists, social
workers, family therapists, nurse practitioners, nurses,
educators, and other appropriate personnel; and
(C) have the capability to achieve improvements in the
management and coordination of care for targeted
beneficiaries.
(b) Establishment of the National Network for Autism
Spectrum Disorders Research and Services.--Not later than 1
year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall establish the National Network for Autism Spectrum
Disorders Research and Services (referred to in this section
as the ``National Network''). The National Network shall
provide resources for, and facilitate communication between,
autism spectrum disorder researchers and service providers
for individuals with autism spectrum disorders and their
families.
(c) Purposes.--The purposes of the National Network are
to--
(1) build upon the infrastructure relating to autism
spectrum disorders that exists on the date of enactment of
this Act;
(2) strengthen linkages between autism spectrum disorders
research and service initiatives at the Federal, regional,
State, and local levels;
(3) facilitate the translation of research on autism
spectrum disorders into services and treatments to improve
the quality of life for individuals with autism and their
families; and
(4) ensure the rapid dissemination of evidence-based or
promising autism spectrum disorder practices through the
National Data Repository for Autism Spectrum Disorders
Research and Services described in subsection (e).
(d) Organization and Activities of the National Network.--
(1) In general.--In establishing the National Network, the
Secretary, acting through Administrator of the Health
Resources and Services Administration, shall ensure that the
National Network is composed of entities at the Federal,
regional, State, and local levels.
(2) Regional leadership and organization.--In establishing
the National Network, the Secretary shall establish a
Committee of Regional Leaders, which shall ensure that
regional participation is provided through the appointment of
regional leaders such as university- and community-based
partnerships that represent the needs and interests of
regional stakeholders (including individuals with autism
spectrum disorders and their families, providers, and
researchers). The Committee of Regional Leaders shall be
responsible for monitoring, reporting, analyzing, and
disseminating information in the Data Repository described in
subsection (e) to other stakeholders to ensure that the
information contained in such Data Repository is widely
available to policymakers and service providers at the State
and local levels, and to facilitate communication between
various members of the National Network.
(3) State and community level leadership and
organization.--
(A) State directors.--The regional leaders appointed under
paragraph (2) shall appoint State directors who shall
coordinate the activities of the National Network at the
State and community levels.
(B) State and community subnetworks.--The Secretary shall
ensure that the State directors establish State and community
autism subnetworks, which shall engage in a variety of
frontline autism activities and provide services, including
comprehensive diagnostics, treatment, resource and referral,
and support programs, for individuals with autism spectrum
disorders.
(e) National Data Repository for Autism Spectrum Disorders
Research and Services.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a National
Data Repository for Autism Spectrum Disorders Research and
Services (referred to in this section as the ``Data
Repository'') and shall contract with one eligible third-
party entity to develop and administer such repository
(referred to in this section as the ``Data Repository
Administrator''). The Data Repository shall be used to
collect, store, and disseminate information regarding
research, data, findings, models of treatment, training
modules, and technical assistance materials related to autism
spectrum disorders in order to facilitate the development and
rapid dissemination of research into best practices that
improve care.
(2) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive the contract
described in paragraph (1), an entity shall--
(A) be a public or private nonprofit entity; and
(B) have experience--

[[Page 9973]]

(i) collecting data;
(ii) developing systems to store data in a secure manner
that does not personally identify individuals;
(iii) developing internet web portals and other means of
communicating with a wide audience; and
(iv) making information available to the public.
(3) Contents.--The Data Repository shall include--
(A) emerging research, data, and findings regarding autism
spectrum disorders from basic and applied researchers and
service providers;
(B) emerging or promising models of treatment, service
provision, and training related to autism spectrum disorders
that are developed in individual care centers or programs;
and
(C) training modules and technical assistance materials.
(4) Duties of the administrator.--The Data Repository
Administrator shall--
(A) collect information from autism spectrum disorders
research and service provision agencies and organizations
including--
(i) Centers of Excellence in Autism Spectrum Disorder
Epidemiology under section 399AA(b) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280i(b));
(ii) autism care centers;
(iii) recipients of grants through the grant program for
adult services under section 399II of the Public Health
Service Act, as added by section 6 of this Act;
(iv) members and recipients of the national training
initiatives on autism spectrum disorders under section 399LL
of the Public Health Service Act, as added by section 11 of
this Act; and
(v) the Committee of Regional Leaders, regional leaders,
State directors, members of State and community autism
subnetworks, and other entities, as determined by the
Secretary;
(B) securely store and maintain information in the Data
Repository in a manner that does not personally identify
individuals;
(C) make information in the Data Repository accessible
through an Internet web portal or other appropriate means of
sharing information;
(D) ensure that the information contained in the Data
Repository is accessible to the National Network, including
health care providers, educators, and other autism spectrum
disorders service providers at the national, State, and local
levels; and
(E) provide a means through the Internet web portal, or
through other means, for members of the National Network to
share information, research, and best practices on autism
spectrum disorders.
(f) Supplement Not Supplant.--Amounts provided under this
section shall be used to supplement, not supplant, amounts
otherwise expended for existing network or organizational
structures relating to autism spectrum disorders.

SEC. 11. NATIONAL TRAINING INITIATIVES ON AUTISM SPECTRUM
DISORDERS.

Part R of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 280i), as amended by section 8, is further amended by
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 399LL. NATIONAL TRAINING INITIATIVES ON AUTISM
SPECTRUM DISORDERS.

``(a) National Training Initiative Supplemental Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award multiyear
national training initiative supplemental grants to eligible
entities so that such entities may provide training and
technical assistance and to disseminate information, in order
to enable such entities to address the unmet needs of
individuals with autism spectrum disorders and their
families.
``(2) Eligible entity.--To be eligible to receive
assistance under this section an entity shall--
``(A) be a public or private nonprofit entity, including
University Centers for Excellence in Developmental
Disabilities and other service, training, and academic
entities; and
``(B) submit an application as described in paragraph (3).
``(3) Requirements.--An eligible entity that desires to
receive a grant under this paragraph shall submit to the
Secretary an application containing such agreements and
information as the Secretary may require, including
agreements that the training program shall--
``(A) provide trainees with an appropriate balance of
interdisciplinary academic and community-based experiences;
``(B) have a demonstrated capacity to include individuals
with autism spectrum disorders, parents, and family members
as part of the training program to ensure that a person and
family-centered approach is used;
``(C) provide to the Secretary, in the manner prescribed by
the Secretary, data regarding the outcomes of the provision
of training and technical assistance;
``(D) demonstrate a capacity to share and disseminate
materials and practices that are developed and evaluated to
be effective in the provision of training and technical
assistance; and
``(E) provide assurances that training, technical
assistance, and information dissemination performed under
grants made pursuant to this paragraph shall be consistent
with the goals established under already existing disability
programs authorized under Federal law and conducted in
coordination with other relevant State agencies and service
providers.
``(4) Activities.--An entity that receives a grant under
this section shall expand and develop interdisciplinary
training and continuing education initiatives for health,
allied health, and educational professionals by engaging in
the following activities:
``(A) Promoting and engaging in training for health, allied
health, and educational professionals to identify, diagnose,
and develop interventions for individuals with, or at risk of
developing, autism spectrum disorders.
``(B) Working to expand the availability of training and
information regarding effective, lifelong interventions,
educational services, and community supports, including
specific training for criminal justice system, emergency
health care, legal, and other mainstream first responder
professionals, to identify characteristics of individuals
with autism spectrum disorders and to develop appropriate
responses and interventions.
``(C) Providing technical assistance in collaboration with
relevant State, regional, or national agencies, institutions
of higher education, advocacy groups for individuals with
autism spectrum disorders and their families, or community-
based service providers.
``(D) Developing mechanisms to provide training and
technical assistance, including for-credit courses, intensive
summer institutes, continuing education programs, distance-
based programs, and web-based information dissemination
strategies.
``(E) Collecting data on the outcomes of training and
technical assistance programs to meet statewide needs for the
expansion of services to children with autism spectrum
disorders and adults with autism spectrum disorders.
``(b) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary shall reserve 2
percent of the appropriated funds to make a grant to a
national organization with demonstrated capacity for
providing training and technical assistance to the entities
receiving grants under subsection (a) to enable such entities
to--
``(1) assist in national dissemination of specific
information, including evidence-based and promising best
practices, from interdisciplinary training programs, and when
appropriate, other entities whose findings would inform the
work performed by entities awarded grants;
``(2) compile and disseminate strategies and materials that
prove to be effective in the provision of training and
technical assistance so that the entire network can benefit
from the models, materials, and practices developed in
individual centers;
``(3) assist in the coordination of activities of grantees
under this section;
``(4) develop an Internet web portal that will provide
linkages to each of the individual training initiatives and
provide access to training modules, promising training, and
technical assistance practices and other materials developed
by grantees;
``(5) convene experts from multiple interdisciplinary
training programs and individuals with autism spectrum
disorders and their families to discuss and make
recommendations with regard to training issues related to the
assessment, diagnosis of, treatment, interventions and
services for, children with autism spectrum disorders and
adults with autism spectrum disorders; and
``(6) undertake any other functions that the Secretary
determines to be appropriate.
``(c) Supplement Not Supplant.--Amounts provided under this
section shall be used to supplement, not supplant, amounts
otherwise expended for existing network or organizational
structures.''.

SEC. 12. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO HEALTH INSURANCE.

(a) ERISA.--
(1) In general.--Subpart B of part 7 of subtitle B of title
I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29
U.S.C. 1185 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 715. REQUIRED COVERAGE FOR AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS.

[[Page 9974]]

level and type of reimbursement with a provider for care
provided in accordance with this section.
``(c) Notice Under Group Health Plan.--The imposition of
the requirements of this section shall be treated as a
material modification in the terms of the plan described in
section 102(a)(1), for purposes of assuring notice of such
requirements under the plan, except that the summary
description required to be provided under the last sentence
of section 104(b)(1) with respect to such modification shall
be provided not later than the earlier of--
``(1) 60 days after the first day of the first plan year in
which such requirements apply; or
``(2) in the first mailing after the date of enactment of
the Autism Treatment Acceleration Act of 2009 made by the
plan or issuer to the participant or beneficiary.
``(d) Prohibitions.--A group health plan, and a health
insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage in
connection with a group health plan, shall not--
``(1) deny to an individual eligibility, or continued
eligibility, to enroll or to renew coverage under the terms
of the plan, solely for the purpose of avoiding the
requirements of this section; or
``(2) deny coverage otherwise available under this section
on the basis that such coverage will not--
``(A) develop skills or functioning;
``(B) maintain skills or functioning;
``(C) restore skills or functioning; or
``(D) prevent the loss of skills or functioning.
``(e) Preemption; Relation to State Law.--
``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to preempt any State law (or cost sharing
requirements under State law) with respect to health
insurance coverage that requires coverage of at least the
coverage for autism spectrum disorders otherwise required
under this section.
``(2) Effect on other laws.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to affect or modify the provisions of section
514 with respect to group health plans.
``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Autism spectrum disorders.--The term `autism spectrum
disorders' means developmental disabilities that cause
substantial impairments in the areas of social interaction,
emotional regulation, communication, and the integration of
higher-order cognitive processes and which may be
characterized by the presence of unusual behaviors and
interests. Such term includes autistic disorder, pervasive
developmental disorder (not otherwise specified), Asperger
syndrome, Retts disorder, and childhood disintegrative
disorder.
``(2) Diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders.--The term
`diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders' means medically
necessary assessments, evaluations, or tests to diagnose
whether an individual has an autism spectrum disorder.
``(3) Treatment of autism spectrum disorders.--The term
`treatment of autism spectrum disorders' means the following
care prescribed, provided, or ordered for an individual
diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder by a physician,
psychologist, or other qualified professional who determines
the care to be medically necessary:
``(A) Medications prescribed by a physician and any health-
related services necessary to determine the need or
effectiveness of the medications.
``(B) Occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech
therapy.
``(C) Direct or consultative services provided by a
psychiatrist or psychologist.
``(D) Professional, counseling, and guidance services and
treatment programs, including applied behavior analysis and
other structured behavioral programs. In this subparagraph,
the term `applied behavior analysis' means the design,
implementation and evaluation of environmental modifications,
using behavioral stimuli and consequences, to produce
socially significant improvement in human behavior, including
the use of direct observation, measurement, and functional
analysis of the relationship between environment and
behavior.
``(E) Augmentative communication devices and other
assistive technology devices.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents in section 1
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29
U.S.C. 1001 note) is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 714 the following:

``Sec. 715. Required coverage for autism spectrum disorders.''.
(b) Public Health Service Act.--
(1) Group market.--Subpart 2 of part A of title XXVII of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-4 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 2708. REQUIRED COVERAGE FOR AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS.

``(a) In General.--A group health plan, and a health
insurance issuer providing health insurance coverage in
connection with a group health plan, shall provide coverage
for the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders and the
treatment of autism spectrum disorders.
``(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed--
``(1) as preventing a group health plan or health insurance
issuer from imposing financial requirements or limits in
relation to benefits for the diagnosis and treatment of
autism spectrum disorders, except that such financial
requirements or limits for any such benefits may not be less
favorable to the individual than such financial requirements
or limits for substantially all other medical and surgical
benefits covered by the plan, and there shall be no separate
financial requirements or limits that are applicable only
with respect to benefits for the diagnosis or treatment of
autism spectrum disorders; or
``(2) to prevent a group health plan or a health insurance
issuer from negotiating the level and type of reimbursement
with a provider for care provided in accordance with this
section.
``(c) Notice Under Group Health Plan.--The imposition of
the requirements of this section shall be treated as a
material modification in the terms of the plan described in
section 102(a)(1), for purposes of assuring notice of such
requirements under the plan, except that the summary
description required to be provided under the last sentence
of section 104(b)(1) with respect to such modification shall
be provided not later than the earlier of--
``(1) 60 days after the first day of the first plan year in
which such requirements apply; or
``(2) in the first mailing after the date of enactment of
the Autism Treatment Acceleration Act of 2009 made by the
plan or issuer to the enrollee.
``(d) Prohibitions.--A group health plan, and a health
insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage in
connection with a group health plan, shall not--
``(1) deny to an individual eligibility, or continued
eligibility, to enroll or to renew coverage under the terms
of the plan, solely for the purpose of avoiding the
requirements of this section; or
``(2) deny coverage otherwise available under this section
on the basis that such coverage will not--
``(A) develop skills or functioning;
``(B) maintain skills or functioning;
``(C) restore skills or functioning; or
``(D) prevent the loss of skills or functioning.
``(e) Preemption; Relation to State Law.--
``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to preempt any State law (or cost sharing
requirements under State law) with respect to health
insurance coverage that requires coverage of at least the
coverage for autism spectrum disorders otherwise required
under this section.
``(2) ERISA.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to
affect or modify the provisions of section 514 of the
Employee Income Retirement Security Act of 1974 with respect
to group health plans.
``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Autism spectrum disorders.--The term `autism spectrum
disorders' means developmental disabilities that cause
substantial impairments in the areas of social interaction,
emotional regulation, communication, and the integration of
higher-order cognitive processes and which may be
characterized by the presence of unusual behaviors and
interests. Such term includes autistic disorder, pervasive
developmental disorder (not otherwise specified), and
Asperger syndrome.
``(2) Diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders.--The term
`diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders' means medically
necessary assessments, evaluations, or tests to diagnose
whether an individual has an autism spectrum disorder.
``(3) Treatment of autism spectrum disorders.--The term
`treatment of autism spectrum disorders' means the following
care prescribed, provided, or ordered for an individual
diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder by a physician,
psychologist, or other qualified professional who determines
the care to be medically necessary:
``(A) Medications prescribed by a physician and any health-
related services necessary to determine the need or
effectiveness of the medications.
``(B) Occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech
therapy.
``(C) Direct or consultative services provided by a
psychiatrist or psychologist.
``(D) Professional, counseling, and guidance services and
treatment programs, including applied behavior analysis and
other structured behavioral programs. In this subparagraph,
the term `applied behavior analysis' means the design,
implementation and evaluation of environmental modifications,
using behavioral stimuli and consequences, to produce
socially significant improvement in human behavior, including
the use of direct observation, measurement, and functional
analysis of the relationship between environment and
behavior.
``(E) Augmentative communication devices and other
assistive technology devices.''.
(2) Individual market.--Subpart 3 of part B of title XXVII
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-51 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 2754. REQUIRED COVERAGE FOR AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS.

``The provisions of section 2708 shall apply to health
insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer in
the individual market in the same manner as they apply to

[[Page 9975]]

health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance
issuer in connection with a group health plan in the small or
large group market.''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) Group health plans.--
(A) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall
apply to group health plans for plan years beginning on or
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(B) Special rule for collective bargaining agreements.--In
the case of a group health plan maintained pursuant to one or
more collective bargaining agreements between employee
representatives and one or more employers, any plan amendment
made pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement relating
to the plan which amends the plan solely to conform to any
requirement added by the amendment made by subsections (a)
and (b)(1) shall not be treated as a termination of such
collective bargaining agreement.
(2) Individual plans.--The amendment made by subsection
(b)(2) shall apply with respect to health insurance coverage
offered, sold, issued, renewed, in effect, or operated in the
individual market on or after the date of enactment of this
Act.

SEC. 13. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years
2010 through 2014 such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this Act.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Hatch, Ms. Stabenow,
Mr. Ensign, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Nelson of
Florida):
S. 823. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
5-year carryback of operating losses, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, America's economy is continuing in
recession. Companies that have been profitable for years are finding
their balance sheets awash in red ink. The economic stimulus bill, the
American Recover and Reinvestment Act or ``ARRA,'' helped some small
companies with a provision that allows them to take losses from 2008
and carry them back for up to five years rather than carry them forward
for up to 20 or back only two. This net operating loss, NOL, carryback
provision gives formerly profitable companies the ability to get a
quick infusion of cash by recouping taxes paid when they were
profitable in the recent past.
The cash from a 5 year carryback of NOLs allows companies to keep
employees on payroll, and stabilize operations during the most trying
time businesses have faced in at least a generation. The House and
Senate and the Obama Administration all acknowledged the importance of
permitting NOL carrybacks during the debate on the economic stimulus
with provisions that generally allowed any company to carryback losses
incurred in 2008 and 2009. Unfortunately, the final agreement on that
law did not contain the sweeping provision that is necessary to help as
many companies as are in need of this tax relief.
Companies are permitted to take these losses against future income,
for up to 20 years from now. However, that carryforward of losses does
nothing to help companies weather the current recession in fact some of
these companies might never be able to take these losses because
they'll go out of business as a result of this recession. Permitting
carryback of losses will help to prevent employees from being laid off
today as a result of the credit crunch that continues to exacerbate the
downward spiral of our economy. We can help lessen the credit crunch
and increase cash flow in companies by permitting companies to
carryback losses for 5 years.
Today I am honored to introduce the NOL Carryback Act with the
chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus, and a
distinguished group of colleagues from the Finance Committee. This bill
mirrors the Senate-passed NOL carryback provision that was passed in
ARRA. The Senate-passed bill allowed carrybacks for losses incurred in
2008 and 2009, for any sized business, but it prevented companies that
receive cash from the Troubled Asset Relief Program from also receiving
this cash infusion.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Begich):
S. 824. A bill to establish a Jobs Creation Coordinator in the
Department of Commerce to ensure that agencies in the Department use
resources in a manner that maximizes the maintenance and creation of
jobs in the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in response to the devastating
job losses resulting from the current economic crisis. Figures released
this week show that U.S. companies shed more than 740,000 jobs in
March, a 5 percent increase over the 706,000 jobs lost in February. Our
country has now lost nearly 4.5 million jobs since the onset of the
recession--the most since 1945. Tomorrow's release of government-
compiled employment figures is certain to confirm the dismal state of
the U.S. job market--a tragic reality that millions of hardworking
Americans and the families they support know all too well.
As a senior member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation, I believe it is essential for the Department of
Commerce to respond to this dire situation by focusing its efforts on
expanding employment opportunities for Americans. With its statutory
mission ``to foster, promote, and develop the foreign and domestic
commerce,'' the Department of Commerce has a clear mandate to defend
and grow the U.S. economy through job preservation and creation.
Yet the disparate agencies that comprise the department have little
or no occasion to coordinate their efforts toward maximizing its job
maintaining and creating potential. While divisions such as the
Economic Development Agency and the Minority Business Development
Agency each have their own programs to increase employment in their
respective target communities, there is the potential for even greater
job creation through the coordination of their efforts with the core
functions of other department components, such as the export-promotion
activities of the International Trade Administration, the economic
analysis of the Economics and Statistics Administration, and the
stewardship of technological innovation by the National
Telecommunications & Information Administration.
That is why I am today introducing bipartisan legislation with my
Commerce Committee colleague Senator Begich to establish a Job Creation
Coordinator at the department. Answering directly to the Secretary of
Commerce, the Coordinator would not only ensure that each agency is
carrying out its primary mission in a way that maximizes U.S.
employment, but also would identify and implement opportunities to link
separate programs being carried out by the agencies in a way that
ensures that department resources are being spent in a manner which
guarantees the utmost job creation per dollar appropriated.
Specifically, the Jobs Coordinator would be responsible for making an
initial assessment of the private sector jobs currently being
maintained or created by Commerce Department programs; formulating an
action plan for improving these figures under existing statutory
authority; liaising with Congress about additional authority which
would enhance the job maintaining and creating abilities of Commerce
Department programs; and, overseeing the implementation of new
department policies or statutory authorities intended to enhance the
department's job maintenance and creation potential.
The millions of Americans who have lost their livelihoods to the
economic downturn, or whose jobs are at risk amidst the turmoil,
deserve the utmost effort by their government to put an end to the lay-
offs and get people back to work. I urge my colleagues to join me in
this vital effort by supporting this legislation.

____________________

SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

______

SENATE RESOLUTION 98--DESIGNATING EACH OF APRIL 15, 2009, AND APRIL 15,
2010, AS ``NATIONAL TEA PARTY DAY''

Mr. VITTER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary:

[[Page 9976]]

S. Res. 98

Whereas the taxpayers of the United States understand that
the so-called ``stimulus bill'', the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 115),
included a laundry list of spending projects;
Whereas the taxpayers of the United States understand that
the bailouts of Wall Street by the United States Government
have been ineffective and a waste of taxpayer funding;
Whereas the taxpayers of the United States agree that the
United States Government should stop wasteful spending,
reduce the tax burden on families and businesses, and focus
on policies that will lead to job creation and economic
growth; and
Whereas taxpayers in the United States are expressing their
opposition to high taxes and skyrocketing spending by the
United States Government by organizing ``Taxed Enough
Already'' parties, also known as ``TEA'' parties: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate designates each of April 15,
2009, and April 15, 2010, as ``National TEA Party Day''.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 99--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE
GOVERNMENT OF UZBEKISTAN SHOULD IMMEDIATELY ENFORCE ITS EXISTING
DOMESTIC LEGISLATION AND FULFILL ITS INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS AIMED AT
ENDING STATE-SPONSORED FORCED AND CHILD LABOR

Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Sanders, and Mr. Bingaman) submitted the
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations:

S. Res. 99

Whereas the United States has a growing strategic
involvement in Central Asia;
Whereas the interests of the United States in Central Asia,
including the operations in Afghanistan, can only be secured
by the presence in the region of viable, vigorous democracies
that fully guarantee the economic and social rights of all
people, including children;
Whereas the Government of Uzbekistan continues to commit
serious human rights abuses, including arbitrary arrest and
detention, torture in custody, and the severe restriction of
freedom of speech, the press, religion, independent political
activity, and nongovernmental organizations;
Whereas the Government of Uzbekistan detains thousands of
people for political or religious reasons;
Whereas Uzbekistan is the third largest exporter of cotton
in the world, and cotton is 1 of the largest sources of
export revenue for Uzbekistan;
Whereas Uzbekistan has signed and properly deposited with
the International Labour Organization (ILO) the Minimum Age
Convention, convened at Geneva June 6, 1973 (International
Labour Organization Convention Number 138) and the Worst
Forms of Child Labour Convention, convened at Geneva June 1,
1999 (International Labour Organization Convention Number
182);
Whereas the Government of Uzbekistan issued a decree in
September 2008 that ostensibly prohibited the practice of
forced and child labor, but the Government of Uzbekistan sent
schoolchildren to harvest cotton within weeks after issuing
the decree;
Whereas the 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
by the Department of State stated that large-scale compulsory
mobilization of youth and students to harvest cotton
continued in most rural areas of Uzbekistan and that the
students and youths were poorly paid, living conditions were
poor, and children were exposed to harmful chemicals and
pesticides applied in the cotton fields;
Whereas research by the Environmental Justice Foundation
indicates that each year hundreds of thousands of
schoolchildren from Uzbekistan, some as young as 7 years old,
are forced by the Government of Uzbekistan to work in the
national cotton harvest for up to 3 months;
Whereas a policy briefing published by the School of
Oriental and African Studies, University of London, in 2008,
entitled ``Invisible to the World'', used extrapolations
based on surveys in 6 areas that took place in 2006 and 2007
to conclude that approximately 2,400,000 schoolchildren from
Uzbekistan between the ages of 10 and 15 are forcibly
recruited into the annual cotton harvest;
Whereas the British Broadcasting Company undertook an
investigation in late 2007 and found that the Government of
Uzbekistan continues to rely on the state-orchestrated mass
mobilization of children to bring in the cotton harvest;
Whereas, in 2008, reports of child labor in the cotton
fields were received by multiple media outlets and local
human rights activists from the major cotton-growing regions
in Uzbekistan, including Djizzak, Namangan, Samarkand, and
Ferghana, among others;
Whereas a report by the Rapid Reaction Group indicates that
schoolchildren who cannot fulfill their daily picking quotas
are forced to make up the difference in cash from the pockets
of their own families;
Whereas the Government of Uzbekistan detained and harassed
an independent journalist who accompanied a diplomat from the
United States on a research trip to Syr Daria province, where
the diplomat photographed children working in the cotton
fields;
Whereas the children working in the cotton fields are
stressed by the pressure to fulfill cotton quotas, physically
abused by arduous work in the cotton fields, and subjected to
poor and hazardous living conditions during the harvest
period;
Whereas international brands such as Gap, H&M, Levi
Strauss, Limited Brands, Target, Tesco, and Wal-Mart have
banned cotton from Uzbekistan from their products and
instructed their suppliers to comply with the ban;
Whereas the Government of Uzbekistan allowed a survey to be
conducted by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF),
under the strict supervision of the Government of Uzbekistan,
yet the survey was not conducted during the fall harvest
season (a time when the likelihood of children working in the
fields is significantly greater);
Whereas the Government of Uzbekistan refused to fully
cooperate with the ILO and the International Cotton Advisory
Committee to undertake an independent technical assessment of
forced child labor during the fall 2008 harvest season; and
Whereas the ILO has conducted independent investigations
into forced and child labor in more than 60 countries around
the world, including developing and developed countries: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the
Government of Uzbekistan should--
(1) immediately enforce its existing domestic legislation
and fulfill its international commitments aimed at ending
state-sponsored forced and child labor;
(2) allow a comprehensive independent investigation into
forced and child labor in the cotton sector during the fall
2009 harvest season by the International Labour Organization;
(3) in consultation and cooperation with the International
Labour Organization, develop a credible and comprehensive
action plan based on the findings of the International Labour
Organization and commit the resources necessary to end forced
and child labor in the cotton sector; and
(4) take concrete steps towards systemic reform that will--
(A) ensure greater freedom and better returns from their
labor for cotton-producing farmers; and
(B) enable such farmers to employ adults in the cotton
sector.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 100--EXPRESSING THE SUPPORT OF THE SENATE FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN URBAN YOUTH SPORT INITIATIVE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
THE UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE

Mr. DURBIN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:

S. Res. 100

Whereas participation in sports and organized physical
education is essential to fostering healthy attitudes and
lifestyles in children;
Whereas the National Association for Sport and Physical
Education reports that participation among American students
in physical education has declined dramatically;
Whereas American children are experiencing obesity in
growing numbers, and data continues to highlight the link
between obesity and diabetes, heart disease, and other life-
threatening medical conditions;
Whereas youth physical fitness through sport improves
overall health, aids child development, improves self-esteem,
and increases academic success in the classroom;
Whereas participation in adaptive sports improves self-
worth, health, independence, and self-esteem for youth with
physical and cognitive disabilities;
Whereas the rate of participation by urban youth in
organized athletics is approximately one-third of the rate of
suburban youth, and this is particularly true for young girls
in urban areas;
Whereas both the world and United States populations are
becoming increasingly urban, and if the trend of urbanization
continues, by 2030 it is estimated that two-thirds of the
global population will reside in urban areas;
Whereas establishing sports in urban settings remains a
particular challenge because cities often lack the physical
space needed for sports and efforts are often fragmented due
to communication and coordination challenges;
Whereas the selection of the city of Chicago to represent
the United States in its bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympic
and Paralympic Games would leave a legacy of youth engagement
in sports in cities across our Nation;

[[Page 9977]]

Whereas the city of Chicago and Chicago 2016 are committed
to an initiative establishing sustainable urban sport venues
and connecting sport venues with programs that address
coaching challenges, resource issues, and the difficulties of
parental support to run programs;
Whereas the United States Olympic Committee and its 45
member organizations are currently investing in Olympic and
Paralympic sport and physical activity programs for Americans
in communities throughout the United States; and
Whereas the creation of an Urban Youth Sport Initiative
would increase involvement of urban youth in sport, increase
the training and availability of coaches in urban areas for
youth sports, and enhance the ability of urban cities to
administer youth sports programs: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) supports the expansion of quality urban youth sports
programs to increase urban youth involvement in sport; and
(2) supports the establishment of an Urban Youth Sport
Initiative in partnership with the United States Olympic
Committee.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 101--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE TRAGIC
EVENTS AT THE PINELAKE HEALTH AND REHAB CENTER IN CARTHAGE, NORTH
CAROLINA ON SUNDAY, MARCH 29, 2009

Mr. BURR (for himself and Mrs. Hagan) submitted the following
resolution; which was

S. Res. 101

Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) offers its heartfelt condolences to the victims and
their families, and to the staff and their families, who have
been deeply affected by the tragic events that occurred at
the Pinelake Health and Rehab Center in Carthage, North
Carolina on March 29, 2009;
(2) honors the lives of the deceased victims--Jerry Avant,
Louise DeKler, Lillian Dunn, Tessie Garner, John Goldstrom,
Bessie Hedrick, Margaret Johnson, and Jesse Musser; and
(3) recognizes the heroism of Officer Justin Garner, whose
decisive action and bravery preserved the safety of many, and
wishes Officer Garner a complete and rapid recovery from the
wound he sustained.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 102--PROVIDING FOR MEMBERS ON THE PART OF THE SENATE
OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING AND THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS
ON THE LIBRARY

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. Bennett) submitted the following
resolution; which was

S. Res. 102

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and they are
hereby, elected members of the following joint committees of
Congress:
Joint Committee on Printing: Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Chambliss.
Joint Committee of Congress on the Library: Mr. Schumer,
Mr. Dodd, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Cochran.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 103--TO AUTHORIZE TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
IN RICHARD BOWEN V. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY (MSPB)

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. McCONNELL) submitted the following
resolution; which was:

S. Res. 103

Whereas, in the case of Richard Bowen v. Department of the
Navy, No. SF-0752-09-0040-I-1, pending before the Merit
Systems Protection Board, a request has been made for
documents from the office of Senator Jim Webb and a
declaration from Jamie Lynch, a former fellow in the office
of Senator Webb;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United
States and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no
evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate
may, by the judicial or administrative process, be taken from
such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or
in the possession of the Senate may promote the
administration of justice, the Senate will take such action
as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the
privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved that Jamie Lynch is authorized to testify and to
produce documents in Richard Bowen v. Department of the Navy,
except concerning matters for which a privilege should be
asserted.

____________________

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 17--AUTHORIZING THE USE OF EMANCIPATION
HALL IN THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER FOR THE UNVEILING OF A BUST OF
SOJOURNER TRUTH

Mrs. GILLIBRAND (for herself and Mr. Specter) submitted the following
concurrent resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Rules and
Administration.

S. Con. Res. 17

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR UNVEILING OF
SOJOURNER TRUTH BUST.

(a) Authorization.--Emancipation Hall in the Capitol
Visitor Center is authorized to be used for an event on April
28, 2009, to unveil a bust of Sojourner Truth.
(b) Preparations.--Physical preparations for the conduct of
the ceremony described in subsection (a) shall be carried out
in accordance with such conditions as may be prescribed by
the Architect of the Capitol.

____________________

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED

SA 928. Mr. THUNE submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
setting forth the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through
2014; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 929. Mr. BROWN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 930. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 931. Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Begich, and Ms.
Murkowski) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, supra.
SA 932. Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. Lieberman) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent
resolution S. Con. Res. 13, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 933. Mr. KYL submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 934. Mr. CORNYN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra.
SA 935. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 936. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 937. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra.
SA 938. Mr. VITTER (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr.
Feingold) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 939. Mr. HATCH (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Cardin,
and Mr. Kennedy) submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra.
SA 940. Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the concurrent
resolution S. Con. Res. 13, supra.
SA 941. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 942. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 943. Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. Barrasso) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent
resolution S. Con. Res. 13, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 944. Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Alexander, and Mr.
Barrasso) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 945. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 946. Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Bingaman,
Mr. Begich, Mr. Udall, of New Mexico, Mr. Tester, Ms.
Murkowski, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Wyden) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent resolution
S. Con. Res. 13, supra.
SA 947. Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. Harkin)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the
concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 948. Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. Dorgan)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the
concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.

[[Page 9978]]

SA 949. Mr. REED submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra.
SA 950. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra.
SA 951. Mr. SCHUMER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 952. Mrs. BOXER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 953. Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Ensign) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the concurrent
resolution S. Con. Res. 13, supra.
SA 954. Mr. BENNETT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra.
SA 955. Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Hatch) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent
resolution S. Con. Res. 13, supra.
SA 956. Mr. LAUTENBERG submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res.
13, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 957. Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mrs. Gillibrand)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, supra.
SA 958. Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. Corker) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent
resolution S . Con. Res. 13, supra.
SA 959. Mr. GRAHAM submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 960. Mr. BARRASSO (for himself and Mr. Crapo) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent
resolution S. Con. Res. 13, supra.
SA 961. Ms. MURKOWSKI submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 962. Mr. HATCH submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra.
SA 963. Mr. DEMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra.
SA 964. Mr. DeMINT (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Enzi, Mr.
Brownback, Mr. Coburn, and Mr. Vitter) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent resolution
S. Con. Res. 13, supra.
SA 965. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra.
SA 966. Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
Begich, Mr. Kyl, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Johanns, and
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska) submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 967. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra.
SA 968. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 969. Mr. SESSIONS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra.
SA 970. Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent
resolution S. Con. Res. 13, supra.
SA 971. Mrs. GILLIBRAND submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by her to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res.
13, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 972. Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Udall, of New
Mexico, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Begich) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by her to the concurrent
resolution S. Con. Res. 13, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 973. Mr. ENZI submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 974. Mr. DURBIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra.
SA 975. Mr. MENENDEZ submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 976. Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Wyden) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent
resolution S. Con. Res. 13, supra.
SA 977. Mr. LAUTENBERG submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res.
13, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 978. Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Enzi)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 979. Mr. PRYOR submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 980. Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. Lieberman) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent
resolution S. Con. Res. 13, supra.

____________________

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS

On page 68, after line 4, insert the following:

SEC. ___. LIMITATION ON BUDGET RESOLUTIONS SHOWING AN AVERAGE
ANNUAL DEFICIT-TO-GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT RATIO
OF GREATER THAT 3.5 PERCENT.

(a) Point of Order.--In the Senate, it shall not be in
order to consider any budget resolution, or amendment
thereto, or conference report thereon, that shows an average
annual deficit-to-gross domestic product ratio of greater
that 3.5 percent for the period of the current fiscal year
through the next 5 years.
(b) Form of Point of Order.--A point of order under
subsection (a) may be raised by a Senator as provided in
section 313(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(c) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended only
by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly
chosen and sworn.
(d) Appeals.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain
an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order
raised under this section.
(e) Determinations of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this
section, the levels of net direct spending shall be
determined on the basis of estimates provided by the
Committee on the Budget of the Senate and projected gross
domestic product figures shall be determined on the basis of
estimates provided by the Congressional Budget Office.
(f) Sunset.--This section shall expire on September 30,
2010.
______

SA 929. Mr. BROWN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 36, line 5, after ``programs'', insert ``,
particularly the Highway Bridge Program,''.

SA 930. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by her to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle A of title III, add the following:

SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT REPEALS
CERTAIN TAX BENEFITS THAT SUPPORT DOMESTIC
ENERGY PRODUCTION.

(a) In General.--In the Senate, it shall not be in order,
to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report that includes a measure that repeals the
enhanced oil recovery credit, the marginal well tax credit,
expensing of intangible drilling costs, the deduction for
tertiary injectants, or the percentage depletion allowance
for oil and natural gas properties.
(b) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended only
by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the
Senate, duly chosen and sworn.
(c) Appeals.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under this section.

SA 931. Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Begich, and Ms. Murkowski)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the concurrent
resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the congressional budget for
the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014; as
follows:

[[Page 9979]]

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC. 2___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR OUTER CONTINENTAL
SHELF OIL AND NATURAL GAS LEASING REVENUES.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Chairman of
the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this resolution
by the amounts provided by a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that would provide
that 50 perecent of any revenues collected by the United
States from oil and natural gas leases in the outer
Continental Shelf shall be--
(1) distributed among coastal energy producing States; or
(2) allocated for--
(A) the conduct of innovative alternative energy research;
and
(B) supporting parks and wildlife.
(b) Deficit Neutrality.--Subsection (a) applies only if the
legislation described in subsection (a) would not increase
the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2019.
______

SA 932. Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. Lieberman) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent resolution
S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 10, line 20, decrease the amount by $900,000,000.
On page 10, line 21, decrease the amount by $900,000,000.
On page 12, line 21, decrease the amount by $553,000,000.
On page 12, line 22, decrease the amount by $553,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, increase the amount by $1,453,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, increase the amount by $1,453,000,000.
______

SA 933. Mr. KYL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him
to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 10, line 20, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 10, line 21, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 12, line 21, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 12, line 22, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, increase the amount by $20,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, increase the amount by $20,000,000.
______

SA 934. Mr. CORNYN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; as follows:

At the appropriate place insert the following:

SEC.__. REQUIREMENT THAT LEGISLATION BE AVAILABLE AND SCORED
5 DAYS BEFORE A VOTE ON PASSAGE.

(a) In general.--In the Senate, it shall not be in order,
to vote on final passage on any bill, joint resolution, or
conference report unless the text and a budget score from the
Congressional Budget Office of the legislation, are available
on a publicly accessible Congressional website five days
prior to the vote on passage of the legislation.
(b) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the
Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(c) Appeals.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under this section.
______

SA 935. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

(SEC.__. POINT OF ORDER ON LEGISLATION THAT RESTRICTS THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF AMERICANS TO OWN A
FIREARM.

(a) Point of Order--
(1) In general.--In the Senate, it shall not be in order,
to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report that includes a restriction on the right of
Americans to own a firearm.
(2) Definition.--In this subsection the term ``Restriction
on the right of Americans to own a firearm'' means any bill
that restricts the right of an American to own any firearm.
(3) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended only
by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, dully
chosen and sworn.
(4) Appeals.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under this section.
______

SA 936. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC. _. RESERVE FUND TO PREVENT FUNDING FOR SANCTUARY CITIES.

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other levels in this resolution for a bill,
joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report
that would ensure that funds appropriated for the Community
Oriented Policing Services Program are not used in
contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.
1373(a)) by the amounts provided in that legislation for that
purpose, provided that such legislation would not increase
deficit over either the total of the period of fiscal years
2009 through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years
of 2009 through 2019.
______

SA 937. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; as follows:

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC. _. RESERVE FUND TO REQUIRE DRUG TESTING AND TO PROVIDE
DRUG TREATMENT FOR TANF RECIPIENTS.

SA 938. Mr. VITTER (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Feingold)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent
resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the congressional budget for
the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

[[Page 9980]]

On page 4, line 15, decrease the amount by $2,022,800.
On page 4, line 16, decrease the amount by $4,120,000.
On page 4, line 17, decrease the amount by $6,348,200.
On page 4, line 18, decrease the amount by $9,757,700.
On page 4, line 24, decrease the amount by $2,022,800
On page 4, line 25, decrease the amount by $4,120,000.
On page 5, line 1, decrease the amount by $6,348,200.
On page 5, line 2, decrease the amount by $9,757,700.
On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $2,022,800.
On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $4,120,000.
On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $6,348,200.
On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $ 9,757,700.
On page 5, line 18, decrease the amount by $2,022,800.
On page 5, line 19, decrease the amount by $6,142,800.
On page 5, line 20, decrease the amount by $12,491,000.
On page 5, line 21, decrease the amount by $22,248,700.
On page 6, line 1, decrease the amount by $2,022,800.
On page 6, line 2, decrease the amount by $6,142,800.
On page 6, line 3, decrease the amount by $12,491,000.
On page 6, line 4, decrease the amount by $22,248,700.
On page 26, line 3, decrease the amount by $2,000,000.
On page 26, line 4, decrease the amount by $2,000,000.
On page 26, line 7, decrease the amount by $4,000,000.
On page 26, line 8, decrease the amount by $4,000,000.
On page 26, line 11, decrease the amount by $6,000,000.
On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $6,000,000.
On page 26, line 15, decrease the amount by $9,000,000.
On page 26, line 16, decrease the amount by $9,000,000.
On page 27, line 3, decrease the amount by $22,800.
On page 27, line 4, decrease the amount by $22,800.
On page 27, line 7, decrease the amount by $120,000.
On page 27, line 8, decrease the amount by $120,000.
On page 27, line 11, decrease the amount by $348,200.
On page 27, line 12, decrease the amount by $348,200.
On page 27, line 15, decrease the amount by $757,700.
On page 27, line 16, decrease the amount by $757,700.
______

SA 939. Mr. HATCH (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Cardin, and Mr.
Kennedy) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the congressional
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting
forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through
2014; as follows:

On page 49, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE 2012 COMPLETION
OF FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES.

SA 940. Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by her to the concurrent resolution
S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014; as
follows:

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC. 2___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ENERGY STAR FOR
SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Chairman of
the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this resolution
by the amounts provided by a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that would set aside,
from amounts made available for the Energy Star Program of
the Environmental Protection Agency, at least 2 percent for
the Energy Star for Small Business Program.
(b) Deficit Neutrality.--Subsection (a) applies only if the
legislation described in that subsection would not increase
the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2019.
______

SA 941. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR COMPREHENSIVE
MEDICAL LIABILITY REFORM.

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this
resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, motions, or conference reports that--
(1) addresses the national crisis facing patients losing
access to quality health care due to skyrocketing insurance
premiums driven by frivolous lawsuits;
(2) encourages the national adoption of proven standards to
make the medical liability system more fair, predictable, and
timely;
(3) protects the ability of injured patients to get quick,
unlimited compensation for their economic losses while
setting reasonable limits for pain, suffering, and non-
compensatory damages;
(4) promotes the reduction of frivolous lawsuits and allows
doctors to practice medicine in a manner that is patient-
focused and not lawsuit-driven; and
(5) maintains state flexibility;
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2019.
______

SA 942. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR HEALTHY MOTHERS AND
HEALTHY BABIES.

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this
resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, motions, or conference reports that--
(1) addresses the national crisis facing women and children
who are losing access to quality pre-natal and maternal care
due to skyrocketing insurance premiums driven by frivolous
lawsuits;
(2) encourages the national adoption of proven standards to
make the medical liability system more fair, predictable, and
timely;
(3) protects the ability of injured families to get quick,
unlimited compensation for their economic losses while
setting reasonable limits for pain, suffering, and non-
compensatory damages;
(4) allows doctors to practice medicine in a manner that is
family-focused and not lawsuit-driven; and
(5) maintains State flexibility;
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2019.
______

SA 943. Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. Barrasso) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent resolution
S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years

[[Page 9981]]

2011 through 2014; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 31, line 3, strike ``or''.
On page 31, line 7, strike the semicolon and insert the
following: ``; and
(9) address the unfunded liabilities of our Federal health
programs;''.
______

SA 944. Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Barrasso)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent
resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the congressional budget for
the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 31, line 3, strike ``or''.
On page 31, line 7, strike the semicolon and insert the
following: ``; and
(9) limit excessive litigation and the practice of
defensive medicine, in order to lower health care costs and
to ensure patient access to quality medical care;''.
______

SA 945. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 29, beginning on line 24, strike ``and make
adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger that are deficit
neutral over 11 years,''.
On page 31, strike lines 10 and 11 and insert ``the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2019.''.

______

SA 946. Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Begich, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Tester, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Reid,
and Mr. Wyden) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to
the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; as follows:

SA 947. Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. Harkin) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by her to the concurrent resolution
S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC. 2___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO EXPEDITE RESEARCH
ON VIABILITY OF USE OF HIGHER ETHANOL BLENDS AT
SERVICE STATION PUMP.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Chairman of
the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this resolution
by the amounts provided by a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that would expedite
research at the Department of Energy and the Environmental
Protection Agency on the viability of the use of higher
ethanol blends at the service station pump.
(b) Deficit Neutrality.--Subsection (a) applies only if the
legislation described in subsection (a) would not increase
the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2019.
______

SA 948. Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. Dorgan) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by her to the concurrent resolution
S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 35, line 18, insert ``flood mitigation,'' after
``water,''.
______

SA 949. Mr. REED submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. EXPENDITURE OF REMAINING TARP FUNDS.

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this
resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, motions, or conference reports that reaffirm that
the remaining Troubled Asset Relief Program funds shall be
used to save homes, save small businesses, help the municipal
bond market, make credit more widely available, and provide
additional resources for the Special Inspector General for
the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Congressional
Oversight Panel, and the Government Accountability Office for
vigorous audit and evaluation of all expenditures and
commitments made under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, by
the amounts provided in that legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009
through 2019.
______

SA 950. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; as follows:

SA 951. Mr. SCHUMER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

[[Page 9982]]

SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE BORDER FENCE.

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other levels in this resolution for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or
conference reports that would study the current best
practices from the sections of the border fence which have
already been completed and shall offer required best
practices to complete fencing along the international land
border, as required by section 102(b)(1) of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-208; 8 U.S.C. 1103 note), in the manner which
is most secure, cost-effective, environmentally sound, and
best protects the rights of private property owners as
determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security after all
the appropriate consultations have been made, provided that
such legislation would not increase the deficit over either
the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or
the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2019.
______

SA 952. Mrs. BOXER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 68, after line 4, insert the following:

SEC. __. LIMITATION ON SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION.

(a) Point of Order.--After a concurrent resolution on the
budget in the Senate is agreed to, it shall not be in order
in the Senate to consider any bill, resolution, amendment
between Houses, motion, or conference report that would
divert Social Security revenues from the Social Security
Trust Fund to any investments in private securities or into
private accounts that bear a risk of loss for Social Security
recipients.
(b) Form of Point of Order.--A point of order under
subsection (a) may be raised by a Senator as provided in
section 313(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(c) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended only
by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly
chosen and sworn.
(d) Appeals.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain
an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order
raised under this section.
______

SA 953. Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Ensign) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by her to the concurrent resolution
S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014; as
follows:

At the end of Title II, insert the following:

SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR 21ST CENTURY
COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS.

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other levels and limits in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that would increase funding
for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program by up
to $2.5 billion, by the amounts provided in such legislation
for such purpose, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2009 through 2019.
______

SA 954. Mr. BENNETT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; as follows:

On page 4, line 15, decrease amount by $76,325,000,000
On page 4, line 16, decrease amount by $38,065,000,000
On page 4, line 17, decrease amount by $22,872,000,000
On page 4, line 18, decrease amount by $12,787,000,000
On page 4, line 24, decrease amount by $76,325,000,000
On page 4, line 25, decrease amount by $38,065,000,000
On page 5, line 1, decrease amount by $22,872,000,000
On page 5, line 2, decrease amount by $12,787,000,000
On page 5, line 8, decrease amount by $76,325,000,000
On page 5, line 9, decrease amount by $38,065,000,000
On page 5, line 10, decrease amount by $22,872,000,000
On page 5, line 11, decrease amount by $12,787,000,000.
On page 5, line 18, decrease amount by $76,325,000,000.
On page 5, line 19, decrease amount by $38,065,000,000.
On page 5, line 20, decrease amount by $22,872,000,000.
On page 5, line 21, decrease amount by $12,787,000,000.
On page 9, line 24, decrease amount by $960,000,000.
On page 9, line 25, decrease amount by $960,000,000.
On page 10, line 3, decrease amount by $634,000,000.
On page 10, line 4, decrease amount by $634,000,000.
On page 10, line 7, decrease amount by $277,000,000.
On page 10, line 8, decrease amount by $277,000,000.
On page 10, line 11, decrease amount by $104,000,000.
On page 10, line 12, decrease amount by $104,000,000.
On page 10, line 24, decrease amount by $162,000,000.
On page 10, line 25, decrease amount by $162,000,000.
On page 10, line 3, decrease amount by $114,000,000.
On page 10, line 4, decrease amount by $114,000,000.
On page 10, line 7, decrease amount by $50,000,000.
On page 10, line 8, decrease amount by $50,000,000.
On page 11, line 25, decrease amount by $1,095,000,000.
On page 12, line 1, decrease amount by $1,095,000,000.
On page 12, line 4, decrease amount by $750,000,000.
On page 12, line 5, decrease amount by $750,000,000.
On page 12, line 8, decrease amount by $174,000,000.
On page 12, line 9, decrease amount by $174,000,000.
On page 12, line 12, decrease amount by $63,000,000.
On page 12, line 13, decrease amount by $63,000,000.
On page 13, line 25, decrease amount by $13,760,000,000.
On page 14, line 1, decrease amount by $13,760,000,000.
On page 14, line 4, decrease amount by $11,759,000,000.
On page 14, line 5, decrease amount by $11,759,000,000.
On page 14, line 8, decrease amount by $7,728,000,000.
On page 14, line 9, decrease amount by $7,728,000,000.
On page 14, line 12, decrease amount by $5,419,000,000.
On page 14, line 13, decrease amount by $5,419,000,000.
On page 14, line 25, decrease amount by $5,685,000,000.
On page 14, line 1, decrease amount by $5,685,000,000.
On page 14, line 4, decrease amount by $4,111,000,000.
On page 14, line 4, decrease amount by $4,111,000,000.
On page 15, line 8, decrease amount by $2,286,000,000.
On page 15, line 9, decrease amount by $2,286,000,000.
On page 15, line 12, decrease amount by $468,000,000.
On page 15, line 13, decrease amount by $468,000,000.
On page 15, line 25, decrease amount by $5,584,000,000.
On page 16, line 1, decrease amount by $5,584,000,000.
On page 16, line 4, decrease amount by $4,284,000,000.
On page 16, line 5, decrease amount by $4,284,000,000.
On page 16, line 8, decrease amount by $3,047,000,000.
On page 16, line 9, decrease amount by $3,047,000,000.
On page 16, line 12, decrease amount by $531,000,000.
On page 16, line 13, decrease amount by $531,000,000.
On page 16, line 25, decrease amount by $8,785,000,000.
On page 17, line 1, decrease amount by $8,785,000,000.
On page 17, line 4, decrease amount by $7,035,000,000.
On page 17, line 5, decrease amount by $7,035,000,000.
On page 17, line 8, decrease amount by $6,052,000,000.
On page 17, line 9, decrease amount by $6,052,000,000.
On page 17, line 12, decrease amount by $5,422,000,000.

[[Page 9983]]

On page 17, line 13, decrease amount by $5,422,000,000.
On page 19, line 3, decrease amount by $29,963,000,000.
On page 19, line 4, decrease amount by $29,963,000,000.
On page 19, line 7, decrease amount by $4,011,000,000.
On page 19, line 8, decrease amount by $4,011,000,000.
On page 19, line 10, decrease amount by $262,000,000.
On page 19, line 11, decrease amount by $262,000,000.
On page 20, line 3, decrease amount by $6,421,000,000.
On page 20, line 4, decrease amount by $6,421,000,000.
On page 20, line 7, decrease amount by $3,157,000,000.
On page 20, line 8, decrease amount by $3,157,000,000.
On page 20, line 11, decrease amount by $842,000,000.
On page 20, line 12, decrease amount by $842,000,000.
On page 20, line 15, decrease amount by $183,000,000.
On page 20, line 16, decrease amount by $183,000,000.
On page 23, line 3, decrease amount by $133,000,080
On page 23, line 4, decrease amount by $133,000,000.
On page 23, line 7, decrease amount by $150,000,000.
On page 23, line 8, decrease amount by $150,000,000.
On page 23, line 11, decrease amount by $150,000,000.
On page 23, line 12, decrease amount by $150,000,000.
On page 24, line 3, decrease amount by $297,000,000.
On page 24, line 4, decrease amount by $297,000,000.
On page 24, line 7, decrease amount by $133,000,000.
On page 24, line 8, decrease amount by $133,000,000.
On page 25, line 3, decrease amount by $848,000,000.
On page 25, line 4, decrease amount by $848,000,000.
On page 25, line 7, decrease amount by $649,000,000.
On page 25, line 8, decrease amount by $649,000,000.
On page 25, line 11, decrease amount by $750,000,000.
On page 25, line 12, decrease amount by $750,000,000.
On page 26, line 3, decrease amount by $1,400,000,000.
On page 26, line 4, decrease amount by $1,400,000,000.
On page 26, line 7, decrease amount by $1,196,000,000.
On page 26, line 8, decrease amount by $1,196,000,000.
On page 26, line 11, decrease amount by $1,024,000,000.
On page 26, line 12, decrease amount by $1,024,000,000.
On page 26, line 15, decrease amount by $504,000,000.
On page 26, line 16, decrease amount by $504,000,000.
On page 27, line 3, decrease amount by $857,000,000.
On page 27, line 4, decrease amount by $857,000,000.
On page 27, line 7, decrease amount by $457,000,000.
On page 27, line 8, decrease amount by $457,000,000.
On page 27, line 11, decrease amount by $230,000,000.
On page 27, line 12, decrease amount by $230,000,000.
On page 27, line 15, decrease amount by $93,000,000.
On page 27, line 16, decrease amount by $93,000,000.
______

SA 955. Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Hatch) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con.
Res. 13, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014; as follows:

On page 19, line 24, increase the amount by $188,000,000.
On page 19, line 25, increase the amount by $56,000,000.
On page 20, line 4, increase the amount by $81,000,000.
On page 20, line 8, increase the amount by $34,000,000.
On page 20, line 12, increase the amount by $13,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $188,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $56,000,000.
On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $81,000,000.
On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $34,000,000.
On page 28, line 11, decrease the amount by $13,000,000.
______

SA 956. Mr. LAUTENBERG submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 16, line 21, increase the amount by $640,000,000.
On page 16, line 22, increase the amount by $640,000,000.
On page 16, line 25, increase the amount by $835,000,000.
On page 17, line 1, increase the amount by $835,000,000.
On page 17, line 4, increase the amount by $1,219,000,000.
On page 17, line 5, increase the amount by $1,219,000,000.
On page 17, line 8, increase the amount by $1,367,000,000.
On page 17, line 9, increase the amount by $1,367,000,000.
On page 17, line 12, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
On page 17, line 13, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $640,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $640,000,000.
On page 28, line 2, decrease the amount by $835,000,000.
On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $35,000,000.
On page 28, line 6, decrease the amount by $1,219,000,000.
On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $1,219,000,000.
On page 28, line 10, decrease the amount by $1,367,000,000.
On page 28, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,367,000,000.
On page 28, line 14, decrease the amount by $1,550,000,000.
On page 28, line 15, decrease the amount by $1,550,000,000.
______

SA 957. Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mrs. Gillibrand) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent resolution
S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014; as
follows:

On page 35, line 18, insert ``transportation, including
freight and passenger rail,'' after ``energy, water,''.
______

SA 958. Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. Corker) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con.
Res. 13, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND INCREASE FDIC AND NCUA
BORROWING AUTHORITY.

The chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the aggregates, allocations, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports to
increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation and the National Credit Union
Administration, provided that such legislation does not
increase the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal
years 2009 through 2019.
______

SA 959. Mr. GRAHAM submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 68, after line 4, insert the following:

SEC. __. SENATE POINT OF ORDER AGAINST A BUDGET RESOLUTION
CONTAINING DEBT LEVELS EXCEEDING $90,000 PER
HOUSEHOLD.

(a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to
consider a concurrent resolution on the budget for the budget
year or any

[[Page 9984]]

amendment, amendment between Houses, motion, or conference
report thereon that contains levels of debt held by the
public that exceed $90,000 per household in any year covered
by the budget resolution.
(b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal in the Senate.--
(1) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the
Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths 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 this section.
(c) Determination of Debt Levels.--For purposes of this
section, the debt level per household shall be determined by
the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget on the
basis of estimates provided by the Congressional Budget
Office.
______

SA 960. Mr. BARRASSO (for himself and Mr. Crapo) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent resolution
S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014; as
follows:

SA 961. Ms. MURKOWSKI submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by her to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 27, line 23, increase the amount by $132,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, increase the amount by $132,000,000.
______

SA 962. Mr. HATCH submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. POINT OF ORDER.

(a) In General.--After a concurrent resolution on the
budget is agreed to, it shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill, resolution, amendment between Houses,
motion, or conference report that--
(1) weakens any authorized anti-terrorism tool or
investigative method provided by the USA Patriot Act of 2001
(PL 107-56), the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act of 2004 (PL 108-458), the USA Patriot Improvement and
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (PL 109-177), or the FISA
Amendments Act of 2008 (PL 110-261); or
(2) eliminates any authorized anti-terrorism tool or
investigative method provided by any of the statutes referred
to in paragraph (1).
(b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeals.--
(1) Waiver.--Subsection (a) may be waived or suspended in
the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of
the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of
the Chair relating to any provision of subsection (a) shall
be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or
joint resolution. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under subsection (a).
______

SA 963. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER ON LEGISLATION THAT ELIMINATES THE
ABILITY OF AMERICANS TO KEEP THEIR HEALTH PLAN
OR THEIR CHOICE OF DOCTOR.

(a) In General.--In the Senate, it shall not be in order,
to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report that eliminates the ability of Americans to
keep their health plan or their choice of doctor (as
determined by the Congressional Budget Office).
(b) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended only
by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, dully
chosen and sworn.
(c) Appeals.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under this section.
______

SA 964. Mr. DeMINT (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Enzi, Mr.
Brownback, Mr. Coburn, and Mr. Vitter) submitted an amendment intended
to be proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government
for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels
for fiscal years 2011 through 2014; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO
BAN ON LEAD IN CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS.

SA 965. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; as follows:

[[Page 9985]]

On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $279,000,000.
On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $379,000,000.
On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $485,000,000.
On page 5, line 16, decrease the amount by $10,829,000,000.
On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by $10,960,000,000.
On page 5, line 18, decrease the amount by $11,155,000,000.
On page 5, line 19, decrease the amount by $11,434,000,000.
On page 5, line 20, decrease the amount by $11,813,000,000.
On page 5, line 21, decrease the amount by $12,298,000,000.
On page 5, line 24, decrease the amount by $10,829,000,000.
On page 5, line 25, decrease the amount by $10,960,000,000.
On page 6, line 1, decrease the amount by $11,155,000,000.
On page 6, line 2, decrease the amount by $11,434,000,000.
On page 6, line 3, decrease the amount by $11,813,000,000.
On page 6, line 4, decrease the amount by $12,298,000,000.
On page 15, line 17, decrease the amount by
$10,800,000,000.
On page 15, line 18, decrease the amount by
$10,800,000,000.
On page 26, line 20, decrease the amount by $29,000,000.
On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $29,000,000.
On page 26, line 24, decrease the amount by $131,000,000.
On page 26, line 25, decrease the amount by $131,000,000.
On page 27, line 3, decrease the amount by $195,000,000.
On page 27, line 4, decrease the amount by $195,000,000.
On page 27, line 7, decrease the amount by $279,000,000.
On page 27, line 8, decrease the amount by $279,000,000.
On page 27, line 11, decrease the amount by $379,000,000.
On page 27, line 12, decrease the amount by $379,000,000.
On page 27, line 15, decrease the amount by $485,000,000.
On page 27, line 16, decrease the amount by $485,000,000.
______

SA 966. Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Begich, Mr.
Kyl, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Johanns, and Mr. Nelson of
Nebraska) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the congressional
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting
forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through
2014; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 9, line 20, increase the amount by $9,446,939,000.
On page 9, line 21, increase the amount by $9,446,939,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $9,446,939,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $9,446,939,000.

______

SA 967. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. EARMARK POINT OF ORDER.

(a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to
consider a bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report
that includes--
(1) a congressional earmark to a private for profit entity
that is not subject to the same competitive bidding
requirements as other Federal contracts;
(2) a congressional earmark which has not been the subject
of a public hearing in the committee of jurisdiction where
the member requesting the earmark has testified on its
behalf; or
(3) a congressional earmark which has not been posted on
the Member sponsor's website at least 72 hours before
consideration of the legislation.
(b) Trading Earmarks.--A Senator may not trade a
congressional earmark for any political favor, including a
campaign contribution.
(c) Supermajority Waiver and Appeals.--
(1) Waiver.--Subsection (a) may be waived or suspended in
the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of
the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of
the Chair relating to any provision of subsection (a) shall
be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or
joint resolution. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under subsection (a).
(d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``congressional
earmark'' means a provision or report language included
primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, or Senator providing, authorizing or
recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget
authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for
a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or
other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a
specific State, locality or Congressional district, other
than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or
competitive award process.
______

SA 968. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC.__. POINT OF ORDER ON LEGISLATION THAT VIOLATES THE
SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF LAW-ABIDING
AMERICANS.

(a) Point of Order--
(1) In General--In the Senate, it shall not be in order, to
consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report that violates the Second Amendment rights
of law-abiding Americans.
(2) Waiver--This section may be waived or suspended only by
an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, dully
chosen and sworn.
(3) Appeals--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under this section.
______

SA 969. Mr. SESSIONS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; as follows:

On page 68, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST FAILURE TO FULLY FUND
SOUTHWEST BORDER FENCE.

SA 970. Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent resolution
S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014; as
follows:

On page 49, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

SEC. _. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE NATIONAL HEALTH
SERVICE CORPS.

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a

[[Page 9986]]

committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels and limits in this resolution for one or more bills,
joint resolutions, amendments, motions or conference reports
that provide the National Health Service Corps with
$235,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, by the amount provided in
that legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total for fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the
period of the total for fiscal years 2009 through 2019.
______

SA 971. Mrs. GILLIBRAND submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting
forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal
year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal years 2011 through 2014; which was ordered to lie on the table;
as follows:

On page 15, line 21, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
On page 15, line 22, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $25,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $25,000,000.
______

SA 972. Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr.
Dorgan, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Begich) submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by her to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13,
setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government
for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels
for fiscal years 2011 through 2014; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:

On page 19, line 24, increase the amount by $184,000,000.
On page 19, line 25, increase the amount by $184,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $184,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $184,000,000.
______

SA 973. Mr. ENZI submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON JOB CORPS.

It is the sense of the Senate--
(1) that, through 122 Job Corps centers operating in 48
States, as well as in the District of Columbia and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Job Corps program
established under subtitle C of title I of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2881 et seq.) helps
thousands of youth each year prepare for meaningful careers
and employment;
(2) that at a time of economic uncertainty, the United
States should work to train and educate all of the Nation's
workers; and
(3) that the functional totals in this resolution assume
that, in order to be more accessible to all of the Nation's
youth, the Job Corps program should receive substantial
support and each State should have at least 1 Job Corps
center.
______

SA 974. Mr. DURBIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; as follows:

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SPECIAL RULE FOR LEGISLATION PROVIDING FOR
ADDITIONAL ESTATE TAX RELIEF.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this title, the Chairman
of the Senate Committee on the Budget may not revise the
allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and
other appropriate levels and limits in this resolution with
respect to any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report that would provide for estate tax relief
with an applicable exclusion amount beyond $3,500,000
($7,000,000 for a married couple) and a graduated rate ending
at less than 45 percent unless an amount is or has been
provided to Americans earning less than $100,000 per year
which--
(1) is equal to the aggregate amount of such additional
estate tax relief, and
(2) is in addition to the aggregate amount of tax relief
assumed under this resolution for such Americans.
______

SA 975. Mr. MENENDEZ submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 18, line 24, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
On page 18, line 25, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $1,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $1,000,000.
______

SA 976. Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Wyden) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con.
Res. 13, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014; as follows:

SA 977. Mr. LAUTENBERG submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2011 through 2014; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 17, line 22, increase the amount by $213,000,000.
On page 17, line 23, increase the amount by $21,000,000.
On page 18, line 3, increase the amount by $79,000,000.
On page 18, line 7, increase the amount by $66,000,000.
On page 18, line 11, increase the amount by $47,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $213,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $21,000,000.
On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $79,000,000.
On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $66,000,000.
On page 28, line 11, derease the amount by $47,000,000.
______

SA 978. Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Enzi) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent
resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the congressional budget for
the United States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 31, strike line 7 and insert the following:
``sources of revenue; and
(9) does so through regular order, protecting the rights of
the minority;''.
______

SA 979. Mr. PRYOR submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009,
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for

[[Page 9987]]

fiscal years 2011 through 2014; which was ordered to lie on the table;
as follows:

At the appropriate place insert the following:

SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO CORRECT THE FAILURE
OF THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION TO
PROPERLY IMPLEMENT THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2008.

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this
resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, motions, or conference reports that correct the
failure of the Consumer Product Safety Commission to exercise
its authority and enforcement discretion in a manner that the
Congress intended in order to--
(1) assure enforcement of the mandates of the Consumer
Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 in a comprehensive
manner while providing appropriate and common sense relief to
businesses and institutions and aiding such businesses and
institutions with compliance on a prospective basis, and
(2) provide information and guidance to businesses and
institutions that are seeking to comply with the requirements
of that Act and the Consumer Product Safety Act as amended by
that Act,
by the amounts provided by that legislation for those
purposes, Provided That such legislation would not increase
the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal
years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal
years 2009 through 2019.
______

SA 980. Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. Lieberman) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent resolution
S. Con. Res. 13, setting forth the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014; as
follows:

On page 12, line 21, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 12, line 22, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, increase the amount by $10,000,000.

____________________

NOTICE OF HEARING

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been
scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The hearing will be held on Thursday, April 23, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., in
room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nomination of Kristina
M. Johnson, to be Under Secretary of Energy.
Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may
testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written
testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to
[email protected].
For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571
or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

____________________

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET

committee on armed services

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, April 2, 2009, at 9 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on environment and public works

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on Thursday, April 2, 2009 at 10 a.m. in room 406
of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to hold a hearing entitled,
``Hearing on the Nomination of Regina McCarthy to be Assistant
Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, of the Environmental
Protection Agency.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on finance

Mr. CONRAD. Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on
Thursday, April 2, 2009, at 10 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on homeland security and governmental affairs

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet
during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 2, 2009, at 10 a.m.
to conduct a hearing entitled ``Recovery and Reinvestment Spending:
Implementing a Bold Oversight Strategy.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on indian affairs

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, April 2, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room 628 of the
Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on the Judiciary

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate, to conduct an executive business meeting on Thursday, April 2,
2009, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Veterans' Affairs

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate today, April 2, 2009.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

ADOPTION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 735 and the
Senate proceed to its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 735) to ensure States receive adoption incentive
payments for fiscal year 2008 in accordance with the
Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act
of 2008.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements
relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 735) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading,
was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

S. 735

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 ``Protecting Incentives for
the Adoption of Children with Special Needs Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF RESTRICTION ON PAYMENTS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2008.

Effective as if included in the enactment of the Omnibus
Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-8), title II of
division F of such Act is amended under the heading
``children and families services programs'' under the heading
``Administration for Children and Families'', by striking
``That without regard to the fiscal year limitations set
forth in section 473A of the Social Security Act, from the
amounts appropriated herein, the Secretary shall pay adoption
incentives for fiscal year 2008 in the same manner as such
incentives were awarded in fiscal year 2008 for the previous
fiscal year: Provided further,''.

____________________

FIFTH SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to Calendar No. 43, S. Res. 90.

[[Page 9988]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 90) expressing the sense of the
Senate regarding the Fifth Summit of the Americas, held in
Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, April 17, 18, 19, 2009.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be
laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any
statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 90) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

S. Res. 90

Whereas the First Summit of the Americas, held in December
1994 in Miami, Florida, resulted in a comprehensive Plan of
Action, issued by the region's democracies, which included
initiatives on strengthening democracy, promoting human
rights, combating corruption, furthering sustainable economic
development, encouraging environmental conservation, and
committing to access to universal basic education and health
care throughout the Americas;
Whereas 3 Summits of the Americas and 2 Special Summits of
the Americas have been convened since 1994, resulting in
additional initiatives on sustainable development,
strengthening democratic practices and good governance, the
environment, economic relations, combating HIV/AIDS and other
diseases, and numerous other areas of mutual interest and
shared responsibility throughout the Western Hemisphere;
Whereas on July 21, 2008, the Draft Declaration of
Commitment by the Summit Implementation Review Group proposed
an agenda for the Fifth Summit of the Americas to discuss
promoting human prosperity, energy security, environmental
sustainability, public security, democratic governance, and
the Summit's implementation and review process; and
Whereas on February 10, 2009, President Barack Obama stated
that he would attend the Fifth Summit of the Americas to
``create the kind of partnership based on respect that the
people of Latin America are looking for and that will be
beneficial to the United States'': Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate--
(1) to express support for the Fifth Summit of the Americas
as an effective multilateral forum, convened in the spirit of
cooperation and partnership for the 34 democratically elected
heads of state of the region to address shared challenges and
foster collaboration throughout the Western Hemisphere;
(2) that the Fifth Summit provides the United States with
an early opportunity to reinvigorate and strengthen its
engagement with the countries of the Western Hemisphere,
especially in--
(A) finding common solutions to the global economic crisis;
(B) promoting energy security; and
(C) combating threats to public and personal security,
including threats from terrorism, international narcotics
cartels, and organized criminal groups;
(3) that the United States is prepared to work with the
countries of the Western Hemisphere on advancing an agenda of
human prosperity, including--
(A) encouraging multilateral development institutions to
invest in micro- to medium-sized enterprises;
(B) continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS, vector-borne,
and noncommunicable diseases;
(C) raising the standard of living of the people in the
region who currently live in poverty;
(D) eradicating child labor;
(E) recommitting to the Millennium Development Goals; and
(F) supporting investment in public health and education
throughout the Western Hemisphere;
(4) that the United States should use the Fifth Summit of
the Americas to strengthen cooperation by working with other
nations to formulate and implement a regional energy strategy
to promote--
(A) increased technology and information sharing;
(B) regulatory harmonization;
(C) integration; and
(D) renewable and alternative energy sources;
(5) to welcome civil society and nongovernmental
organizations at the Fifth Summit, and to encourage their
observation and active participation in the Summit's
decision-making process to strengthen democratic governance,
the rule of law, freedom of the press, and civil society in
the Western Hemisphere; and
(6) to set achievable and measurable goals, based on areas
of consensus, and to strengthen followup mechanisms to review
the implementation, reporting, and progress of Summit
initiatives.

____________________

TRAGIC EVENTS AT THE PINELAKE HEALTH AND REHAB CENTER

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 101.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 101) expressing the sense of the
Senate on the tragic events at the Pinelake Health and Rehab
Center in Carthage, North Carolina on Sunday, March 29, 2009.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 101) was agreed to, as follows:

S. Res. 101

____________________

PROVIDING FOR SENATE MEMBERS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING AND
JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS ON THE LIBRARY

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 102.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 102) providing for members on the
part of the Senate of the Joint Committee on Printing and the
Joint Committee of Congress on the Library.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to
and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 102) was agreed to, as follows:

S. Res. 102

____________________

AUTHORIZING TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 103.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 103) to authorize testimony and
document production in Richard Bowen v. Department of the
Navy.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a request for
testimony in a whistle-blower protection case against the Department of
the Navy in which a civilian Navy employee is appealing an adverse
employment action

[[Page 9989]]

before the Merit Systems Protection Board. The employee is alleging
that the Navy retaliated against him for protected whistle-blowing
activities about alleged waste in Navy programs.
Among the whistle-blowing activities that the employee relies on is a
brief meeting that representatives of a Navy contracting firm had with
staff of the Virginia Senate delegation in February 2008 about their
firm's work on an energy management contract that the employee managed
for the Navy.
The Navy has requested that the Senate make available through written
declaration staff who can testify about whether the employee's
allegations were raised at the meeting in order to establish whether
that meeting constituted protected whistle-blowing activities.
Senator Webb would like to cooperate with this request. Accordingly,
this resolution would authorize Jamie Lynch, a former fellow with
Senator Webb's office, to testify. The resolution would also authorize
production of relevant documents, except where a privilege should be
asserted.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and
preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon
the table, with no intervening action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 103) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

S. Res. 103

____________________

MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME--H.R. 1256

Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that H.R. 1256 has
been received from the House and is now at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Leader is correct.
Mr. REID. I would ask for its first reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title for
the first time.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 1256) to protect the public health by
providing the Food and Drug Administration with certain
authority to regulate tobacco products, to amend title 5,
United States Code, to make certain modifications in the
Thrift Savings Plan, the Civil Service Retirement System, and
the Federal Employees' Retirement System, and for other
purposes.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading but object
to my own request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The bill will receive its
second reading on the next legislative day.

____________________

REMOVAL OF INJUNCTION OF SECRECY--TREATY DOCUMENT NO. 111-2

Mr. REID. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous
consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following
treaty transmitted to the Senate on April 2, 2009, by the President of
the United States:
Annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic
Treaty (Treaty Document No. 111-2).
I further ask unanimous consent that the treaty be considered as
having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying
papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be
printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The message of the President is as follows:

To the Senate of the United States:
With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to
ratification, I transmit herewith Annex VI on Liability Arising From
Environmental Emergencies to the Protocol on Environmental Protection
to the Antarctic Treaty (Annex VI), adopted on June 14, 2005, at the
twenty-eighth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting held in Stockholm,
Sweden. I also transmit for the information of the Senate the report of
the Department of State, which includes an Overview of Annex VI.
The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (the
``Protocol'') together with its Annexes I-IV, adopted at Madrid on
October 4, 1991, and Annex V to the Protocol, adopted at Bonn on
October 17, 1991, received the advice and consent of the Senate to
ratification on October 7, 1992, and entered into force for the United
States on January 14, 1998, and May 24, 2002, respectively.
In Article 16 of the Protocol, the Parties undertook to elaborate, in
one or more Annexes, rules and procedures relating to liability for
damage arising from activities taking place in the Antarctic Treaty
area and covered by the Protocol. Annex VI sets forth rules and
procedures relating to liability arising from the failure of operators
in the Antarctic to respond to environmental emergencies.
I believe Annex VI to be fully in the U.S. interest. Its provisions
advance the U.S. goals of protecting the environment of Antarctica,
establishing incentives for Antarctic operators to act responsibly, and
providing for the reimbursement of costs incurred by the United States
Government when it responds to environmental emergencies caused by
others.
As the report of the Department of State explains, Annex VI will
require implementing legislation, which will be submitted separately to
the Congress for its consideration.
I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to
Annex VI and give its advice and consent to ratification.
Barack Obama
The White House, April 2, 2009.

____________________

APPOINTMENT AUTHORITY

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding
the recess or adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate,
the President of the Senate pro tempore, and the majority and minority
leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, boards,
conferences or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by
concurrent action of the two Houses or by order of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

AUTHORITY TO FILE

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding
an adjournment of the Senate, the Senate committees may file reported
legislation and executive calendar business on Thursday, April 16, from
10 a.m. to 12 noon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR A CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND A CONDITIONAL RECESS OR ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to H. Con. Res.
93.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the concurrent
resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 93) providing for
conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives and
conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.

[[Page 9990]]

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
concurrent resolution.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed
to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 93) was agreed to, as
follows:

H. Con. Res. 93

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on any legislative
day from Thursday, April 2, 2009, through Saturday, April 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 Tuesday, April 21, 2009, or until
the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when
the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Thursday,
April 2, 2009, through Sunday, April 5, 2009, on a motion
offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its
Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or
adjourned until noon on Monday, April 20, 2009, or such other
time on that day as may be specified in the motion to recess
or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to
section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs
first.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader
of the Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly
after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and
the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members
of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at
such place and time as they may designate if, in their
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

____________________

FRAUD ENFORCEMENT AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2009--MOTION TO PROCEED

Cloture Motion

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 28, S.
386. With it, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 28, S. 386, the Fraud Enforcement and
Recovery Act of 2009.
Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Edward E. Kaufman, Jeff
Bingaman, John D. Rockefeller, IV, Jon Tester, Bernard
Sanders, Charles E. Schumer, Jack Reed, Sheldon
Whitehouse, Benjamin L. Cardin, Ron Wyden, Dianne
Feinstein, Patty Murray, John F. Kerry, Amy Klobuchar,
Debbie Stabenow.

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. 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.

____________________

ORDERS FOR MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate
completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m., Monday, April
20, under the provisions of H. Con. Res. 93; that following the prayer
and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning
hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for
their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of the
motion to proceed to Calendar No. 28, S. 386, the Fraud Enforcement and
Recovery Act of 2009.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PROGRAM

Mr. REID. Mr. President, under the previous order, there will be a
series of up to four rollcall votes beginning at 5:30 p.m. on Monday.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009, AT 2 P.M.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the
previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 12:42 a.m., adjourned until
Monday, April 20, 2009, at 2 p.m.

____________________

NOMINATIONS

Executive nominations received by the Senate:

THE JUDICIARY

ANDRE M. DAVIS, OF MARYLAND, TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT
JUDGE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, VICE FRANCIS D. MURNAGHAN, JR.,
DECEASED.
GERARD E. LYNCH, OF NEW YORK, TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT
JUDGE FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, VICE CHESTER J. STRAUB,
RETIRED.

IN THE NAVY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be rear admiral (lower half)

CAPT. RON J. MACLAREN

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be rear admiral (lower half)

CAPT. ROBIN L. GRAF

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be rear admiral (lower half)

CAPT. DAVID G. RUSSELL

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be rear admiral (lower half)

CAPTAIN DOUGLAS J. ASBJORNSEN
CAPTAIN CHARLES K. CARODINE
CAPTAIN ANATOLIO B. CRUZ III
CAPTAIN JOHN E. JOLLIFFE
CAPTAIN ROBERT J. KAMENSKY

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

KRYSTA HARDEN, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE, VICE LINDA AVERY STRACHAN, RESIGNED.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

JO-ELLEN DARCY, OF MARYLAND, TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE ARMY, VICE JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

SCOTT BLAKE HARRIS, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, VICE DAVID R. HILL, RESIGNED.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

TIMOTHY W. MANNING, OF NEW MEXICO, TO BE DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR FOR NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, VICE
DENNIS R. SCHRADER.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

JOHN U. SEPULVEDA, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (HUMAN RESOURCES), VICE MICHAEL
W. HAGER.

FOREIGN SERVICE

THE FOLLOWING-NAMED CAREER MEMBERS OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN
SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR PROMOTION WITHIN
AND INTO THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE TO THE CLASSES INDICATED:

CAREER MEMBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF
MINISTER-COUNSELOR:

GREGORY D. LOOSE, OF VIRGINIA
DOROTHY L. LUTTER, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WILLIAM M. ZARIT, OF FLORIDA

CAREER MEMBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF
COUNSELOR:

BRIAN C. BRISSON, OF FLORIDA
MICHAEL L. MCGEE, OF ALABAMA
DONALD G. NAY, OF FLORIDA
GREGORY M. WONG, OF HAWAII

THE FOLLOWING-NAMED PERSONS OF THE AGENCIES INDICATED FOR
APPOINTMENT AS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS OF THE CLASSES
STATED.

FOR APPOINTMENT AS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER OF CLASS TWO,
CONSULAR OFFICER AND SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

LASZLO F. SAGI, OF VIRGINIA
DAVID A. THOMANEK, OF VIRGINIA

FOR APPOINTMENT AS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER OF CLASS THREE,
CONSULAR OFFICER AND SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

STEVEN BRADLEY BENNETT, JR., OF VIRGINIA
ANDY D. NGUYEN, OF VIRGINIA
FATMA A. ROSE, OF ARIZONA

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

JOHN F. CORONADO, OF CALIFORNIA
JAMES S. CRAMER, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ROBERT W. DUNN, OF VIRGINIA
BRENT E. OMDAHL, OF TEXAS

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

ALFREDO DAVID BARELA, OF TEXAS
JEHAN SADIA JONES, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CATHERINE HENDERSON SCHWEITZER, OF VIRGINIA

FOR APPOINTMENT AS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER OF CLASS FOUR,
CONSULAR OFFICER AND SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

GREGORY HARRIS, OF WASHINGTON
AARON M. HELD, OF CALIFORNIA
FRANKLIN D. JOSEPH, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DAO M. LE, OF CALIFORNIA
DINAH M. MCDOUGALL, OF TEXAS
MARK C. O'GRADY, OF MARYLAND
JANEE PIERRE-LOUIS, OF FLORIDA
ELIZABETH M. SHIEH, OF NEW YORK
WILLIAM P. THORN, JR., OF PENNSYLVANIA

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

AMY MARIE MOSER, OF MISSOURI

[[Page 9991]]

SADIE MARIE OKOKO, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE FOLLOWING-NAMED MEMBERS OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE TO BE
CONSULAR OFFICERS AND SECRETARIES IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

BRIAN W. CARR, OF VIRGINIA
LAWRENCE D. CORNMAN, OF MARYLAND

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

KATHRINE L. ALDERMAN, OF VIRGINIA
BOOYEON LEE ALLEN, OF CALIFORNIA
CLAY C. ALLEN, OF MASSACHUSETTS
SHANE MICHAEL ANDERSEN, OF VIRGINIA
BEATA ANGELICA, OF VIRGINIA
LA JUNE L. BARNES, OF NEW YORK
NICHOLAS G. BARNETT, OF NEW YORK
CHRISTINA I.M. BISHOP, OF VIRGINIA
JOSEPH E. BURZYNSKI, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DANIEL J. CARL, OF COLORADO
ALBERT RAY CEA HENRIQUEZ, OF TEXAS
FREDERICK CHARLES, OF VIRGINIA
JOHN PAUL CHARLES, OF WASHINGTON
DONALD K. CODDING, OF OKLAHOMA
SYDNEY A. CODDING, OF OKLAHOMA
ROBERT PATRICK CONTRERAS, OF MISSOURI
CRAIGORY D. CRANK, OF MARYLAND
ERIC T. CUYLER, OF NEBRASKA
PHILLIP NELSON DE ASSIS, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BROOKE HEILNER DEAN, OF MARYLAND
ANTHONY J. DIAZ, OF KENTUCKY
RYAN T. DRISCOLL, OF VIRGINIA
EDMUND FLEETWOOD DUNSTAN III, OF MARYLAND
KARYN MALIA CHOQUETTE ELIOT, OF VIRGINIA
ANDREW L. ELLIS, OF VIRGINIA
TIMOTHY F. FARRELL, OF VIRGINIA
MARISA FERGUSON, OF VIRGINIA
JOSE M. GARZA, JR., OF VIRGINIA
NOAH J. GEESAMAN, OF VIRGINIA
JENNIFER H. GIBBS, OF VIRGINIA
KIMBERLY K. GIUSTI, OF OREGON
PALOMA H. GONZALEZ, OF CALIFORNIA
JACOB DANIEL GRANNELL, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
KERRY J. GROOME, OF MARYLAND
RYAN N. GUIRLINGER, OF VIRGINIA
PRISCILLA GUZMAN, OF TEXAS
CHANSONETTE HALL, OF PENNSYLVANIA
GARTH HALL, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LAURA J. HAMMOND, OF MINNESOTA
SEAN M. HANIFEN, OF VIRGINIA
NICHOLAS HARRIS, OF VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA HARRIS, OF NEW YORK
APRIL M. HAYNE, OF OHIO
CHERYL A. HIPP, OF CALIFORNIA
RYNA HOK, OF VIRGINIA
KERRY F.A. HYRE, OF NEW YORK
TIFFANY L. JACKSON, OF FLORIDA
CHRISTOPHER C. JENSEN, OF VIRGINIA
VISHAL JINDAL, OF VIRGINIA
KENNETH J. KANN, OF MARYLAND
SONIA JUNG KIM, OF GEORGIA
RICHARD CHARLES KOLKER, OF VIRGINIA
STEPHAN G. LANGLEY, OF WASHINGTON
JOHN B. LAVIN, OF MARYLAND
MICHAEL E. LEE, OF VIRGINIA
THOMAS J. LEIBY, OF PENNSYLVANIA
WENDY ANN LIGON, OF VIRGINIA
BRIDGET MARY LINES, OF TEXAS
LOREN C. LOCKE, OF GEORGIA
RYAN J. LONG, OF WASHINGTON
JAMES MICHAEL LOWELL, OF TENNESSEE
MUNIR DAWAN MADYUN, OF GEORGIA
SARA V. MARTI, OF FLORIDA
ANNA ARAMBULO MARTZ, OF TEXAS
JOEL SUNIL MATHEN, OF VIRGINIA
WESLEY S. MATHEWS, OF TEXAS
TRISHITA MAULA, OF NEW YORK
JAMES PATRICK MCCORMICK, OF OREGON
CHRISTOPHER H. MCHONE, OF TEXAS
ROLAND DAVID MCKAY, OF MICHIGAN
MARY KATHLEEN MCKNIGHT, OF TENNESSEE
DOERING S. MEYER, OF MINNESOTA
MORGAN DANIEL MILES, OF WASHINGTON
AARON TYRELL MITCHELL, OF MARYLAND
DOUG MORROW, OF ILLINOIS
KATHRINE M. MORTENSEN, OF NEW YORK
STEVEN MARK MOUTON, OF VIRGINIA
NATALYA A. NIKIFOROVA-SMITH, OF FLORIDA
CAROLINE CASEY NOHR, OF CALIFORNIA
FREDERICK NICHOLAS NOYES, OF TEXAS
ILENA C. PATTI, OF VIRGINIA
KARLEE MARIE PAYNE, OF VIRGINIA
CHRIS F. PIERSON, OF CONNECTICUT
SUSAN QUINTANA, OF TEXAS
ERIN ALEXIS RATTAZZI, OF CALIFORNIA
SUNIL KUMAR RAVI, OF ARIZONA
STEPHANIE LAUREN REED, OF VIRGINIA
MARK V. REEDY, OF GEORGIA
NICHOLAS B. REID, OF FLORIDA
REGINE RENE, OF LOUISIANA
ANGELICA RODAS-HUGHES, OF VIRGINIA
THOMAS S. ROOKER, OF VIRGINIA
ALISON E. ROWLES, OF MARYLAND
CHUNNONG SAEGER, OF MARYLAND
MARYUM FATIMA SAIFEE, OF TEXAS
FELIX J. SALAZAR, OF MARYLAND
JANICE T. SCHILL, OF CALIFORNIA
PHILIP SCOT SCHWADA, OF VIRGINIA
BEHRANG FARIAN SERAJ, OF CALIFORNIA
ANDREW MICHAEL SHERNUK, OF VIRGINIA
ARATI SHROFF, OF ILLINOIS
ALEXANDREA R. SHYBUT, OF VIRGINIA
CLAIRE ELIZABETH SMOLIK, OF CALIFORNIA
LAURENCE J. SOCHA, OF ILLINOIS
NITZA SOLA-ROTGER, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CORY RAJA STELLING, OF VIRGINIA
MASAMI TANAKA, OF ILLINOIS
MEGAN J. TETRICK, OF INDIANA
SYGA THOMAS, OF CALIFORNIA
ROBBIE J. THOMPSON, OF MARYLAND
WOLFGANG TOLLE, OF VIRGINIA
DIANE K. TOMION, OF VIRGINIA
KEISHA N. TOMS, OF NEW YORK
WILLIAM RANDALL TORRANCE, OF TEXAS
CATHERINE TRUONG, OF ILLINOIS
JUSTIN W. TULL, OF CALIFORNIA
PENNY L. VASQUEZ, OF VIRGINIA
YAYOI VICKOVIC, OF VIRGINIA
BENJAMIN WALLACE, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BRIANNE A. WATTS, OF VIRGINIA
OTTO HAAVERSEN WESTHASSEL, OF NEVADA
ERIC S. WEXLER, OF VIRGINIA
C. LOGAN WHEELER, OF TENNESSEE
AMANDA FAITH WHITESELL, OF VIRGINIA
HEATHER A. WIGGINS, OF VIRGINIA
DAVID WISNER, OF NEW YORK
HEATHER NICOLE WRIGHT, OF MARYLAND
CHRISTIAN S. YUN, OF CALIFORNIA
THE FOLLOWING-NAMED CAREER MEMBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN
SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR PROMOTION WITHIN
AND INTO THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE TO THE CLASS INDICATED:

CAREER MEMBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, CLASS OF MINISTER COUNSELOR:

DANIEL E. HARRIS, OF MARYLAND

THE FOLLOWING-NAMED PERSONS OF THE AGENCIES INDICATED FOR
APPOINTMENT AS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS OF THE CLASSES
STATED.

FOR APPOINTMENT AS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER OF CLASS TWO,
CONSULAR OFFICER AND SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

Department of State

JOHN M. KOWALSKI, OF WISCONSIN

FOR APPOINTMENT AS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER OF CLASS THREE,
CONSULAR OFFICER AND SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

Department of Agriculture

DAVID LEISHMAN, OF WYOMING
ELIZABETH MELLO, OF CALIFORNIA
JEFFREY V. NAWN, OF OHIO

FOR APPOINTMENT AS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER OF CLASS FOUR,
CONSULAR OFFICER AND SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

Department of State

ALLYSON MCCOLLUM ALGEO, OF TENNESSEE
MARA SUNSHINE ANDERSEN, OF COLORADO
ANDREA APPELL, OF CALIFORNIA
SELIM ARITURK, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DAVID P. ARULANANTHAM, OF CALIFORNIA
NATASHA MICHELLE BASLEY, OF CALIFORNIA
LEE ANDREW BELLAND, OF WASHINGTON
ONI KAY BLAIR, OF TEXAS
DAVID J. BOUMAN, OF WASHINGTON
KATHERINE A. CARO, OF FLORIDA
DONALD LEROY CARROLL, OF IDAHO
MARCUS EVAN LAWRENCE CARY, OF WASHINGTON
DELARAM MOKHTAR CAVEY, OF VIRGINIA
ANN MARIE CHIAPPETTA, OF CALIFORNIA
JASON CHUE, OF NEW YORK
CECELIA MASON COLEMAN, OF TEXAS
STEVEN M. CONLON, OF FLORIDA
WAYNE H. CRAWFORD, OF COLORADO
RICHARD D. DAMSTRA, OF MICHIGAN
CHRISTIAN DEITCH, OF ILLINOIS
SARA ELIZABETH DEVLIN, OF VIRGINIA
CAROLINE GRACE DOW, OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALLEN DUBOSE, OF FLORIDA
MATTHEW JOHN EASTER, OF NEW YORK
GINA BETH EL KOURY, OF NEW JERSEY
GUNTHER T. FEHR, OF NORTH CAROLINA
EMILY M. FLECKNER, OF NEW YORK
MELINDA J. FOUNTAIN, OF INDIANA
ELAINE M. FRENCH, OF NEW YORK
NORMAN GALIMBA, OF TEXAS
DAVID HARDT GAMBLE, JR., OF VIRGINIA
ADELLE FAY GILLEN, OF WASHINGTON
TIMOTHY JOHN GILLEN, OF WASHINGTON
SUZANNE GORDON GRANTHAM, OF FLORIDA
LAWRENCE GRIPPO, OF NEW JERSEY
CHRISTOPHER G. GROSSMAN, OF OKLAHOMA
KATHLEEN MARIE GUERRA, OF WASHINGTON
JASON HEUNG, OF VIRGINIA
DEREK WILLIAM HOFFMANN, OF INDIANA
JAMES E. HOGAN, OF FLORIDA
PHUONG THAO THANH HONG, OF WASHINGTON
YUEN-HAO HUANG, OF CALIFORNIA
TIMOTHY RAY JOHNSON, OF VIRGINIA
MATTHEW KEENER, OF CALIFORNIA
SHARON S. KETCHUM, OF ARIZONA
LUBNA KHAN, OF WYOMING
ANN MOONJU KIM, OF CALIFORNIA
KATHRYN ANN KISER, OF FLORIDA
ELIZABETH VIRGINIA KUHSE, OF CONNECTICUT
BENJAMIN AARON LE ROY, OF CALIFORNIA
SHELBIE CHANDELLE LEGG, OF FLORIDA
GLENN K. LEWIS, OF VIRGINIA
JORGE E. LIZARRALDE, OF TEXAS
JEREMY W. LONG, OF CALIFORNIA
DANIEL EDWARD MANGIS, OF TEXAS
SHAILA B. MANYAM, OF FLORIDA
JAMIE MARTIN, OF RHODE ISLAND
DONALD G. MAYNARD II, OF VIRGINIA
JESSICA MEGILL, OF CALIFORNIA
MAUREEN YVONNE MIMNAUGH, OF CALIFORNIA
TODD K. MIYAHIRA, OF VIRGINIA
MOHAMMED MOTIWALA, OF CALIFORNIA
BRADLEY JON NIEMANN, OF CALIFORNIA
VICTORIA STURDIVANT O'CONNELL, OF VIRGINIA
LIAM J. O'FLANAGAN, OF NEW YORK
MICHELLE YVETTE OUTLAW, OF ARIZONA
ERIN PELTON, OF MINNESOTA
CHRISTA MARIE PEROZO, OF WISCONSIN
MARK DAVID PERRY, OF VIRGINIA
ZEBA REYAZUDDIN, OF CALIFORNIA
CORRIE HEPBURN ROBB, OF CALIFORNIA
NINA J. ROBINSON, OF CALIFORNIA
RANDALL ARTHUR ROBINSON, OF FLORIDA
MELANIE B. RUBENSTEIN, OF OHIO
RYAN J. RUSSELL, OF VIRGINIA
CHARLES R. SELLERS, OF TEXAS
HEATHER STEIL, OF CALIFORNIA
WILLIAM H. SYLL, OF LOUISIANA
JOSEPH R. TRUESDALE IV, OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
JASON HOWARD ULLNER, OF FLORIDA
ROGER CROIX WEBB, OF MISSOURI
PHILIP DOUGLAS WILSON, OF TEXAS
CHAD LEE WILTON, OF ALASKA
ELISABETH F. ZENTOS, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE FOLLOWING-NAMED MEMBERS OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE TO BE
CONSULAR OFFICERS AND SECRETARIES IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

Department of Commerce

DAVID E. AVERNE, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JOHN P. FAY, OF VIRGINIA
HENLEY K. JONES, OF FLORIDA
KATJA S. KRAVETSKY, OF VIRGINIA
NANCY E. LUTHER, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PAUL A. TAYLOR, OF COLORADO

Department of State

PATRICK KIMBALL ARMSTRONG, OF VIRGINIA
CHAD ASHLEY, OF VIRGINIA
AARON M. ATKIN, OF VIRGINIA
AKASH BAHL, OF CALIFORNIA
GRAHAM GLYN BARKER, OF FLORIDA
WILLIAM D. BARRY, OF CALIFORNIA
JEFFREY KIRK BENGTZEN, OF VIRGINIA
CARINA BERNAL, OF TEXAS
LINDA BLOUNT, OF VIRGINIA
KATHERINE LYNN BOESDORFER, OF VIRGINIA
ANDREW J. BRADEN, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
KELLY BUSBY, OF VIRGINIA
JONATHAN S. BUTRY, OF VIRGINIA
KAREN CAHILL, OF VIRGINIA
ALYSIA CAMEL, OF VIRGINIA
OLGA TERESA CARDENAS, OF VIRGINIA
JANE CARTER, OF CALIFORNIA
JORDANA CHAVIN, OF CALIFORNIA
CHERYL CIOCCI, OF VIRGINIA
SARAH CLYMER, OF MINNESOTA
CHIE N. COLE, OF VIRGINIA
SHAYNA COLLEEN CRAM, OF TEXAS
CHANDA M. CREASY, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PETER JAMES DAVIS, OF VIRGINIA
AUDREY C. DAVISTER, OF VIRGINIA
CHRISTIAAN E.N. DE LUIGI, OF VIRGINIA
BARBARA R. DOENGES, OF OHIO
KENNETH C. DOLL II, OF VIRGINIA
DAWN M. DOWLING, OF VIRGINIA
KATHLEEN ETTER, OF VIRGINIA
STEPHANIE FAIN, OF TEXAS
JENNIFER M. FOLTZ, OF MICHIGAN
RUTH H. GALLANT, OF CALIFORNIA
ANDREW GALLIKER, OF VIRGINIA
ELIAS T. GATES, OF VIRGINIA
BRYON GILBERT, OF MARYLAND
WILLIAM J. GRALEY, OF VIRGINIA
ERIN TERESA GREENWELL, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ASHLEY COLLEEN GROUNDS, OF VIRGINIA
VINCENT J. GUINEE III, OF VIRGINIA
STEPHANIE MARIE HACKENBURG, OF PENNSYLVANIA
KENNETH THEODORE HARMS, OF VIRGINIA
NICHOLAS RYAN HARROD, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ROBIN A. HARTSELL, OF ILLINOIS
PATRICK B. HARWOOD, OF VIRGINIA
BRIAN R. HOKE, OF VIRGINIA
BRADFORD HOPEWELL, OF VIRGINIA
MARY R. HOWELL, OF FLORIDA
ETHAN R. HYCHE, OF CALIFORNIA
CHRISTIAAN K. JAMES, OF TEXAS
REBECCA A. JANES, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARY KATHERINE JANTE, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DANA M. JONES-SHEPPARD, OF VIRGINIA
CHESTER L. KELLEY, OF VIRGINIA

[[Page 9992]]

JULI S. KIM, OF TEXAS
KELLY S. KIM, OF VIRGINIA
AMANDA H. KING, OF VIRGINIA
NEIL R. KING, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DAWN KIRSCHMAN, OF SOUTH DAKOTA
JONATHAN LOREN KOEHLER, OF ILLINOIS
DARREN LABONTE, OF MARYLAND
MARTIN L. LAHM III, OF NEW YORK
MATTHEW LANDIN, OF MARYLAND
SCOTT LANG, OF ILLINOIS
BRIAN D. LARSEN, OF ILLINOIS
LISA CHRISTINE LARSON, OF MINNESOTA
PHYLLIS K. LAVALLAIS, OF TEXAS
SEAN PATRICK LINDSTONE, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARISA LEIGH MACISAAC, OF MAINE
JEFFREY T. MAICKE, OF MARYLAND
MARK W. MAJOROS, OF VIRGINIA
SARAH V. MANAKER, OF VIRGINIA
JOSEPH R. MASIH, OF VIRGINIA
ALAN DANIEL MCCARTHY, JR., OF VIRGINIA
DANIEL LAWRENCE MICHAEL, OF VIRGINIA
CHIRAG MAYUR MISTRY, OF MARYLAND
NICHOLAS F. MUTO, OF MARYLAND
VICTORIA LEIGH NIBARGER, OF KANSAS
PAUL M. NICHOLS, OF CONNECTICUT
ERIN THERESE O'CONNOR, OF TEXAS
DOUGLAS H. OSTERTAG, OF CALIFORNIA
JEFFREY L. OTTO, OF NEW YORK
MARK SEBASTIAN PALERMO, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JOYCE K. PARK, OF VIRGINIA
JOHN REED PAYNE, OF TEXAS
FRANCISCO PEREZ, OF NEW MEXICO
KIMBERLY M. PEREZ, OF TEXAS
LAURA PERRY, OF VIRGINIA
SUSAN L. POHL, OF VIRGINIA
ERIK S. PUGNER, OF CALIFORNIA
REBECCA L. PYLE, OF PENNSYLVANIA
REBECCA CAROL RAMAN, OF TENNESSEE
SCOTT E. REESE, OF VIRGINIA
ALISON M. RESER, OF VIRGINIA
KEVIN RICH, OF VIRGINIA
MEGAN JOAN ROBERTS, OF VIRGINIA
NIKKI NOEL ROMERO, OF VIRGINIA
MICHAEL RUDDY, OF MASSACHUSETTS
JACOB J. SALAZAR, OF MICHIGAN
SUMMER H. SANFORD, OF VIRGINIA
SARA A. SCARBRO, OF VIRGINIA
SARAH K. SCHORES, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LUKE AARON SCHTELE, OF UTAH
PAUL SCHUBERT, OF MARYLAND
CHARLES F. SETEN, OF ILLINOIS
RICKIN D. SHAH, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARK C. SHEPPARD, OF VIRGINIA
ANNE SIPPEL, OF GEORGIA
JENNIFER T. SIREGAR, OF FLORIDA
JON J. SKIBA, OF VIRGINIA
SARAH F. SKORUPSKI, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DOMINIC SO, OF CALIFORNIA
BRENT SODERBORG, OF VIRGINIA
DANIELLE EVON THOMAS, OF VIRGINIA
SHAWN TIMBROOK, OF VIRGINIA
MINA TOUMAZATOS, OF VIRGINIA
VINCENT C. TRAVERSO, OF CALIFORNIA
LLOYD R. VAN LANDINGHAM, OF VIRGINIA
BEENA VARNAN, OF TEXAS
MATTHEW VARTHALAMIS, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ERIK CHRISTOPHER WAHLSTROM, OF WASHINGTON
LAURA WANNER, OF VIRGINIA
ADAM C. WATSON, OF VIRGINIA
STEPHEN WEEKS, OF FLORIDA
MATTHEW LAWRENCE WEILL, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BRIAN D. WHELAN, OF VIRGINIA
LUCY AVENT WICHLACZ, OF VIRGINIA
JOSHUA B. WILCOX, OF VIRGINIA
DALE P. WURMLINGER, OF VIRGINIA
JEREMY TERRILL YOUNG, OF VIRGINIA

____________________

DISCHARGED NOMINATIONS

The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry was
discharged from further consideration of the following nominations by
unanimous consent and the nominations were confirmed:
JAMES W. MILLER, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE FOR FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES.
KATHLEEN A. MERRIGAN, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE DEPUTY
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.
JOE LEONARD, JR., OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE AN
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.

____________________

CONFIRMATIONS

Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate, Thursday, April 2,
2009:

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.

Department of State

RICHARD RAHUL VERMA, OF MARYLAND, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF STATE (LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS).
ESTHER BRIMMER, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE AN
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE (INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION
AFFAIRS).
ROSE EILENE GOTTEMOELLER, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF STATE (VERIFICATION AND COMPLIANCE).
KARL WINFRID EIKENBERRY, OF FLORIDA, TO BE AMBASSADOR
EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA TO THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF AFGHANISTAN.
MELANNE VERVEER, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE
AMBASSADOR AT LARGE FOR WOMEN'S GLOBAL ISSUES.

Department of Defense

JAMES N. MILLER, JR., OF VIRGINIA, TO BE DEPUTY UNDER
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY.
ALEXANDER VERSHBOW, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE AN
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.

Department of Homeland Security

JANE HOLL LUTE, OF NEW YORK, TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF
HOMELAND SECURITY.

Office of Personnel Management

JOHN BERRY, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE DIRECTOR OF
THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT FOR A TERM OF FOUR YEARS.

Small Business Administration

KAREN GORDON MILLS, OF MAINE, TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION.

Department Of Veterans Affairs

W. SCOTT GOULD, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE DEPUTY
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.
THE ABOVE NOMINATIONS WERE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE
NOMINEES' COMMITMENT TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS TO APPEAR AND
TESTIFY BEFORE ANY DULY CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE.

Department of Agriculture

JAMES W. MILLER, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE FOR FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES.
KATHLEEN A. MERRIGAN, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE DEPUTY
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.
JOE LEONARD, JR., OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE AN
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.

In the Air Force

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:

To be lieutenant general

MAJ. GEN. MICHAEL C. GOULD

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE
OF THE AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10.
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be brigadier general

Col. Debra A. Scullary

The following named officers for appointment in the reserve
of the air force to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 12203:

To be major general

The following named officers for appointment in the Reserve
of the Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., Section 12203:

To be brigadier general

Colonel William B. Binger
Colonel Catherine A. Chilton
Colonel James A. Firth
Colonel Robert M. Haire
Colonel Stayce D. Harris
Colonel Thomas P. Harwood III
Colonel Maryanne Miller
Colonel Pamela K. Milligan
Colonel Robert K. Millmann, Jr.
Colonel James J. Muscatell, Jr.
Colonel Dennis P. Ployer
Colonel Kevin E. Pottinger
Colonel Derek P. Rydholm
Colonel George F. Williams

In the Army

The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 624:

To be major general

Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks

The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
sections 624 and 3064:

To be major general

Brig. Gen. James K. Gilman
Brig. Gen. Philip Volpe

The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
sections 624 and 3064:

To be brigadier general

Col. William B. Gamble
Col. Richard W. Thomas

In the Marine Corps

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES MARINE CORPS RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER
TITLE 10, U.S.C., Section 12203:

To be brigadier general

COL. PAUL W. BRIER
COL. FRANS J. COETZEE

IN THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS OF KATHY L. FULLERTON, TO BE MAJOR.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH EMIL B. KABBAN AND
ENDING WITH STEPHEN H. WILLIAMS, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON FEBRUARY 23, 2009.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH BRIAN D. ANDERSON AND
ENDING WITH MARGARET M. WALSH, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON FEBRUARY 23, 2009.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH MARK T. ALLISON AND
ENDING WITH PHILIP T. WOLD, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 23, 2009.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH TINA M. BARBERMATTHEW
AND ENDING WITH REGAN J. PATRICK, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON FEBRUARY 23, 2009.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JAMES J. BALDOCK IV
AND ENDING WITH BRENDA L. YI, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 23, 2009.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH LISA L. ADAMS AND
ENDING WITH RICHARD J. ZAVADIL, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON FEBRUARY 23, 2009.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH ARIEL O. ACEBAL AND
ENDING WITH STEVEN M. ZUBOWICZ, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON FEBRUARY 23, 2009.
AIR FORCE NOMINATION OF JONATHON V. LAMMERS, TO BE
LIEUTENANT COLONEL .
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH GARY A. FOSKEY AND
ENDING WITH CONNIE L.WARR, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY
THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 25, 2009.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH BRYSON D. BORG AND
ENDING WITH DEXTER W. LOVE, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 25, 2009.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH GEORGE B. GOSTING AND
ENDING WITH JOSEPH S. PARK, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
MARCH 10, 2009.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH RICHARD D. BAKER AND
ENDING WITH GREGORY B. YORK, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
MARCH 10, 2009.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JEFFREY L. ANDRUS AND
ENDING WITH ROSE M. WOJCIK, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
MARCH 10, 2009.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH FEDERICO C. AQUINO,
JR. AND ENDING WITH JUNKO YAMAMOTO, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON MARCH 10, 2009.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JOSELITA M. ABELEDA
AND ENDING WITH GABRIEL ZIMMERER,

[[Page 9993]]

WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN
THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON MARCH 10, 2009.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH THOMAS J. BAUER AND
ENDING WITH STACEY E. ZAIKOSKI, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON MARCH 10, 2009.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH AMANDA J. ADAMS AND
ENDING WITH DON L. ZUST, JR., WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
MARCH 10, 2009.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH XAVIER A. NGUYEN AND
ENDING WITH JENNIFER A. TAY, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
MARCH 17, 2009.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JOHN M. BEENE II AND
ENDING WITH ELIZAEBTH N. SMITH, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON MARCH 17, 2009.
AIR FORCE NOMINATION OF RYAN G. MCPHERSON, TO BE MAJOR.
AIR FORCE NOMINATION OF MARK J. IVEY, TO BE COLONEL.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH CHRISTOPHER B. BENNETT
AND ENDING WITH DAVID J. WESTERN, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON MARCH 25, 2009.

In The Army

ARMY NOMINATION OF PETER C. GOULD, TO BE COLONEL.
ARMY NOMINATION OF GARRETT S. YEE, TO BE COLONEL.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH ROY L. BOURNE AND ENDING
WITH STANLEY W. SHEFTALL, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY
THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 23, 2009.
ARMY NOMINATION OF FRANK RODRIGUEZ, JR., TO BE COLONEL.
ARMY NOMINATION OF EDWARD E. TURSKI, TO BE COLONEL.
ARMY NOMINATION OF JOSEPH R. KRUPA, TO BE MAJOR.
ARMY NOMINATION OF KATHLEEN P. NAIMAN, TO BE MAJOR.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JUAN G. ESTEVA AND ENDING
WITH THOMAS E. STARR, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON FEBRUARY
25, 2009.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH ROBERT F. DONNELLY AND
ENDING WITH ANGELICA REYES, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 25, 2009.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH RICHARD H. DAHLMAN AND
ENDING WITH DAVID A. STILLS, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 25, 2009.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JULIE S. AKIYAMA AND ENDING
WITH ANDREW L. HAGEMASTER, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY
THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 25, 2009.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH MICHAEL L. NIPPERT AND
ENDING WITH JOHN K. GOERTMILLER, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON FEBRUARY 25, 2009.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH MARTIN L. BADEGIAN AND
ENDING WITH MARK J. HODD, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY
THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 25, 2009.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH DEBRA H. BURTON AND ENDING
WITH LEE D. SCHNELL, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON FEBRUARY
25, 2009.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH PAUL P. BRYANT AND ENDING
WITH CHRISTOPHER R. WARD, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY
THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 25, 2009.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH ROBERT J. ABBOTT AND ENDING
WITH PATRICK J. WOOLSEY, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY
THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 25, 2009.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH VANESSA A. BERRY AND ENDING
WITH SCOTT F. YOUNG, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON FEBRUARY
25, 2009.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH EFREN E. RECTO AND ENDING
WITH WILLIAM A. WOLKSTEIN, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY
THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 25, 2009.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH SUZANNE D. ADKINSON AND
ENDING WITH BRANDON S. WATKINS, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON FEBRUARY 25, 2009.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH THOMAS M. CARDEN, JR. AND
ENDING WITH ANTHONY WOODS, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY
THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON MARCH
10, 2009.
ARMY NOMINATION OF LAURA K. LESTER, TO BE MAJOR.
ARMY NOMINATION OF BRIGITTE BELANGER, TO BE MAJOR.
ARMY NOMINATION OF MITZI A. RIVERA, TO BE MAJOR.
ARMY NOMINATION OF CATHERINE B. EVANS, TO BE MAJOR.
ARMY NOMINATION OF VICTOR G. KELLY, TO BE MAJOR.
ARMY NOMINATION OF RYAN T. CHOATE, TO BE MAJOR.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH RAFAEL A. CABRERA AND
ENDING WITH CARL J. TADAKI, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
MARCH 17, 2009.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH ROBERT A. BORCHERDING AND
ENDING WITH MICHAEL C. WONG, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
MARCH 17, 2009.
ARMY NOMINATION OF VICTOR J. TORRES-FERNANDEZ, TO BE MAJOR.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JOSEPH ANGERER AND ENDING
WITH MATTHEW J. YANDURA, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY
THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON MARCH
25, 2009.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH TED R. BATES AND ENDING
WITH PETER M. MENICUCCI, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY
THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON MARCH
25, 2009.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JOHN M. DIAZ AND ENDING
WITH LAVORE L. RICHMOND, JR., WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
MARCH 25, 2009.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH LUISA SANTIAGO AND ENDING
WITH YEVGENY S. VINDMAN, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY
THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON MARCH
25, 2009.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH RANDALL W. COWELL AND
ENDING WITH DANIEL M. ZERBY, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
MARCH 25, 2009.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH ALBERT J. ADKINSON AND
ENDING WITH WILLIAM E. WYNNS, JR., WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON MARCH 25, 2009.

In the Marine Corps

MARINE CORPS NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH DAVID G. ANTONIK
AND ENDING WITH STEVEN D. PETERSON, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON FEBRUARY 23, 2009.
MARINE CORPS NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH KELLY P. ALEXANDER
AND ENDING WITH ANTHONE R. WRIGHT, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON FEBRUARY 23, 2009.
MARINE CORPS NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH DEREK M. ABBEY AND
ENDING WITH ROBERT B. ZWAYER, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 25, 2009.
MARINE CORPS NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH HARALD AAGAARD AND
ENDING WITH MARK W. ZIPSIE, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 25, 2009.

In The Navy

NAVY NOMINATION OF SCOTT D. SHIVER, TO BE CAPTAIN.
NAVY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH STEVEN A. KHALIL AND ENDING
WITH DAVID B. ROSENBERG, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY
THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 23, 2009.
NAVY NOMINATION OF MIGUEL GONZALEZ, TO BE CAPTAIN.
NAVY NOMINATION OF DAVID M. DROMSKY, TO BE COMMANDER.
NAVY NOMINATION OF JED R. ESPIRITU, TO BE LIEUTENANT
COMMANDER.
NAVY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH CHARLES C. ADKISON AND
ENDING WITH TRICIA L. TEAS, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 23, 2009.
NAVY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH GREGORY G. GALYO AND ENDING
WITH OLIVER C. MINIMO, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON MARCH 10,
2009.
NAVY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH CHRISTOPHER G. CUNNINGHAM
AND ENDING WITH CHRISTOPHER A. WILLIAMS, WHICH NOMINATIONS
WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON MARCH 25, 2009.
NAVY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JANET L. JACKSON AND ENDING
WITH TODD M. SULLIVAN, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON MARCH 25,
2009.

[[Page 9994]]

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________

CELEBRATING THE LIFE AND SERVICE OF RURAL CARRIER MANCEL PRINCE

______

HON. LINCOLN DAVIS

of tennessee

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I rise today to
recognize the life and service of Mancel Prince, a rural letter carrier
from Decherd, Tennessee.
For over thirty years, Mr. Prince has carried out a service that
began just 5 days before Christmas in 1899, when the Post Office
Department decided to experiment with extending rural free delivery
across an entire county for the first time. The service proved viable,
and today constituents like mine and all across rural America receive
their mail from dedicated carriers like Mr. Prince.
Today Mr. Prince is 89 years old, and has more than 70 years of
government service in his past. He first joined the U.S. Army in 1938
and served on active duty in World War II, where he fought for the
Allies under the command of General Patton, as well as in the Korean
War and the Vietnam War.
Mr. Prince retired from active duty in 1972 as a Command Sergeant
Major in Field Artillery, and then joined the U.S. Postal Service. He
has served on his route for nearly thirty five years, and currently
serves more than 460 boxes over a span of 93.5 miles per day through
parts of three counties. He is respected by co-workers and superiors
alike and is praised for his work ethic. I understand, too, that he is
currently the oldest active employee in the Tennessee District and to
my knowledge, he has no plans to retire.
I would ask that my colleagues join me today in rising to honor a
great servant of rural America, and a man who has dedicated so much of
his life in service to the good of our nation.

____________________

HONORING THE TOWN OF BOURNE, MASSACHUSETTS

______

HON. WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise today so that my colleagues in
the House of Representatives can join me in commemorating the 125th
Anniversary of the Town of Bourne, Massachusetts.
It was on this day in 1884 that the Town of Bourne claimed its
rightful independence, a movement that marked the inception of Bourne
Incorporated. The significance of the Town's foundation is reflected in
historical data that depict a prolonged effort to distinguish its
identity. As noted by the 1984 Bourne Centennial Celebration Committee,
ineffectual attempts at separation were made in the late 1770s and
early 1800s--but it was not until 1883 that a successful movement
began.
In large measure, geography governed the separation. Long trips were
needed to get to the town meeting and in some cases to the
meetinghouse. But more importantly, the division was a profound
expression of the free will of the people. This movement perfectly
epitomized the meaning of the phrase ``of the people, by the people,
for the people.'' As the youngest township on Cape Cod, the Town of
Bourne should be recognized for what has been its everlasting pledge to
the preservation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It is of the utmost importance that we pass on Bourne's rich history
to current and future generations, and that we encourage the Town's
youth to take pride in their heritage. As we reflect on the Town's 125-
year existence, we must proudly recognize the pioneers who spearheaded
the Town's founding and the superior achievements the Town and its
citizens have realized over the years.
I congratulate all the citizens of the Town of Bourne on this
auspicious day, and extend my best wishes for a successful and
prosperous future.

____________________

HONORING THE LIFE OF GEORGE ``HAPPY'' IRBY

______

HON. TRAVIS W. CHILDERS

of mississippi

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. CHILDERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay respect to the life
of George ``Happy'' Irby. Happy Irby passed away on his birthday, March
27th, at the age of 94 in his hometown, Columbus, Mississippi. He was a
man that lit up a room. His perpetual optimism was contagious; his name
``Happy,'' was not just a nickname, it was a reflection of the way he
lived his life.
Happy Irby worked as an activity coordinator at the Columbus Air
Force Base's Officer's Club for 50 years. It is here he founded the
Happy Christmas Fund, providing gifts for children in need on Christmas
morning and giving fruit baskets to the elderly. He will be remembered
as one of Mississippi's most avid philanthropists, which is why
Mississippi State Highway 706 was renamed George ``Happy'' Irby
Parkway.
Happy was a devoted husband, father, grandfather, great-grandfather
and great-great grandfather. Happy was a proud and faithful member of
Missionary Union Baptist Church, where he served as an usher.
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for remembering George ``Happy''
Irby and his family at this time.

____________________

HONORING THE MEMORY OF THE MRS. ABBIE POWE SESSIONS

______

HON. JO BONNER

of alabama

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. BONNER. Madam Speaker, Monroe County--and the entire State of
Alabama--recently lost a dear friend, and I rise today to honor Mrs.
Abbie Powe Sessions and pay tribute to her memory.
A native of Branch in Choctaw County, ``Miss Abbie'' had been a
resident of Hybart in Monroe County for most of her adult life. She
graduated from high school in Silas and studied at both Livingston
State Teachers College and Troy State Teachers College. A few years
ago, she moved into a retirement community in Mobile so she could be
closer to her family.
``Miss Abbie'' was truly a steel magnolia. She was strong in her
faith, devoted to her family and friends and a constant source of
inspiration to all who knew and loved her. She was a homemaker and
actively assisted her late husband, Jefferson B. Sessions Jr., in his
country store and farm equipment business. Their only son, Senator Jeff
Sessions, credits her hard work and frugality with instilling in him
the value of a dollar and the importance of hard work.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering a friend
to many throughout south Alabama. Mrs. Abbie Powe Sessions will be
dearly missed by her family--her son, Senator Jeff Sessions and his
wife Mary; her three grandchildren, Mary Abigail Sessions Reinhardt,
Ruth Blackshear Sessions Walk, and Samuel Turner Sessions; her great
granddaughter, Jane Ritchie Reinhardt; her sister, Mary P. Powe; and
her nephew, Harry A. Powe III--as well as the countless friends she
leaves behind.
Our thoughts and prayers are with them all during this difficult
time.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. BILL POSEY

of florida

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. POSEY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 154, I would ask that the
Record reflect that I am in favor of H. Res. 273, Recognizing the 188th
anniversary of the Independence of Greece and Celebrating Greek and
American Democracy. I was present and voted in favor of the resolution,
but my vote was not recorded by the electronic device. I would have
voted ``aye.''

[[Page 9995]]

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE PIKEVILLE KENTUCKY SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE

______

HON. HAROLD ROGERS

of kentucky

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the
staff of the Pikeville Kentucky Social Security Office for their
strong, effective, and compassionate service to the people of Kentucky.
Their dedication and service has earned them the prestigious Social
Security's Administration's Best Level Two Office in the Atlanta Region
Award.
Social Security plays an important role in the lives of more
Americans than any other federal program. Whether providing a Social
Security number for a newborn baby, mailing a check to a retired
worker, or helping a disabled individual receive benefits, the Social
Security Administration touches the lives of everyone.
The field office in Pikeville, Kentucky, is a shining example for
this extensive federal agency. The Pikeville staff consistently goes
beyond the call of duty to provide valuable benefits to the people of
Kentucky. Because of this unwavering commitment to helping others, the
Social Security Administration recognized the Pikeville Office as the
Best Level Two Office in the Atlanta Region. This is the highest honor
a social security office can receive.
This award would not be possible if it weren't for the committed
individuals who have dedicated their lives to public service. The
Pikeville office is professional, courteous, and goes above and beyond
in order to ensure the highest quality of service to all those who are
in need of their assistance. This award is a reflection of each and
every employee's exceptional performance in delivering quality public-
centered service in a timely and efficient manner.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I want to thank
the staff at the Pikeville Social Security Office for their hard work
and dedication to serving the people of Kentucky. These fine Americans
are an inspiration to us all, and I salute them for their commitment to
helping others.

____________________

PRIMARY CARE DENTAL ACADEMIC WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2009

______

HON. PATRICK J. KENNEDY

of rhode island

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Primary Care
Dental Academic Workforce Development Act of 2009.
Dental decay is the most common chronic childhood disease in the U.S.
and also one of the most preventable. More than one quarter of American
children between the ages of 2 and 4, half of children between ages 6
and 8, and nearly 60 percent of 15 year-old children suffer from dental
decay. Despite this, schools of dentistry in the United States are
experiencing difficulty in recruiting and retaining the expert faculty
needed to train our nation's future dentists.
A strong dental faculty is needed to recruit and train the dental
students needed to provide exceptional dental care to our nation's
children. Yet, the nation is currently experiencing a shortage of
pediatric dental faculty. While pediatric dentists treat only about 30
percent of children, they are responsible for training all of the
dentists who treat children. A critical factor in this shortage is the
staggering student loan debt and income disparity compared to private
practice. The average graduating dental student loan debt was $158,104
in 2006, yet faculty positions generally only provide a third of the
income as a private practice which many would-be faculty simply cannot
afford.
Addressing the pediatric faculty shortage is especially critical for
ensuring that children receive appropriate dental care from an early
age and is absolutely essential in determining the quality of their
oral health throughout their life. Further, the tragic death of
Deamonte Driver in 2007 highlights that poor oral health can have
tragic health outcomes, including death. Such tragedies should he
avoided at all costs in the future.
For these reasons, my colleague Representative Mike Simpson and I are
introducing the Primary Care Dental Academic Workforce Development Act
of 2009. This legislation would expand authority under the current
Title VII pediatric and general dentistry program to allow these
training programs to utilize these grants funds to support loan
repayment for up to $250,000 over five years in order to recruit and
retain faculty. This authority would significantly' assist in
recruitment and retention of pediatric dentistry faculty. Currently,
pediatric dentistry programs may apply for Title VII funding to expand
or enhance training programs, but not for faculty loan repayment.
Our nation's children deserve the best medical care that our nation
has to offer. In order to provide this, we need to ensure we have the
resources to train our health professionals. I am proud to introduce
the Primary Care Dental Academic Workforce Development Act of 2009, and
I urge your full consideration of this important legislation.

____________________

INTRODUCING THE TEACHER TAX CUT ACT AND THE PROFESSIONAL EDUCATORS TAX
RELIEF ACT

______

HON. RON PAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce two pieces of
legislation that raise the pay of teachers and other educators by
cutting their taxes. I am sure that all my colleagues agree that it is
long past time to begin treating those who have dedicated their lives
to educating America's children with the respect they deserve. Compared
to other professionals, educators are under-appreciated and under-paid.
This must change if America is to have the finest education system in
the world!
Quality education is impossible without quality teaching. If we
continue to undervalue educators, it will become harder to attract, and
keep, good people in the education profession. While educators' pay is
primarily a local issue, Congress can, and should, help raise
educators' take home pay by reducing educators' taxes.
This is why I am introducing the Teachers Tax Cut Act. This
legislation provides every teacher in America with a $3,000 tax credit.
I am also introducing the Professional Educators Tax Relief Act, which
extends the $3,000 tax credit to counselors, librarians, and all school
personnel involved in any aspect of the K-12 academic program.
The Teacher Tax Cut Act and the Professional Educators Tax Relief Act
increase the salaries of teachers and other education professionals
without raising federal expenditures. By raising the take-home pay of
professional educators, these bills encourage highly qualified people
to enter, and remain in, education. These bills also let America's
professional educators know that the American people and the Congress
respect their work.
I hope all my colleagues join me in supporting our nation's teachers
and other professional educators by cosponsoring the Teacher Tax Cut
Act and the Professional Educators Tax Relief Act.

____________________

HONORING THE MEMORY OF EZRA ``BUD'' AND MARY CAROTHERS

______

HON. JO BONNER

of alabama

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. BONNER. Madam Speaker, the town of Winfield, Alabama recently
lost two dear friends, and I rise today to honor Ezra Bonner ``Bud''
Carothers and Mary Lee Hill Carothers and pay tribute to their memory.
A native of Marion County, Bud was a resident of the Winfield area
most of his life. He graduated from Sidney Lanier High School in
Montgomery and attended the University of Alabama. He was in the U.S.
Marine Corps and served in Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Philippines, Peluloe and
Saipan.
Mary was also a native of Marion County. She graduated from Winfield
High School and went on to attend Fairfax Hall College in Waynesboro,
Virginia, as well as the University of Alabama.
Loved by their family, respected by the entire community, Bud and
Mary are perhaps best known for the Winfield Quick Freeze, a meat
processing facility in Winfield that the couple owned and operated for
almost four decades. They were also both active members of Winfield
First United Methodist Church.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering two
dedicated community leaders known to many throughout northwest Alabama.
Ezra Bonner ``Bud'' Carothers and Mary Lee Hill Carothers will be
dearly missed by their family--their sons, William Russell Carothers II
and his wife Becky, and Robert Leroy ``Bubba'' Carothers and his wife
Rebecca; their eight grandchildren, Melissa Carothers

[[Page 9996]]

Beard, William Russell Carothers III, Christian Hill Carothers, Robert
Leroy Carothers Jr., Brooks Reed Carothers, Ryan Lee Carothers, Julia
Gardner, and Amanda Gardner; their eight great-grandchildren, Mary Kate
Beard, Spencer Beard, Will Carothers, John Carothers, Nicholus
Carothers, Elizabeth Carothers, Allie Carothers, and Caroline
Carothers; and nieces and nephews--as well as the countless friends
they have left behind.
Our thoughts and prayers are with them all during this difficult
time.

____________________

RECOGNIZING DOCTOR RICHARD STRANGE AND HIS MANY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE
MUSICAL COMMUNITY

______

HON. HARRY E. MITCHELL

of arizona

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Richard E.
Strange, who is completing his 34th year with the Tempe Symphony
Orchestra.
Before beginning his professional career, he earned his Doctorate of
Musical Arts in Performance from Boston University, and also holds
degrees from Wichita University, and the University of Colorado. He
then went on to teach music classes to elementary and high school
students before being drafted to serve in the Korean War. As a former
teacher myself, I commend Dr. Strange's commitment to emphasizing music
education as an essential component of the learning process. And as a
member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I honor Dr.
Strange's service to our country and his continued commitment to our
nation's service members both past and present.
Richard is also well known in the band and orchestra community. For
many years, he served as the guest conductor for multiple popular
symphonies, such as the Texas Wind Symphony and the Carnegie Civic
Symphony. Dr. Strange also devoted much time to directing prominent
bands for the U.S. Marine Corps., U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, and U.S.
Coast Guard.
In addition to holding music clinics all over the world, Dr. Strange
has received a myriad of awards honoring his significant contributions
to the musical community. His efforts have certainly had a profound
impact on me as well as musicians and audiences around the world.
Madam Speaker, please join me in recognizing Dr. Richard Strange for
not only his 34 years with the Tempe Symphony Orchestra, but also for
his commitment to our veterans and for the tremendous success of his
entire musical career.

____________________

HONORING MR. ELMER DUCKINFIELD

______

HON. JIM GERLACH

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. GERLACH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Exton resident
Elmer Duckinfield, whose tremendous volunteer spirit and constant
compassion have earned him the 2009 Safe Harbor Andrew Dinniman
Humanitarian Award.
Elmer first served his country in the Army and Navy and has not
stopped looking out for others since that time. He is a founding
volunteer and a former Board Member at Safe Harbor, which is a
nonprofit shelter serving single homeless men and women in the West
Chester area.
Safe Harbor is not the only nonprofit agency benefitting from Elmer's
genuine charity, humility and drive to make the world a kinder place
for everyone. He has eagerly helped more than 70 nonprofit agencies in
southeastern Pennsylvania during the last year, logging more than
15,000 miles in his car and contributing countless hours.
Whether it is collecting bread and pastries for St. Agnes Parish,
safely driving pregnant homeless women to emergency shelters or
tracking down donations to replace an industrial dishwasher at Safe
Harbor, Elmer always stands ready to help anyone in need.
Elmer will receive his much-deserved humanitarian award during the
Safe Harbor Gala on Saturday, April 18 in the Atrium of QVC.
Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in honoring
Elmer Duckinfield for his exemplary service and never-ending desire to
improve the lives of others and the quality of life in his community
through outstanding acts of kindness.

____________________

HONORING TENNESSEE'S NURSES DURING NATIONAL NURSES WEEK, MAY 6-12, 2009

______

HON. BART GORDON

of tennessee

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor all
nurses nationwide and to celebrate National Nurses Week, which begins
on May 6, 2009. The week long commemoration honors all nurses, and ends
on May 12, Florence Nightingale's birthday.
This year's theme, ``Nurses: Building a Healthy America,'' addresses
the important role nurses have in our society. Research has shown that
when there are more registered nurses working in health care
facilities, there are lower mortality rates, shorter lengths of stay,
fewer complications, and lower costs.
As a member of the Congressional Nursing Caucus, I have consistently
supported legislation protecting nurses' rights and funding increases
for nursing education. There is much work, however, that still needs to
be done.
Currently, there is a national nurse shortage. By the year 2020, it
is predicted Tennessee alone will have a shortage of 9,495 registered
nurses. I hope that National Nurses Week will mark the beginning of a
trend in the recruitment and retention of nurses throughout our
country.
Undoubtedly, we have all been positively affected by nurses at some
point in our lives. Whether they have cared for a family member, a
friend, or a loved one, we can all be grateful for their hard work and
service to our communities.
I want to use this opportunity to thank nurses in Tennessee and
across the country.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. JAMES L. OBERSTAR

of minnesota

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, during the consideration of H.R. 1664,
Pay for Performance Act, I inadvertently voted ``aye'' on the Bean
Amendment (rollcall vote 180). I had intended to vote ``nay,'' and want
the record to reflect that I share Chairman Frank's concerns that this
amendment, which would exempt recipients of TARP capital investments
from the bill's requirements while taxpayer funds were still
outstanding, is contrary to the intent of the bill.

____________________

IN HONOR OF DALE SKILLICORN

______

HON. SAM FARR

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Dale
Skillicorn of Watsonville, California. Dale passed away on March 14,
2009 at the age of seventy-one, leaving behind a city better for his
efforts. He was an extraordinary community leader who served as the
city of Watsonville's Mayor Pro Tempore and had served as a city
councilmember, representing the city's 7th District, since 2002.
Dale was born on April 4, 1937 in Watsonville, California. He
graduated from Watsonville High School then attended Monterey Peninsula
College and San Francisco State University. Dale spent more than twenty
years in public service positions. He served on the Santa Cruz County
Planning Commission for fourteen years, and then spent five years as
Santa Cruz County Parks Commissioner. In 2002, Dale was elected to
represent Watsonville's District 7 on the city council. He was
reelected in 2006 and in 2008 was selected as the Mayor Pro Tempore by
his peers on the city council. Dale brought a wealth of knowledge and a
unique perspective to the city council.
Dale Skillicorn's public service career will be remembered for his
dedication to green job creation and advocacy for the Pajaro Valley's
agriculture industry. He played a key role in bringing the Alternative
Construction and Energy Expo to the Santa Cruz County Fairgrounds. In
addition, many residents in Watsonville will remember Dale through his
work as a volunteer in many organizations located in the Pajaro Valley.
Madam Speaker, Dale Skillicorn touched the hearts of everyone he came
into contact with, was a pillar to the city of Watsonville. He lived
his life as an active member of the community, who was driven by
compassion to help others. I am certain I speak for the entire House in

[[Page 9997]]

extending our heartfelt sympathy to Dale's wife of 29 years, Jan
Skillicorn; his son, Mark Skillicorn; and his two stepdaughters,
Valerie Justus-Rusconi and Christina Justus-Garcia.

____________________

HONORING ROBERT FAY ROCKWELL, JR.

______

HON. ERIC J.J. MASSA

of new york

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. MASSA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Robert Fay Rockwell
Jr. Bob Rockwell was born November 8th, 1911 in Bradford, PA. He
attended Whittier College in California where he became friends with
fellow student, Richard M. Nixon. He moved to Corning, NY in 1933 to
run the local department store (The Rockwell Company) owned by his
grandfather. Soon after, he departed to serve in the 70tn Construction
Battalion (the Seabees) in World War II. He was stationed in North
Africa and Oakland, CA.
Upon his return to Corning, he became close friends with Frederick
Carder, founder of world-famous Steuben Glass. Later he amassed the
world's largest collection of Frederick Carder Steuben Glass. His
liking of aesthetics wasn't limited to glass art; Bob started
collecting Western Art including Remingtons and Russells in the early
1960's for display in his department store. He donated most of these
two collections to what was then called The Rockwell Museum. This
museum got its first home in 1976 in an old hotel in downtown Corning.
During this time, he became president of both the Corning Chamber of
Commerce and the Corning Rotary Club. In 1983 the Rockwell Museum of
Western Art opened in Corning's refurbished old city hall building and
has been popular with the great numbers of tourists who visit the area.
The multimillion dollar value of Bob's donated art and glass is a
testament to his generosity, but his legacy is further enhanced by his
compassion and help to his fellow man.

____________________

HONORING REVEREND A.D. KING

______

HON. JOHN BARROW

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. BARROW. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Reverend
A.D. King and to recognize his many contributions on behalf of social
justice and peace around the world.
Alfred Daniel Williams King was born July 30, 1930, in Atlanta,
Georgia, the youngest of the three children of Reverend Martin Luther
King, Sr., and Alberta Williams King. Reverend King shared his family's
passion for the ministry and social justice. He graduated from
Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1959. That same year, he also
became pastor of the Mount Vernon First Baptist Church in Newnan,
Georgia.
The book of Proverbs says, ``Open your mouth, judge righteously, and
defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.'' Reverend King lived his
life according to this maxim. He believed that war was never the
solution and that non-violent means will always overcome.
Whether it was participating in a lunch counter sit-in, strategizing
the March on Selma, or organizing the demonstrations that would
ultimately lead to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, Reverend King
was there, active, engaged, and defending the rights of the afflicted
and needy.
Like his brother Martin, Reverend A.D. King passed from this life at
the much too young age of 39. His life wasn't full of years, but his
years were full of life.
As we recognize the 40th anniversary of Reverend A.D. King's passing
this July 21st, I hope that we can all learn from his example of
righteousness and citizenship, and shape a better future for ourselves
and our posterity, as he did for us.
Reverend King was survived by his wife, Naomi Barbara King, and his
five children. Today I honor Reverend A.D. King, and the entire King
family, for their contributions and service to America. Their example
gives us all a lasting reminder of what can be achieved when we do
justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God.

____________________

HONORING MR. WILLIE BRANDON

______

HON. BART GORDON

of tennessee

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr.
Willie Brandon, who will celebrate his 103rd birthday on June 12, 2009.
As a young boy, Willie and his sister Lizzie grew up in Readyville,
Tennessee. His parents, Charles and Jimmie Brandon, were sharecroppers.
At the age of 12, his father moved the family to Illinois where he
worked as a janitor. To help his father support the family, Willie
dropped out of school to work.
Willie credits his long life to the fact he's never quit working. For
many years, he worked as a cook at the James K. Polk Hotel, City Cafe,
Smyrna Air Force Base, Lamb's Grill, and Po Folks. He also picked and
sold blackberries, cut and sold timber, and cut grass.
Willie is now the keeper of the Rutherford County courthouse, a
historical place many people pass through, whether for business or to
sightsee. He is the caretaker of the same steps on which, more than 150
years ago, his grandfather Jim Brewer was sold as a slave and sent to
Virginia.
Willie has a daughter, Anne, and one of his proudest achievements is
that she earned a college degree. Willie also has a stepson, three
granddaughters, two great-granddaughters and one great-great
granddaughter.
Willie's service to his community throughout his life is truly
admirable. Willie, you're a great man and you have given us all someone
to look up to.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO MAYOR CHARLES LONG, BOONEVILLE, KENTUCKY

______

HON. HAROLD ROGERS

of kentucky

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
one of the Bluegrass State's most impressive politicians and the
longest serving Mayor in the great Commonwealth of Kentucky, Mayor of
Booneville, Mr. Charles Long.
Since being elected to the office of Mayor 50 years ago, Mayor Long
has set a high standard for public service and politics in Booneville.
As a politician, Mayor Long has accomplished a rare political success
by having never been contested in an election. The people of
Booneville, Kentucky have stood behind Mayor Long and threw their
support behind him for 50 consecutive years.
Understanding his legacy of public service provides insight to his
longstanding political success. Mayor Long serves the county seat of
the third poorest county in the United States but despite the obstacles
created by poverty, Mayor Long has brought an insurmountable measure of
hope to Owsley County through city water and sewer projects. One
hundred percent of the city of Booneville is served by city water, as
well as 98 percent of the county. Upon completion of an ongoing sewer
project, half of Owsley County will also have sewer service.
Mayor Long understands the necessities of the constituents he
represents. Everyday modern privileges, like water and sewer, that are
so often taken for granted, are a desired commodity for people in the
most rural parts of our Nation. Through hard work and determination
Mayor Long has been able to meet the needs of Booneville and bring city
water and sewer to an area of the country that had waited a long time
for this benefit.
In addition to his success in public service, Mayor Long is also
celebrating 70 years of marriage to his lovely wife, Ruth. They have
raised two children and their family continues to grow with
grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Mayor Long is an honest and
caring family man whose work ethic is unmatched--in 50 years he still
hasn't missed a day in City Hall.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring a dedicated
public servant in my home state of Kentucky, Booneville Mayor Charles
Long. We should all strive to be as dedicated to the people we serve,
as Mayor Long has been for more than five decades. I congratulate Mayor
Long on his tenure in office, his 70th wedding anniversary and wish him
all the best in the years to come.

[[Page 9998]]

____________________

CHINESE DEFECTOR CONFIRMS SYSTEMATIC GOVERNMENT REPRESSION

______

HON. FRANK R. WOLF

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my
colleagues the following article which appeared in the March 19 edition
of The Washington Times. Li Fengzhi, a former intelligence officer at
the Ministry of State Security, revealed that the agency is tasked with
repressing religious and political dissent among the Chinese civilian
population and bolstering the rule of the Chinese Communist Party in
addition to gathering secrets from overseas. I urge my colleagues to
carefully read Mr. Li's chilling account of the Communist Party's
systematic repression of religious and political dissidents.

[From the Washington Times, Mar. 19, 2009]

Chinese Spy Who Defected Tells All

(By Bill Gertz Contact)

A veteran Chinese intelligence officer who defected to the
United States says that his country's civilian spy service
spends most of its time trying to steal secrets overseas but
also works to bolster Beijing's Communist Party rule by
repressing religious and political dissent internally.
``In some sense you can say that intelligence work between
two countries is just like war but without the fire,'' Li
Fengzhi told The Washington Times in an interview aided by an
interpreter.
Mr. Li worked for years as an Ministry of State Security
intelligence officer inside China before defecting to the
United States, where is he awaiting a response to his request
for political asylum. He gave a rare, detailed interview to
The Times on Sunday regarding the activities of the MSS,
China's Communist-controlled civilian spy agency.
His prior work as a Chinese spy was confirmed to The Times
by a Western government source familiar with his defection.
The source spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the
sensitivity of Mr. Li's case.
Mr. Li told The Times that the MSS focuses on both
counterintelligence--working against foreign intelligence
agencies--and the collection of secrets and technology.
The MSS, however, is unique from other nations'
intelligence services in that it is patterned after the
former Soviet Union's KGB political police. Its most
important mission is ``to control the Chinese people to
maintain the rule of the Communist Party,'' he added.
Wang Baodong, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in
Washington, did not address Mr. Li's comments directly but
repeated past Chinese government statements regarding its
intelligence activities.
``Allegations of China conducting spying activities against
the United States are groundless and unwarranted,'' he said
Wednesday. ``China never engages itself in activities that
will harm other countries' national interests.''
Mr. Wang said communist rule in China produced historic
economic and social progress and that China has contributed
to a more secure world. ``This is a fact no one can deny,''
Mr. Wang said.
On those who leave the party, Mr. Wang said ``there are
also a handful of people who betray their faith and leave the
party, whose acts as well as some people's political lies
will never shadow the great feats of the party.''
Mr. Li said he left China's intelligence services to
protest the agency's role in government repression of
political dissidents and religious groups that are outside of
the ruling communist system.
The MSS, mainly a foreign intelligence service, is
``deeply'' involved in domestic repression of nonofficial
Christian churches and the outlawed Falun Gong religious
group, Mr. Li said.
``The Ministry of State Security is actually not doing
things for the security of the country, but rather they spend
a lot of effort to control the people, the dissidents, the
lower-class Chinese people, and make these people suffer and
also make their life miserable,'' he said.
In the interview, he also said:
China's spy agency is focused on sending spies to
infiltrate the U.S. intelligence community, and also on
collecting secrets and technology from the United States.
``China spends a tremendous effort to send out spies to
important countries like the U.S. to collect information,''
Mr. Li said.
China is censoring the Internet to prevent the population
from knowing about what occurs outside the country.
An internal MSS manual that is kept secret from most
officers outlines the primary role of the service as the
promotion of Communist Party's interests.
Ongoing cooperation between the CIA and FBI and the MSS in
countering international terrorism can be constructive, but
U.S. agencies need to be cautious because the MSS is mainly
an organ of the Chinese Communist Party, and does not
directly serve the interests of the Chinese nation or people,
he said.
Mr. Li said he worked in the MSS department in charge of
gathering economic, political and technical information in
Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Some of the work involved
targeting and recruiting foreign nationals who visit China.
He was born in 1968 in northern China and was first
recruited into a provincial Chinese intelligence service
before being promoted to the MSS in Beijing after several
years.
Two groups in China that are a main focus of the MSS are
unofficial Christian churches and the outlawed Falun Gong
religious group, he said.
The MSS also has targeted pro-democracy activists, like
those who were involved in the mass demonstrations in
Beijing's Tiananmen Square in 1989, he said.
The MSS is China's main civilian spy service that is viewed
by U.S. intelligence officials as one of the world's most
active in stealing secrets and running foreign spies. The
military counterpart, the Second Department of the People's
Liberation Army, or 2PLA, is focused on stealing foreign
technology, much of it for weapons and military systems.
Together, the Chinese services are estimated to have
several thousand trained operatives working around the world,
most posing as diplomats, journalists, business
representatives and academics. Thousands of other Chinese
nationals also function as semiprofessional information
gatherers.
Former FBI Special Agent I.C. Smith, a specialist in
Chinese counterintelligence, confirmed that the MSS focuses
its activities on penetrating U.S. intelligence and
government agencies.
``The goal of every intelligence agency is to get someone
inside, and in the case of Chinese, they use not just
intelligence people but academics and everybody else,'' Mr.
Smith said in an interview.
Mr. Li said his access to information that was banned for
the general public helped him to turn against the system,
including internal reports on party ideology and information
on American values of freedom and democracy.
Mr. Li said that as a doctoral candidate, the MSS sent him
to study at an American university, an experience that
influenced in his decision to defect. In 2004, after he
defected, he was declared an enemy of the state by the MSS in
at least two notices sent to security offices in China.
According to U.S. counterintelligence officials, China,
unlike the Soviet Union, has had only a small number of
defections of intelligence officers like Mr. Li over the past
30 years.
Another spy who defected was a Chinese intelligence officer
known publicly by the code-name ``Planesman,'' who gave the
FBI data that led to 1985 arrest of CIA interpreter Larry Wu-
Tai Chin.
Another intelligence defector was Sr. Col. Yu Jungping, a
military intelligence officer once posted to the Chinese
Embassy in Washington who came over in the 1990s.
Mr. Li was in Washington to participate in a conference
sponsored by the Falun Gong, a Buddhist-oriented group that
advocates the replacement of the Chinese communist
government. Mr. Li said he announced his formal withdrawal
from the Communist Party at the conference, along with that
of his father, who is also in the United States.
Mr. Li said he is neither a Christian nor Falun Gong
member, but that his interest in religion and fear of being
persecuted by the MSS contributed to his decision to defect.
Mr. Li said he thinks there are significant numbers of pro-
democracy MSS officers inside the service, including those at
high levels, who do not support the party and are ``even
anti-Communsit Party'' but fear taking any action.
``But I sincerely hope these people can play a special role
in getting rid of the Communist Party,'' Mr. Li said.
The former intelligence officer, whose family left China
with him, said it took him several years to change his views.
``After a few years of my personal experience inside the
system, I really knew that the Communist Party is very bad,''
he said.
``My true ideal, actually, in this Chinese security
department is really to do something for the Chinese people
and the nation. But I really hated doing things just for the
interest of the Communist Party and a lot of times those
things that are in the interest of the Communist Party are
doing harm to the Chinese people.''

____________________

TRIBUTE TO ELIZABETH EVELYN WRIGHT, FOUNDER OF VOORHEES COLLEGE

______

HON. JAMES E. CLYBURN

of south carolina

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Elizabeth
Evelyn Wright, a visionary educator and an unsung American hero. Ms.
Wright founded Voorhees College in Denmark, South Carolina in 1897, a
remarkable accomplishment for a 25-year-

[[Page 9999]]

old African American women during the post-Reconstruction era. Her
tremendous legacy will be honored by Voorhees College on April 7, 2009
as the campus commemorates and Founders' Day and celebrates the
extraordinary contributions of this amazing young woman.
When Elizabeth Evelyn Wright was born on April 3, 1872 the seventh
child of John and Virginia Wright in a poverty-stricken black community
in Talbotton, Georgia, it would have been hard for anyone to believe
she was destined for great things. Yet her academic talents were clear
as she worked on the fundamentals of reading, writing, and arithmetic
in the basement of St. Phillips AME Church. Her instructors urged and
encouraged her to further her education, and despite significant
financial challenges, she enrolled at Tuskegee Institute in Alabama in
1888.
While at Tuskegee, Elizabeth worked in the cafeteria to pay for her
tuition, and she caught the attention of its principal Booker T.
Washington and his wife Olivia. They became her mentors and encouraged
her to dedicate herself to the education of young African Americans as
they had.
Elizabeth was forced to drop out of Tuskegee in her senior year due
to illness. However, she was summoned by Mrs. Almira Steele, a white
trustee at Tuskegee, and asked to teach at a school in McNeill, South
Carolina. Elizabeth accepted, and in 1892, she began teaching in the
Hampton County School. She spent only six months there before arson
fueled by bigotry burned the school to the ground.
In 1893, Elizabeth returned to Tuskegee and completed her degree.
Still committed to her mission in McNeill, she returned and opened
another school for the black children in the area. Two more times,
arson destroyed any hope of the school's success, but Elizabeth didn't
let that destroy her dream. She encouraged the school's other teachers
to join her in opening another school in Denmark.
As it was with her educational pursuits, finances were the primary
obstacle for getting the school started. Undeterred Elizabeth began
visiting churches to collect donations for the new school. In a
fortunate turn of events in 1897, she met Mrs. Sontag, the white owner
of a two-story general store in Denmark who gave Elizabeth permission
to house her school on the store's vacant second floor. On April 14,
1897, the Denmark Industrial School opened its doors to 14 students.
In one year the enrollment swelled to 270, and Elizabeth's mentors,
the Washingtons, sent Martin Menafee, a Tuskegee graduate, to Denmark
to help her raise money for a more permanent school. He was able to
arrange a meeting with blind-philanthropist, Ralph Voorhees of Clinton,
New Jersey. He and his wife Elizabeth became the primary benefactors of
the school and enabled it to purchase land for a new structure on the
outskirts of Denmark. To honor their generous contributions, the school
was renamed Voorhees Industrial School, and in 1904, the South Carolina
State Legislature voted to incorporate it.
The following year, Elizabeth Wright and her financial officer,
Martin Menafee, married on the campus of their beloved school. But
their life together was cut short when Elizabeth again became gravely
ill. She went to a hospital in Battle Creek, Michigan to receive
treatment from two of the country's best physicians--Dr. Jean Harris
Whitney and one of the Kellogg brothers, Dr. John Kellogg. Despite
their best efforts, Elizabeth died on December 14, 1906 at the age of
34.
Elizabeth Wright Menafee believed her mission in life was ``to try
and help my fellow man to help themselves and if a way was not open for
them, I must open it myself.'' President Cleveland Sellers, his faculty
and staff, and the students and alumni of Voorhees are to be commended
for celebrating the life and sharing the story of Elizabeth Wright.
Hers is an example for others to follow.
Madam Speaker, I ask you and our colleagues to join me in applauding
the tremendous legacy of Elizabeth Wright-Menafee. Her life is a
testament to President Lincoln's declaration that ``it's not the years
in your life that count; it's the life in your years.'' The
accomplishments of this extraordinary woman, within such a short life
are truly inspirational.

____________________

HONORING GEORGE R. BARBOSA, JR.

______

HON. GENE GREEN

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize
George R. Barbosa, Jr. for his determination to strive for the best by
winning 4th place in the State Wrestling Tournament on behalf of Klein
High School.
Mr. Barbosa has shown through his hard work that anything is possible
if one has the passion and determination to do so. Winning 4th place in
the State Wrestling Tournament on Klein High School's behalf has made
him the possessor of the best finish ever by a Klein High School male
wrestler. Mr. Barbosa will continue his pursuit for greatness as he has
now qualified for the National High School Wrestling Tournament.
I extend my highest regard for Mr. George R. Barbosa, Jr., a student
who has chosen to become a role model for not only his sport, but also
for his school. On behalf of Klein High School and the City of Houston
I send my congratulations.

____________________

HONORING MTSU'S COACH DEAN HAYES

______

HON. BART GORDON

of tennessee

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Dean
Hayes, Head Coach of the Middle Tennessee State University Men's and
Women's Track teams. On March 26, the Tennessee Board of Regents
approved MTSU's request to name the University's state-of-the-art track
and soccer stadium after Coach Dean Hayes--a timely accolade as the
Blue Raiders are set to host the Sun Belt Conference Outdoor Track and
Field Championships this year from May 8-10.
Recently, Coach Hayes was inducted into the 2008 Class of the U.S.
Track & Field Cross Country Coaches Association Hall of Fame in
Phoenix, Arizona. This is Coach Hayes' fifth hall of fame induction--he
has been inducted into the Blue Raider Hall of Fame (1982), Illinois
Sports Hall of Fame (1993), Tennessee Sports Hall of Fame (1994), and
the Mason-Dixon Athletic Club Hall of Fame (2005).
Coach Hayes is in his 44th year at MTSU. He is credited with opening
MTSU's track & field to minorities and welcoming the University's first
international student-athletes. Coach Hayes has led Middle Tennessee to
29 Ohio Valley Conference titles, 14 Sun Belt Conference Championships
and 18 NCAA Top 25 finishes.
He has won 15 OVC Coach of the Year and 12 SBC Coach of the Year
awards, and he was named NCAA Outdoor Track & Field Coach of the Year
in 1981. In 1977 and 1981, Coach Hayes was named NCAA District Coach of
the Year. He also served as the President of NCAA Division I Track and
Field Coaches from 1981-83.
The athletes under his care have gone on to compete in the Olympic
Games, World University Games and Pan-American Games; 44 of 84 have won
All-American honors; and four have become national champions.
Congratulations, Coach Hayes, on your latest success. I wish you many
more. I'm glad Middle Tennessee was able to steal you away from your
alma mater, Lake Forest College. Your leadership and dedication to MTSU
is truly admirable.

____________________

HONORING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF PING

______

HON. JOHN. B. SHADEGG

of arizona

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Speaker, I am honored to recognize today the 50th
Anniversary of PING, a company that has become a legend for its
contributions to the beloved game of golf.
It was on March 23rd in 1959 that Karsten Solheim, PING's founder,
applied for a patent on the 1-A putter that made the famous ``ping''
sound heard round the world. Not long after that, PING opened their
headquarters in Phoenix--where they have proudly stayed for many years.
Their Phoenix facility both manufactures and assembles PING golf
clubs and over the years has provided countless jobs for Arizonans.
Karsten and his wife Louise have always been mainstays of our
community, as widely respected as the clubs they produce. Though
Karsten sadly left us nine years ago, his legacy lives on and his story
is a credit to our community and a testament to the drive and
creativity of the American entrepreneur.
I congratulate PING and all its employees on this most auspicious
occasion and wish them another 50 years of great success.

[[Page 10000]]

____________________

FAMILY EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT

______

HON. RON PAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Family
Education Freedom Act, a bill to empower millions of working and
middle-class Americans to choose a non-public education for their
children, as well as making it easier for parents to actively
participate in improving public schools. The Family Education Freedom
Act accomplishes it goals by allowing American parents a tax credit of
up to $5,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to
private, public, parochial, other religious school, or for home
schooling their children.
The Family Education Freedom Act returns the fundamental principal of
a truly free economy to America's education system: what the great
economist Ludwig von Mises called ``consumer sovereignty''. Consumer
sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the
market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most
successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free market
maximizes human happiness.
Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education
``market.'' Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the
federal government. Because ``he who pays the piper calls the tune,''
public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the
dictates of federal ``educrats'' while ignoring the wishes of the
parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer
sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education
and replacing it with state control. Loss of control is a key reason
why so many of America's parents express dissatisfaction with the
educational system.
According to a survey conducted by Education Next/Harvard PEPG, the
majority of Americans support education tax credits. This poll also
found strong support for education tax credits among liberals,
moderates, conservatives, low-income individuals, African-Americans,
and public-school employees. This is just one of numerous studies and
public opinion polls showing that Americans want Congress to get the
federal bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give parents more control
over their children's education.
Today, Congress can fulfill the wishes of the American people for
greater control over their children's education by simply allowing
parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education
rather than force them to send it to Washington to support education
programs reflective only of the values and priorities of Congress and
the federal bureaucracy.
The $5,000 tax credit will make a better education affordable for
millions of parents. Madame Speaker, many parents who would choose to
send their children to private, religious, or parochial schools are
unable to afford the tuition, in large part because of the enormous tax
burden imposed on the American family by Washington.
The Family Education Freedom Act also benefits parents who choose to
send their children to public schools. Parents of children in public
schools may use this credit to help improve their local schools by
helping finance the purchase of educational tools such as computers or
to ensure their local schools can offer enriching extracurricular
activities such as music programs. Parents of public school students
may also wish to use the credit to pay for special services, such as
tutoring, for their children.
Increasing parental control of education is superior to funneling
more federal tax dollars, followed by greater federal control, into the
schools. A recent review of the relevant research conducted by Andrew
J. Coulson of the CATO Institute shows that increasing parental
controls increases academic achievement, efficiency, the orderliness of
the classrooms, and the quality of school facilities. Not surprisingly,
graduates of education system controlled by parents tend to achieve
higher levels of education and earn more than their counterparts in
bureaucratically controlled education systems.
Clearly, enactment of the Family Education Freedom Act is the best
thing this Congress could do to improve public education. Furthermore,
a greater reliance on parental expenditures rather than government tax
dollars will help make the public schools into true community schools
that reflect the wishes of parents and the interests of the students.
The Family Education Freedom Act will also aid those parents who
choose to educate their children at home. Home schooling has become an
increasingly popular, and successful, method of educating children.
Home schooled children out-perform their public school peers by 30 to
37 percentile points across all subjects on nationally standardized
achievement exams. Home schooling parents spend thousands of dollars
annually, in addition to the wages forgone by the spouse who forgoes
outside employment, in order to educate their children in the loving
environment of the home.
Ultimately, Madam Speaker, this bill is about freedom. Parental
control of child rearing, especially education, is one of the bulwarks
of liberty. No Nation can remain free when the State has greater
influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than
the family.
By moving to restore the primacy of parents to education, the Family
Education Freedom Act will not only improve America's education, it
will restore a parent's right to choose how best to educate one's own
child, a fundamental freedom that has been eroded by the increase in
federal education expenditures and the corresponding decrease in the
ability of parents to provide for their children's education out of
their own pockets. I call on all my colleagues to join me in allowing
parents to devote more of their resources to their children's education
and less to feed the wasteful Washington bureaucracy by supporting the
Family Education Freedom Act.

____________________

FREE LIU XIAOBO

______

HON. FRANK R. WOLF

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my
colleagues to the following letter written by Liu Xia, the wife of
imprisoned Chinese human rights activist Liu Xiaobo. Liu Xiaobo is the
leader of the Charter '08 movement which calls on the Chinese
government to implement democratic reforms. His courageous leadership
caused the Chinese security forces to take Mr. Liu from his home in
Beijing on December 8, 2008. I call on my colleagues in the Congress
and the Administration to advocate for the immediate and unconditional
release of Liu Xiaobo.
April 1, 2009.
Hon. Frank Wolf,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Wolf, Please forgive me for writing to you
directly, but it is only out of the most desperate of
circumstances that I do so.
As you may already know, my husband, Liu Xiaobo, was taken
from our home by Chinese police on December 8th, 2008 after
he and more than three hundred other Chinese citizens signed
Charter 08, a manifesto modeled after the Czechoslovakian
Charter 77 that appeals for comprehensive democracy and human
rights in China. Xiaobo is a writer who cares for nothing
more than his duty as an intellectual to speak out for the
disadvantaged in society. Now, however, he cannot even
protect his own rights.
One hundred fourteen days have now passed since my
husband's disappearance. On two occasions (01/01/2009 and 03/
20/2009) police took me to an undisclosed location where I
was permitted to meet with him and share a meal together.
During our conversations, which were closely monitored, my
husband told me that he has been kept in solitary confinement
in a closed room measuring approximately ten square meters in
size. A single light bulb is his only source of light. And of
the more than 60 books I had brought him, he received only a
few, the rest having been confiscated by the prison
officials.
In the three to four months that have passed since his
abduction (I can find no other suitable words to describe his
situation, as no arrest warrant or other official documents
were presented to justify his detention), nearly all of the
other 300 signatories have been summoned and investigated by
the police. It is obvious to me that the authorities are
attempting to gather evidence of my husband's ``crime,''
which will most likely be designated as ``inciting the
subversion of state power.'' I fear that the government wants
to carry out a sham trial and hand down a severe sentence to
my husband.
This is the fourth time that my husband has been dragged
away from our home in front of my eyes. When my husband was
released from prison in 1990, after serving half a year in
prison for his participation in the 1989, pro-democracy
demonstrations at Tiananmen Square, he apologized to me
because he had decided during that time that he never wants
to have children. As he explained, ``I want to continue
working as a writer. You may lose me again, but I do not want
see a child lose its father.'' Nor do I. His words came true
in 1996 when he disappeared behind bars for three more years,

[[Page 10001]]

owing to writings of his that promoted freedom and democracy.
Now, I am alone once again. I continue writing letters to
him, knowing that he will never receive them, just as the
letters he has sent me in the past hundred or so days have
never reached my hands.
I plead with you to help my husband in regaining his
freedom. He has done nothing but to give voice to the
thoughts and wishes that are shared by many in my country. I
will be forever in your debt if you can provide him with any
assistance.
Sincerely yours,
Liu Xia.

____________________

INDUSTRIAL HEMP FARMING ACT

______

HON. RON PAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Industrial Hemp
Farming Act. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act requires the Federal
Government to respect State laws allowing the growing of industrial
hemp.
Eight States--Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North
Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia--allow industrial hemp production or
research in accord with State laws. However, Federal law is standing in
the way of farmers in these States growing what may be a very
profitable crop. Because of current Federal law, all hemp included in
products sold in the United States must be imported instead of being
grown by American farmers.
Since 1970, the Federal Controlled Substances Act's inclusion of
industrial hemp in the schedule one definition of marijuana has
prohibited American farmers from growing industrial hemp despite the
fact that industrial hemp has such a low content of THC (the
psychoactive chemical in the related marijuana plant) that nobody can
be psychologically affected by consuming hemp. Federal law concedes the
safety of industrial hemp by allowing it to be legally imported for use
as food.
The United States is the only industrialized nation that prohibits
industrial hemp cultivation. The Congressional Research Service has
noted that hemp is grown as an established agricultural commodity in
over 30 nations in Europe, Asia, North America, and South America. The
Industrial Hemp Farming Act will relieve this unique restriction on
American farmers and allow them to grow industrial hemp in accord with
State law.
Industrial hemp is a crop that was grown legally throughout the
United States for most of our Nation's history. In fact, during World
War II, the Federal Government actively encouraged American farmers to
grow industrial hemp to help the war effort. The Department of
Agriculture even produced a film ``Hemp for Victory'' encouraging the
plant's cultivation.
In recent years, the hemp plant has been put to many popular uses in
foods and in industry. Grocery stores sell hemp seeds and oil as well
as food products containing oil and seeds from the hemp plant.
Industrial hemp is also included in consumer products such as paper,
cloths, cosmetics, and carpet. One of the more innovative recent uses
of industrial hemp is in the door frames of about 1.5 million cars.
Hemp has even been used in alternative automobile fuel.
It is unfortunate that the Federal Government has stood in the way of
American farmers, including many who are struggling to make ends meet,
competing in the global industrial hemp market. Indeed, the founders of
our Nation, some of whom grew hemp, would surely find that Federal
restrictions on farmers growing a safe and profitable crop on their own
land are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a limited,
restrained Federal Government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand
up for American farmers and cosponsor the Industrial Hemp Farming Act.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF ABODE SERVICES

______

HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 20th
anniversary of Abode Services, formerly known as Tri-City Homeless
Coalition, based in Fremont, California.
Abode Services' roots lie in a coalition of Tri-City church
congregations that mobilized support in the 1980s to help growing
numbers of individuals and families who had no place to live. Former
Fremont Councilmember Judy Zlatnik, a community activist and member of
one of the congregations, remembers the day people came together at
Fremont's Senior Center to develop a plan. The newly formed coalition
implemented a plan to shelter people in churches on a rotating
schedule, at first during the winter months only, but later, on a year
round basis. In 1989, the coalition became known as the Tri-City
Homeless Coalition of Fremont.
In the beginning, the coalition thought that it would serve as an
emergency solution for homeless individuals and families seeking a safe
place to get out of the cold. When it soon became apparent that the
need for shelter was long-term and enduring, the agency set its sights
on a permanent building. They then selected a site to build Sunrise
Village, one of the first shelters in the country designed and built
from the ground up as a shelter for families and single adults. In
August 1993, their goal materialized when the first residents moved
into Sunrise Village.
Abode Services became an early adopter of Housing First, a national
movement pioneered in the 1990s that addresses the most pressing and
urgent needs for homeless families and individuals with a full
compliment of social services. Abode Services collaborates with more
than 30 organizations to leverage program resources.
Abode Services now offers eleven housing programs linked to support
services for homeless families and individuals. These programs provide
an essential safety net for approximately 2,000 people annually who are
homeless or at risk of becoming so, including single adults, families,
emancipated foster youth, people with disabilities and seniors. Abode
Services' Project HOPE Mobile Health Clinic, operated in collaboration
with Tri-City Health Center, serves more than 1,000 homeless persons
annually. Since 2005, Abode Services has created 325 units of permanent
supportive housing for previously homeless families.
I join the community in congratulating Abode Services on this
significant milestone of 20 years of exemplary leadership and service.
The organization continues to fulfill its vision and mission of
providing affordable housing and supportive services to individuals and
families throughout Alameda.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. XAVIER BECERRA

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, April 1, 2009, I was
unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 175 on a motion to table
H. Res. 312. If present, I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________

386TH ENGINEERING BATTALION

______

HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. ORTIZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the men and women
of the 386th Engineering Battalion and the Christus Spohn Healthcare
System.
Since December 2006, members of the 386th Engineering Battalion have
been working side-by-side with their civilian counterparts in the only
level three trauma center in the Corpus Christi area. During their
drill weekends, these soldiers are assigned to duties inside the
hospital's emergency room to work in triage, fast track or trauma.
Through this joint effort, the 386th Engineering Battalion was able
to utilize these real world experiences on the battlefields of Iraq and
Afghanistan.
I would like to take some time now to honor Lt. Col. John Beignano
and Lt. Col. Francisco Zuniga. These gentlemen worked tirelessly with
the Christus Spohn Healthcare System administrators to make this idea a
reality. By participating in this important work, these soldiers are
making significant contributions to the community and to their fellow
soldiers. Their families and loved ones should be proud of their
service to the country and the extraordinary way they have improved
people's lives.
Today, I ask that my colleagues join me in commemorating the men and
women of the 386th Engineering Battalion and the Christus Spohn
Healthcare System.

[[Page 10002]]

____________________

CONGRATULATING THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LIBRARY SYSTEM FOR ITS 125TH
ANNIVERSARY AS A FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY

______

HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations
to the University of Michigan and its University Library System in Ann
Arbor, Michigan, on the occasion of its 125th anniversary as a Federal
Depository Library.
Since 1884, the University of Michigan Library has served the
University of Michigan and the Southeastern Michigan community as a
public space where citizens can find information about their
government. As part of the Federal Library Depository Program (FLDP),
the University of Michigan Library provides free access to journals,
electronic resources, microfilm and more on an endless number of topics
and is equipped with thoroughly trained librarians to help navigate.
Throughout its history, the FLDP has striven to make our citizenry more
informed and ultimately more engaged in the democratic process.
The University of Michigan Library in Ann Arbor is one of the largest
university library systems in the United States. It consists of 19
libraries in 11 buildings, which combined, hold over 8 million volumes.
These impressive statistics and the fine work of its employees mean
this library system has consistently ranked as one of the top ten
academic research libraries in North America. The fact that the
University of Michigan has, for 125 years, been home to a FDLP library
speaks to both its remarkable record as an educational institution and
its committed role in ensuring access to our civic process.
Once again, I congratulate the University of Michigan on this
tremendous achievement and I wish the library system and the entire
university the very best in the future.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE HOPE PLUS SCHOLARSHIP ACT

______

HON. RON PAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I raise to introduce the Hope Plus
Scholarship Act, which expands the Hope Education Scholarship credit to
cover K-12 education expenses. Under this bill, parents could use the
Hope Scholarship to pay for private or religious school tuition or to
offset the cost of home schooling. In addition, under the bill, all
Americans could use the Hope Scholarship to make cash or in-kind
donations to public schools. Thus, the Hope Scholarship could help
working parents send their child to a private school, while other
patents could take advantage of the Hope credit to help purchase new
computers for their children's local public school.
Reducing taxes so that Americans can devote more of their own
resources to education is the best way to improve America's schools,
since individuals are more likely than federal bureaucrats to insist
that schools be accountable for student performance. When the federal
government controls the education dollar, schools will be held
accountable for their compliance with bureaucratic paperwork
requirements and mandates that have little to do with actual education.
Federal rules and regulations also divert valuable resources away from
classroom instruction.
The only way to reform America's education system is through
restoring control of the education dollar to the American people so
they can ensure schools provide their children a quality education. I
therefore ask all of my colleagues to help improve education by
returning education resources to the American people by cosponsoring
the Hope Plus Scholarship Act.

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE KANSAS CITY PUBLIC
LIBRARY

______

HON. EMANUEL CLEAVER

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. CLEAVER. Madam Speaker, I proudly rise today in recognition of
the outstanding achievements and cultural legacy of the Kansas City
Public Library in Missouri's Fifth Congressional District, which I
proudly represent. The Kansas City Public Library, having received the
prestigious 2008 National Medal for Museum and Library Service
presented by former First Lady Laura Bush for their ``Books to Go''
project, events and exhibits, represents preservation and celebration
of Missouri's Fifth District's diverse history.
The Kansas City Public Library's role is to ``actively provide
timely, accurate and useful information; support individual of all ages
pursuing a program of independent learning; and assists researchers in
conducting in-depth study or investigation in specific subject areas''.
The library has come to serve nearly every contingent of the Fifth
District population, in both urban and suburban areas, actively seeking
to engage our citizens in classes, discussions, lectures and events. It
allows our citizenry to explore its role as America's heartland
evolving from a frontier city to a modern day metropolis with racial
and cultural diversity. Through clubs, movies and exhibits, people of
all ages can participate in the many opportunities that the library has
to offer.
Under the wisdom and guidance of Chief Executive Crosby Kemper III
and its Board of Directors with Jonathan Kemper serving as Board
President, the Kansas City Public Library has emerged as a crucial
cultural center in our community. Housing and preserving in multimedia
and primary source, the library system has come to foster intellectual
enrichment through working collaboratively with our many world-class
organizations of cultural preservation and celebration, such as the
Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Harry S. Truman Presidential Library
and Museum, and the National World War I Museum, to name a few. Our
hallowed library serves as an extension of the works of these fine
institutions to ensure that not a corner of our community is denied the
opportunity to share in our heritage.
Mr. Crosby Kemper, a graduate of the esteemed Yale University and
member of one of Kansas City's most philanthropic families, serves
tirelessly as a distinguished administrator and innovator to expose our
community to intellectual growth. Due to his efforts and that of the
Board of Directors, the Kansas City Public Library provides events and
lectures that provoke thought, information and discussion. The library
has become a focal point of intellectual conversation in our community.
Perhaps most importantly, the Kansas City Public Library houses the
freedom of opportunity which our nation cherishes as the cornerstone of
its efficacy. Our understanding of peace and justice requires an
intellectual grounding in the events of our shared history. Through
history, we find our cultural underpinnings and past solutions which
evolve into today's paradigm.
For these reasons and more, I am proud to have nominated the Kansas
City Public Library for the National Medal for Museum and Library
Service. Madam Speaker, through their efforts, they have let loose
imaginations, inspired change and become a cornerstone around which our
entire community gathers. A city can only be as good as its public
libraries, and we all take pride that ours is among America's very
best. Please join me in congratulating the Kansas City Public Library,
its Board, Crosby Kemper, and the staff, volunteers and supporters that
help to make our state-of-the-art Kansas City Public Library a national
award winner.

____________________

HONORING MAUD F. ROBINSON

______

HON. FRANK R. WOLF

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the service of Maud F.
Robinson to the town of Vienna, Virginia. Maud will be retiring from
the Vienna Town Council in June, after serving on the council since
2000.
Maud and her husband, Charles A. Robinson, Jr., moved to Vienna in
1951. Since that time, Mrs. Robinson has been involved in every aspect
of life in the town. She has served as president of various local
organizations, including the Vienna Women's Club, the Ayr Hill Garden
Club, and Historic Vienna, Inc. She was a founding member and president
of the town's library. She served as a member of Vienna's first
Architectural Review Board and on the town's Business Liaison
Committee. Among other honors, Mrs. Robinson was selected as Citizen of
the Year in Vienna in 1993 and 2000.
Mrs. Robinson was appointed to the Vienna Town Council in 2000, to
fill the term of Jane Seeman, who was elected town mayor following the
death of Charles Robinson. Mr. Robinson served as town mayor for 27
years. Mrs. Robinson was reelected four times to her seat on the
council, for a total of nine years.

[[Page 10003]]

Mrs. Robinson is a graduate of Smith College and attended the
University of Virginia Law School. She served as a WAVE lieutenant,
junior grade, in the United States Navy.
Maud Robinson's commitment to Vienna's citizens and business
community is unparalleled. She is a woman of the highest moral
integrity and is a true role model for all of Vienna's citizens. I ask
my colleagues to join with me today in honoring Maud Robinson.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. JERROLD NADLER

of new york

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, April 1, 2009, during
consideration of the End GREED Act (H.R. 1575), my vote was recorded as
``no'' on final passage of the bill (rollcall No. 178). I intended to
vote ``aye.''

____________________

HONORING STEWARTS CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHER TREY DUKE

______

HON. BART GORDON

of tennessee

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate
Trey Duke, a teacher at Stewarts Creek Elementary School, who was a
2008 recipient of the Milken Family Foundation National Educator Award.
Trey was the only Tennessee educator to receive the award in 2008, and
he joins 56 other teachers from the state who have been honored with
the award in the past.
The Milken National Educators Award program began in 1985 and is now
the largest teacher recognition program in the United States. The award
honors K-12 teachers, principals and specialists with $25,000
individual awards and gives them the opportunity to participate in a
national teachers conference. At the conference, award recipients
engage in professional development and examine possible solutions to
significant issues in education with leaders from academia, government,
business and the community.
Prior to receiving the national award, Trey had only been teaching
for five years. His creative teaching strategies, which include book
clubs, music and PowerPoint presentations, have resulted in his fifth
grade students not only meeting but exceeding proficiency goals. At the
end of the year, he writes a poem detailing each student's progress and
places the poem in his or her report card.
``I feel like part of my job is not just to instruct the students,
but to make them excited and to make them want to come to school every
day and to get them involved in what we learn,'' Trey says. His
commitment to his students extends beyond the classroom, as evidenced
by his leadership roles at the school and system level. Trey is acting
principal when Stewarts Creek Elementary School Principal Richard Zago
is absent.
Congratulations, again, Trey. To impart a love of learning to
children at this formative stage in their life is a gift they will
carry with them and always prosper from.

____________________

HONORING ADMIRAL ROBERT E. PEARY

______

HON. JOHN P. MURTHA

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge a great
American and extraordinary explorer, Admiral Robert Edwin Peary, and
the one hundredth anniversary of his expedition to the North Pole.
Peary was born on May 6, 1856 in Cresson, Pennsylvania. He graduated
from Bowdoin College and joined the United States Navy in 1881. Peary
made several expeditions throughout the Arctic, including Greenland,
during this lifetime.
On April 6, 1909 Peary concluded his journey to the North Pole. He
was accompanied by his longtime companion Matthew Henson and four Inuit
men.
Throughout his life, he received many awards, honors, and honorary
degrees. In 1911 Peary retired from the Navy with the rank of Rear
Admiral. He died on February 20, 1920 in Washington, DC.
Madam Speaker, at this time in history when the North Pole is so
important to geopolitics, I hope that our nation will reflect on the
hundredth anniversary of Admiral Peary's great accomplishment.

____________________

INTRODUCING THE MAKE COLLEGE AFFORDABLE ACT

______

HON. RON PAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to help millions of Americans afford
higher education by introducing the Make College Affordable Act of
2009, which makes college tuition tax deductible. Today the average
cost of education at a state university is $12,796 per year, and the
cost of education at a private university is $30,367 per year. These
high costs have left many middle-class American families struggling to
afford college for their children, who are often ineligible for
financial aid. Therefore, middle-class students have no choice but to
obtain student loans, and thus leave college saddled with massive debt.
Even families who plan and save well in advance for their children's
education may have a difficult time because their savings are eroded by
taxation and inflation. The Make College Affordable Act will help these
middle-class students by allowing them, or their parents or guardians
who claim them as dependents, to deduct the cost of college tuition as
well as the cost of student loan repayments.
The Make College Affordable Act will also help older or
nontraditional students looking to improve their job skills or prepare
for a career change, by pursuing higher education. In today's economy,
the average American worker can expect to change jobs, and even
careers, several times during his or her working life, making it more
important than ever that working Americans be able to devote their
resources to continuing their educations.
Helping the American people use their own money to ensure every
qualified American can receive a college education is one of the best
investments this Congress can make in the future. I therefore urge my
colleagues to help strengthen America by ensuring more Americans can
obtain college educations by cosponsoring the Make College Affordable
Act.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. PATRICK J. KENNEDY

of rhode island

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unable to participate
in a series of votes on the floor of the House of Representatives
today.
Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 180, a Bean (IL)/McMahon
(NY) Amendment to H.R. 1664, a bill to amend the executive compensation
provisions of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, I would
have voted ``nay'' on the question.
Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 181, a Dahlkemper (PA)
Amendment to H.R. 1664, I would have voted ``aye'' on the question.
Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 182, final passage of H.R.
1664, I would have voted ``aye'' on the question.

____________________

THE PATRIOT CORPORATIONS OF AMERICA ACT: INVESTING IN AMERICA

______

HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, today we find ourselves in the grips of
recession. As of is morning there were 5.7 million Americans without a
job and we should be doing everything in our power to save jobs--and
create new ones.
Today, I am introducing the Patriot Corporations of America Act,
which encourages corporations to invest in the American people and the
American economy. In this time of change we should lift the spirit of
patriotism and create a new corporate ethic in America--one that unites
workers and their employers in the mutual goal of building a stronger,
more prosperous business that will contribute to a stronger, more
prosperous America.
Since the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, we have
benefited from the great work and contributions of countless American
patriots and Congress has always undertaken efforts to honor those men
and women. The Patriot Corporations of America Act continues that
tradition by rewarding companies that commit to America and American
workers.

[[Page 10004]]

It angers Americans, and it angers me, when companies outsource jobs
and relocate to avoid giving back to the country that afforded them the
opportunity to succeed. Companies that continue to send American jobs
abroad during these difficult times should not receive the same
benefits as companies who are keeping jobs right here. It is time for
the United States to reward companies that show a dedication to the
American workforce.
The Patriot Corporation Act will move us along the path to recovery,
while simultaneously giving a hand-up to ``patriotic'' companies that
are struggling in the midst of a recession.
Bill Edley, a former State Representative in Illinois, and political
scientist Robin Johnson of Monmouth College, introduced a new idea of
turning the tables around with the Patriot Corporations of America Act.
It would reward companies, like New Maryland Clothing and Tama
Manufacturing, that care about our Nation, our communities, and
American workers. I am honored to be introducing this commonsense
concept in the form of legislation in the U.S. House of
Representatives.
In exchange for preferential treatment in government contracting and
a 5% tax rate reduction, Patriot Corporations would be asked to pledge
their allegiance to our country by producing at least 90% of their
goods and doing at least 50% of their research and development in the
United States. They would limit top managements' compensation to no
greater than 100 times that of their lowest-compensated full-time
workers. They would show their commitment to their workers by
contributing at least 5% of payroll to portable pension funds and by
paying for at least 70% of the cost of health insurance plans. Finally,
Patriot Corporations would simply be required to comply with existing
federal regulations regarding the environment, workplace safety,
consumer protections and labor relations, including maintaining
neutrality in employee organizing drives.
Mr. Speaker, the Patriot Corporations for America Act would be
revenue neutral. It would be paid for by closing corporate offshoring
loopholes that have been exploited and, if necessary, reining in some
of the new tax breaks for millionaires.
Patriot Corporations would create a new class of companies committed
to uphold the dignity and prosperity of American workers as well as to
selling their goods on the American market and around the world.
Patriot Corporations are an expression of the American spirit of our
fore fathers and mothers when they took that brave step of declaring
our independence and creating the United States of America.
I'm confident that between the Recovery Act and legislation like the
Patriots Corporation Act--America will emerge stronger from this
recession.
I am honored to be introducing this bill today and I encourage my
colleagues to join me in saluting American businesses and workers.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO GARDNER MAYOR CAROL LEHMAN

______

HON. DENNIS MOORE

of kansas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to rise today to
honor Gardner, Kansas, Mayor Carol Lehman who is stepping down this
year after serving for 20 years as mayor. Before being elected mayor,
Carol served two years on the City Council. During her time as mayor,
Gardner has grown and prospered, no doubt in part because of the wise
and stable leadership that Carol provided. Through it all, Gardner
retains all the charm of a Midwestern small town, with the advantages
of being a short drive from Kansas City.
I would like to read into the record Mayor Lehman's recent farewell
message to her community. In this message, I know you will see the
affection and devotion she feels to Gardner, and will understand how
much all of us will miss her common sense, humor, and leadership.
It doesn't seem possible I'm writing my last Mayor's message--20
years have gone by in a flash. The advancements we've made in the last
20 years are too numerous to mention, but some do stand out as
milestones in our story of growth and change.
When metro dialing became available in Gardner, we weren't ``out of
town'' anymore and homebuilders started making their way down 1-35.
When McDonald's came, we surely thought we had arrived when every child
in town could have a happy meal--in their own backyard! New
subdivisions began popping up and both the City and the School District
realized they had many challenges facing them. The excitement of
Country Mart locating in Moonlight Plaza, as our first ``big'' grocery
store was only surpassed by Price Chopper becoming a Gardner presence.
The construction of TradeNet in Gardner was the first new industry we
had seen in years. And finally the arrival of Wal-Mart assured more
sales tax dollars would be staying in our community!
By adding the departments of Community Development, Public Safety,
Finance, and Parks & Recreation to our City Administration team, a new
era of professionalism was established. Some noteworthy accomplishments
include: designating Hillsdale Lake as the City's water supply,
building the new water treatment plant and the new wastewater treatment
plant, the expansion of City Hall, donating land to Johnson County for
our new library, partnering with our veterans to build Veteran's Park,
forming the Economic Development Corporation with the help of local
businesses, enhancing the Gardner Greenway Corridor and walking paths,
creating the Downtown Enhancement District, Christmas in the Park,
widening Center Street, working on future plans of the BNSF Intermodal
Logistics Park and anticipating in the future revenue it will generate
in our city, county and state, Gardner's fabulous Sesquicentennial
Celebration, building Plum Creek Public Safety Station #2, annexing
nearly 5,600 acres and experiencing the population explosion--from
4,380 in 1989 to approximately 18,000 today! Most recently, the
announcement of a 1.1 million square foot warehouse building in Gardner
with the promise of 200 jobs is great news for the City and its
residents.
I can vividly remember an event that occurred on my birthday in June,
2005. The results of our park sales tax question came in with a
resounding Yes, passing by 72%! That was a birthday present to
remember! Citizens are now enjoying our fabulous Gardner Aquatics
Center and beautiful Celebration Park. The passage of that ballot
question emphasized to City leaders how important quality of life is to
our families and it also told us that Gardner wants to enjoy leisure
time closer to home.
The influx of new citizens and young families has been exhilarating--
they have continued to bring, to their new ``home town'', high
expectations, and an enthusiasm and brightness which will light Gardner
for years to come. It has been heartwarming to see the blend of new and
long time citizens in our churches, neighborhoods and civic
organizations--working together to make Gardner a quality community.
In the last 20 years, there have been bumps in the road, but with
each challenge we have been fortunate to have the right people in the
right places to guide and advise us. With each disappointment we have
learned much, pledged to do better the next time and approached the new
day with optimism.
Gardner has been blessed with a succession of forward thinking City
Council Members and Planning Commissioners. For many years now, the
City Council has planned for the future, embraced growth and change and
kept the mill levy steady, while at the same time earning the city an
A2 bond rating. Together, with a visionary staff whose expertise,
professionalism and creativity rates among the best, Gardner has
handled our explosive growth well and we will be ready for whatever the
future brings.
I cannot adequately express to you what an honor and a privilege it
has been to be your Mayor, and I humbly thank you. Gardner has always
been a town of wonderful people; if I am certain of one thing as the
torch is passed, I know the future shines brightly for this town and
its residents.

____________________

EARMARK DECLARATION

______

HON. JIM GERLACH

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. GERLACH. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican leadership
standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for
publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received
as part of H.R. 1105, Consolidated Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2009.
These earmarks are all multi-member requests and national projects/
programs.

commerce, justice and science

Delaware River Basin Commission, P.O. Box 7360, West Trenton, NJ--
$235,000--Funding for the Delaware River Enhanced

[[Page 10005]]

Flood Warning System. The funding will be used to assist the Delaware
River Basin Commission, in conjunction with NOAA/NWS, USGS and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, with the enhancement of the basin's flood
warning system. This enhancement will include the evaluation and
improvement of existing precipitation and stream gage networks,
development of additional NOAA flood forecast points in both non-tidal
and tidal stream reaches, and merger of GIS and Doppler radar
technology to improve flash flood warning capabilities for smaller
watersheds.

energy and water

Mid-Atlantic River Commissions, Delaware River Basin Commission, P.O.
Box 7360, West Trenton, NJ--$2,365,000--This funding is necessary to
fulfill the federal government's obligation to provide an equitable
share of funding for the commissions, as required under their compacts.
This funding will enable the commissions to implement critically
important water resources management projects and activities in the
national interest.

labor health and human services and education

National Writing Project Corporation, University of California, 2105
Bancroft Way, Berkeley, CA--$24,291,000--It is my understanding that
the funding would be used to fund programs in teacher development,
quality writing, and research to help improve student performance in
writing.
Reach Out and Read National Center, 56 Roland Street, Boston, MA--
$4,965,000--It is my understanding that the funding would be used for
the purposes authorized in Section 5411-5414 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act.
Center for Civic Education, 5145 Douglas Fir Road, Calabasas, CA--
$25,095,000--It is my understanding that the funding would be used to
support the We the People program and the Cooperative Education
Exchange, the purposes of which are authorized by the Education for
Democracy Act (Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Sections 2341-
2346).
National Council on Economic Education, 1140 Avenue of the Americas,
Suite 202, New York, NY--$5,019,000--It is my understanding that the
funding would be used to support the Cooperative Education Exchange,
the purposes of which are authorized by the Education for Democracy Act
(Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Sections 2341-2346).
National History Day, 0119 Cecil Hall, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD--$500,000--It is my understanding that the funding
would be used to expand and improve National History Day, a year-long
non-profit education program, focused on grades 6-12, that works with
both students and teachers to improve the teaching and learning of
history in schools.
Reading is Fundamental, Inc., 1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite
400, Washington, DC--$24,803,000--It is my understanding that the
funding would be used for the purposes authorized in Section 5451 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to support and promote
programs, which include the distribution of inexpensive books to young
and school-age children, that motivate children to read.

____________________

RECOGNIZING MANITOWOC MAYOR KEVIN CRAWFORD ON THE OCCASION OF HIS
RETIREMENT FROM PUBLIC SERVICE

______

HON. THOMAS E. PETRI

of wisconsin

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to offer my congratulations to
the Honorable Kevin Crawford, the longest continually-serving mayor in
the history of Manitowoc, Wisconsin. First elected in 1989, Mayor
Crawford is stepping down this month to pursue another career path.
Mayor Crawford's energetic and creative leadership over twenty years
has helped provide the spark fueling a business and manufacturing
revival in Manitowoc that has made the city one of Wisconsin's biggest
economic success stories of recent years. His focus on job creation,
pursuit of public-private partnerships and instinct for opportunity
helped the city capitalize on its already diverse manufacturing base,
skilled labor force and unique attributes as a Lake Michigan port city
with a proud history as a World War II maritime industry leader.
Over the years, I have worked with Kevin Crawford on many issues of
importance to Manitowoc and have come to know him as a tireless and
passionate advocate for the city. It's clear to me that his optimism
and hard work have not only offered an impetus for progress and growth
in the city, but have contributed to the momentum to sustain it.
Last year The Wall Street Journal ran a feature story highlighting
the manufacturing and exporting successes of the city and its rebound
after the closing of its second-largest employer in 2003. Mayor
Crawford has called manufacturing a ``core pillar of our economy,'' and
has seen to it that local government takes an active role in developing
what he terms ``new economy manufacturing,'' including new technology
and jobs.
Indeed, in the current global recession, hits to the Manitowoc
economy have been buffered by the presence of promising new energy-
related companies that have taken root there in recent years.
During his tenure, Mayor Crawford negotiated the revival of car ferry
passenger service between Manitowoc and Ludington, Michigan, and has
worked to ensure its continued success. He was instrumental in bringing
new owners and leadership to the ailing Burger Boat Company, now firmly
positioned as a world leader in luxury yacht manufacturing.
As commissioner of the Manitowoc Public Utilities, Mayor Crawford has
been the dedicated chief steward of this city-owned and managed
electric and water utility which has grown considerably over the last
two decades and affords local citizens some of the lowest utility rates
in the country. Considered one of the most knowledgeable local elected
officials in the area of electric energy, he has been recognized by the
American Public Power Association, the Municipal Electric Utilities of
Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Water Association.
Other achievements of the Crawford era in Manitowoc include the
construction of a new city hall, library and public safety building,
the development of a new Visitor Information Center, and major retail
expansion and infrastructure improvements.
In addition, Mayor Crawford created and has fostered an active
sixteen-year sister-city relationship between Manitowoc and Kamagowa,
Japan. The partnership has resulted in numerous citizen exchange visits
over the years and is acknowledged to be one of the most vibrant
sister-city associations in the country.
His colleagues across Wisconsin have also recognized Mayor Crawford's
outstanding leadership skills. He is a member of the Board of Directors
of the Wisconsin Alliance of Cities and a Past President of the League
of Wisconsin Municipalities as well as a member of its legislative
committee.
In light of his many years of commitment to the people of Manitowoc,
Wisconsin, and his impressive record of accomplishment, I am proud to
recognize Mayor Kevin Crawford and extend my congratulations and
appreciation to him on his retirement from public service.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE LIFE SUSTAINING TREATMENT PREFERENCES ACT OF 2009

______

HON. EARL BLUMENAUER

of oregon

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the Life
Sustaining Treatment Preferences Act of 2009. As we approach health
care reform, there is no other area more vital for honest discussion
and careful analysis than what happens at a patient's end of life.
For most of us, the majority of our lifetime health care will be
administered in that last year of life. Indeed for many, it is just the
last few months where we will use the most doctor care, the most
medical procedures, and the most days in a hospital.
Advances in healthcare have led to an aging population facing
increasingly complex end of life health care decisions. These strains
make complicated, critical decision making about medical care
incredibly difficult. Too often, these decisions are avoided until a
crisis occurs, resulting in inadequate planning, unknown patient
preferences, and families left struggling with the burden of
determining their loved ones' wishes. For both families and patients,
this is a time of incredible stress, confusion, and pain.
In response, health organizations in Oregon came together in the
early 1990s to develop the Physicians Orders for Life Sustaining
Treatment program to help seriously ill patients identify their
treatment preferences using a clear, standardized template. Written as
actionable medical orders and signed by a physician, these forms help
communicate patient preference to health care personnel regarding
intensity of medical intervention, transfers to the hospital, use of
antibiotics, artificially administered nutrition, and resuscitation.
National interest in Oregon's Physicians Orders for Life Sustaining
Treatment program

[[Page 10006]]

has spread and Oregon has become the national resource for states and
communities interested in developing similar programs. Last year,
California and New York enacted orders for life sustaining treatment
programs and over thirty other states are developing programs.
We can and should do more to support these efforts to enhance quality
patient care at the end of life. The Life Sustaining Treatment
Preferences Act provides coverage under Medicare for consultations
regarding orders for life sustaining treatment. These discussions add
quality and value to patient care, but they often require significant
time, proper training, and great delicacy, which merit compensation
through Medicare. Medicare currently pays for acute care services
provided to beneficiaries, but it does not specifically recognize the
important benefit of informed discussions between patients and their
health provider about care preferences for their last months and years
of life.
The Life Sustaining Treatment Preferences Act also creates a grant
program to support the development and expansion of these programs,
providing necessary resources to states and local communities. These
programs provide valuable services to patients, their families, and
health care providers through educational materials; professional
training on advance care planning; coordinating and collaborating with
hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, hospice programs, home health
agencies, and emergency medical services to implement such orders
across the continuum of care; and monitoring the success of the
program.
To be effective, advance care plans must ensure that treatment
preferences are elicited and presented in a way that is recognized and
respected by the health care community--orders for life sustaining
treatment programs do just that. These programs have a track record of
promoting patient autonomy through documenting and coordinating a
person's treatment preferences, enhancing the authorized transfer of
patient records between facilities, clarifying treatment intentions and
minimizing confusion, reducing repetitive activities in complying with
the Patient Self Determination Act, and facilitating appropriate
treatment by emergency personnel. Oregon is nationally recognized for
our exemplary end of life care and orders for life sustaining treatment
have played a critical role providing quality, patient-centered care
for those in their final chapter of life.
I am proud to introduce the Life Sustaining Treatment Preferences Act
of 2009, which will lay the groundwork so all seriously ill Americans
have the tools to make informed medical care decisions, convey their
care plans as clearly as possible, and feel confident their wishes will
be known and respected by health care personnel.

____________________

INTRODUCING THE AGRICULTURE EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT

______

HON. RON PAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Agriculture
Education Freedom Act. This bill addresses a great injustice being
perpetrated by the Federal Government on those youngsters who
participate in programs such as 4-H or the Future Farmers of America.
Under current tax law, children are forced to pay federal income tax
when they sell livestock they have raised as part of an agricultural
education program.
Think about this for a moment. These kids are trying to better
themselves, earn some money, save some money and what does Congress do?
We pick on these kids by taxing them. It is truly amazing that with all
the hand-wringing in Congress over the alleged need to further restrict
liberty and grow the size of government ``for the children'' we would
continue to tax young people who are trying to lead responsible lives
and prepare for the future. Even if the serious social problems today's
youth face could be solved by new federal bureaucracies and programs,
it is still unfair to pick on those kids who are trying to do the right
thing.
These children are not even old enough to vote, yet we are forcing
them to pay taxes. What ever happened to no taxation without
representation? No wonder young people are so cynical about government.
It is time we stopped taxing youngsters who are trying to earn money
to go to college by selling livestock they have raised through their
participation in programs such as 4-H or Future Farmers of America.
Therefore, I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting the
Agriculture Education Freedom Act.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF A BILL TO BRING PARITY TO TSA EMPLOYEES

______

HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON

of mississippi

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join
Congresswoman Lowey and Congresswoman Jackson-Lee in introducing today
a bill that will bring parity to Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) employees and ensures security. This legislation would provide
the same rights to all TSA employees, including the Transportation
Security Officers (TSOs) (i.e., screeners), as those already enjoyed by
employees at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and numerous
front-line security agencies throughout the country, including state
law enforcement agencies.
In the 110th Congress, The Committee on Homeland Security worked to
give a broad range of rights to the Transportation Security
Administration workforce in H.R. 1, Implementing the Recommendations of
the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. Basic workplace protections and
collective bargaining rights were a key part of this effort. While the
House passed these important measures and the Senate followed suit, to
avoid a veto from the Bush Administration, these protections were
stripped from the conference report. This bill renews and improves upon
this effort by increasing the quality of the entire TSA workforce and
not just a smaller part of it. This bill will increase security by
improving workforce morale and employee retention, and will put workers
in a position to expose security gaps and put TSA on par with other DHS
components.
In 2001, when TSA was created, Congress provided discretionary
authority allowing TSA to create different classes of employees, each
with different rights and protections. Specifically, the 107th Congress
and President Bush gave the TSA Administrator the discretionary
authority to set up two different TSAs. One group of TSA employees
would be given one set of rights and the other group, the TSOs (i.e.,
screeners), could be treated differently, with respect to conditions
and benefits of employment, discipline, compensation, leave, and other
basic employment rights.
Under then TSA Administrator, Admiral James Loy, the Bush
Administration exercised discretionary authority to create two classes
of TSA employees by denying the TSOs certain employment rights. While
this discretionary authority helped quickly establish and stand-up TSA,
as intended by the 107th Congress and the Bush Administration, it was,
and continues to be the impetus for low employee morale and diminished
transportation security.
From survey results to testimony over the past several years, we have
seen that the TSA workforce is frustrated by the lack of recognition
and rewards for performance and promotion practices, confused by
different policies and procedures on leave, training, and other
administrative matters.
On March 5, 2009, a House Homeland Security Subcommittee received
testimony from employee representatives of the workforce. All of TSA
operates under a separate personnel system than other DHS components.
Further, the TSO workforce is not allowed to collectively bargain in
contrast with the CBP workforce and others across the federal
government, including state law enforcement. These discrepancies and
differences lead to confusion, frustration and further erode morale.
The time for personnel experiments is now over. The employees of TSA
deserve to be treated like their fellow employees in the DHS and across
the Federal government--fairly and equitably. Providing basic
employment protections and rights is critical to instill confidence in
the workforce. The time for two classes of TSA employees is over--this
bill eliminates this dichotomy.
This legislation brings parity to the TSA workforce. The bill affords
the workforce the same rights and protections their colleagues across
the federal government and the Department enjoy under Title 5 of the
United States Code and other civil service laws such as provisions of
the Federal Labor Standards Act, Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in
Employment Act and the Rehabilitation Act, among others.
The legislation aims to transition the 60,000 plus TSA workforce in a
responsible way from its current and varied personnel systems to that
of Title 5. It provides the Secretary and Assistant Secretary the
discretion on how and when to move to the new system, although not
later than 60 days after the date of enactment. It also provides a
window for the transition to allow for consultation with employee
representatives and communication with the

[[Page 10007]]

workforce. Further, it ensures that no employee will lose any pay,
accrued leave or health benefit that is currently afforded to them.
To truly provide comprehensive transportation security, it must start
with those who provide the security--in this case all TSA employees,
including the TSOs. We must set up a system where all TSA employees are
protected, otherwise we will have a system that treats colleagues
differently and remains inefficient to the extent of hindering
transportation security. In the end, by creating one TSA as a part of
one DHS the American public truly receives national security.
We look forward to working with our colleagues to put the TSA
workforce in a system that has stood the test of time and shown itself
to be fair and equitable.

____________________

INTRODUCING THE EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT TAX CUT ACT

______

HON. RON PAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Education
Improvement Tax Cut Act. This act, a companion to my Family Education
Freedom Act, takes a further step toward returning control over
education resources to private citizens by providing a $5,000 tax
credit for donations to scholarship funds to enable low-income children
to attend private schools. It also encourages private citizens to
devote more of their resources to helping public schools, by providing
a $5,000 tax credit for cash or in-kind donations to public schools to
support academic or extra curricular programs.
I need not remind my colleagues that education is one of the top
priorities of the American people. After all, many members of Congress
have proposed education reforms and a great deal of time is spent
debating these proposals. However, most of these proposals expand
federal control over education. Many proposals that claim to increase
local control over education actually extend federal power by holding
schools ``accountable'' to federal bureaucrats and politicians. Of
course, schools should be held accountable for their results, but they
should be held accountable to parents and school boards not to federal
officials. Therefore, I propose we move in a different direction and
embrace true federalism by returning control over the education dollar
to the American people.
One of the major problems with centralized control over education
funding is that spending priorities set by Washington-based
Representatives, staffers, and bureaucrats do not necessarily match the
needs of individual communities. In fact, it would be a miracle if
spending priorities determined by the wishes of certain politically
powerful representatives or the theories of Education Department
functionaries match the priorities of every community in a country as
large and diverse as America. Block grants do not solve this problem as
they simply allow states and localities to choose the means to reach
federally-determined ends.
Returning control over the education dollar for tax credits for
parents and for other concerned citizens returns control over both the
means and ends of education policy to local communities. People in one
community may use this credit to purchase computers, while children in
another community may, at last, have access to a quality music program
because of community leaders who took advantage of the tax credit
contained in this bill.
Children in some communities may benefit most from the opportunity to
attend private, parochial, or other religious schools. One of the most
encouraging trends in education has been the establishment of private
scholarship programs. These scholarship funds use voluntary
contributions to open the doors of quality private schools to low-
income children. By providing a tax credit for donations to these
programs, Congress can widen the educational opportunities and increase
the quality of education for all children. Furthermore, privately-
funded scholarships raise none of the concerns of state entanglement
raised by publicly-funded vouchers.
There is no doubt that Americans will always spend generously on
education, the question is, ``who should control the education dollar--
politicians and bureaucrats or the American people?'' Mr. Speaker, I
urge my colleagues to join me in placing control of education back in
the hands of citizens and local communities by sponsoring the Education
Improvement Tax Cut Act.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF A BILL TO BRING PARITY TO TSA EMPLOYEES

______

HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to join
the Honorable Nita M. Lowey and the Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, in
introducing a bill that will bring parity to Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) employees and ensures security. This legislation
would provide the same rights to all TSA employees, including the
Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) (i.e., screeners), as those
already enjoyed by employees at the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) and numerous front-line security agencies throughout the country,
including state law enforcement agencies.
In the 110th Congress, The Committee on Homeland Security worked to
give a broad range of rights to the Transportation Security
Administration workforce in H.R. 1, Implementing the Recommendations of
the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. Basic workplace protections and
collective bargaining rights were a key part of this effort. While the
House passed these important measures and the Senate followed suit, to
avoid a veto from the Bush Administration, these protections were
stripped from the conference report. This bill renews and improves upon
this effort by increasing the quality of the entire TSA workforce and
not just a smaller part of it. This bill will increase security by
improving workforce morale and employee retention, and will put workers
in a position to expose security gaps and put TSA on par with other DHS
components.
In 2001, when TSA was created, Congress provided discretionary
authority allowing TSA to create different classes of employees, each
with different rights and protections. Specifically, the 107th Congress
and President Bush gave the TSA Administrator the discretionary
authority to set up two different TSAs. One group of TSA employees
would be given one set of rights and the other group, the TSOs (i.e.,
screeners), could be treated differently, with respect to conditions
and benefits of employment, discipline, compensation, leave, and other
basic employment rights.
Under then TSA Administrator, Admiral James Loy, the Bush
Administration exercised discretionary authority to create two classes
of TSA employees by denying the TSOs certain employment rights. While
this discretionary authority helped quickly establish and stand-up TSA,
as intended by the 107th Congress and the Bush Administration, it was,
and continues to be the impetus for low employee morale and diminished
transportation security.
From survey results to testimony over the past several years, we have
seen that the TSA workforce is frustrated by the lack of recognition
and rewards for performance and promotion practices, confused by
different policies and procedures on leave, training, and other
administrative matters.
On March 5, 2009, a House Homeland Security Subcommittee received
testimony from employee representatives of the workforce. All of TSA
operates under a separate personnel system than other DHS components.
Further, the TSO workforce is not allowed to collectively bargain in
contrast with the CBP workforce and others across the federal
government, including state law enforcement. These discrepancies and
differences lead to confusion, frustration and further erode morale.
The time for personnel experiments is now over. The employees of TSA
deserve to be treated like their fellow employees in the DHS and across
the Federal government--fairly and equitably. Providing basic
employment protections and rights is critical to instill confidence in
the workforce. The time for two classes of TSA employees is over--this
bill eliminates this dichotomy.
This legislation brings parity to the TSA workforce. The bill affords
the workforce the same rights and protections their colleagues across
the federal government and the Department enjoy under Title 5 of the
United States Code and other civil service laws such as provisions of
the Federal Labor Standards Act, Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in
Employment Act and the Rehabilitation Act, among others.
The legislation aims to transition the 60,000 plus TSA workforce in a
responsible way from its current and varied personnel systems to that
of Title 5. It provides the Secretary and Assistant Secretary the
discretion on how and when to move to the new system, although not
later than 60 days after the date of enactment. It also provides a
window for the transition to allow for consultation with employee
representatives and communication with the workforce. Further, it
ensures that no employee will lose any pay, accrued leave or health
benefit that is currently afforded to them.

[[Page 10008]]

To truly provide comprehensive transportation security, it must start
with those who provide the security--in this case all TSA employees,
including the TSOs. We must set up a system where all TSA employees are
protected, otherwise we will have a system that treats colleagues
differently and remains inefficient to the extent of hindering
transportation security. In the end, by creating one TSA as a part of a
one DHS the American public truly receives national security.
We look forward to working with our colleagues to put the TSA
workforce in a system that has stood the test of time and shown itself
to be fair and equitable.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF A BILL TO BRING PARITY TO TSA EMPLOYEES

______

HON. NITA M. LOWEY

of new york

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join Chairman Thompson and
Congresswoman Jackson-Lee in introducing today a bill that will bring
parity to Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees and
ensures security. This legislation would provide the same rights to all
TSA employees, including the Transportation Security Officers (TSOs)
(i.e., screeners), as those already enjoyed by employees at the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and numerous front-line security
agencies throughout the country, including state law enforcement
agencies.
In the 110th Congress, The Committee on Homeland Security worked to
give a broad range of rights to the Transportation Security
Administration workforce in H.R. 1, Implementing the Recommendations of
the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. Basic workplace protections and
collective bargaining rights were a key part of this effort. While the
House passed these important measures and the Senate followed suit, to
avoid a veto from the Bush Administration, these protections were
stripped from the conference report. This bill renews and improves upon
this effort by increasing the quality of the entire TSA workforce and
not just a smaller part of it. This bill will increase security by
improving workforce morale and employee retention, and will put workers
in a position to expose security gaps and put TSA on par with other DHS
components.
In 2001, when TSA was created, Congress provided discretionary
authority allowing TSA to create different classes of employees, each
with different rights and protections. Specifically, the 107th Congress
and President Bush gave the TSA Administrator the discretionary
authority to set up two different TSAs. One group of TSA employees
would be given one set of rights and the other group, the TSOs (i.e.,
screeners), could be treated differently, with respect to conditions
and benefits of employment, discipline, compensation, leave, and other
basic employment rights.
Under then TSA Administrator, Admiral James Loy, the Bush
Administration exercised discretionary authority to create two classes
of TSA employees by denying the TSOs certain employment rights. While
this discretionary authority helped quickly establish and stand-up TSA,
as intended by the 107th Congress and the Bush Administration, it was,
and continues to be the impetus for low employee morale and diminished
transportation security.
From survey results to testimony over the past several years, we have
seen that the TSA workforce is frustrated by the lack of recognition
and rewards for performance and promotion practices, confused by
different policies and procedures on leave, training, and other
administrative matters.
On March 5, 2009, a House Homeland Security Subcommittee received
testimony from employee representatives of the workforce. All of TSA
operates under a separate personnel system than other DHS components.
Further, the ISO workforce is not allowed to collectively bargain in
contrast with the CBP workforce and others across the Federal
government, including state law enforcement. These discrepancies and
differences lead to confusion, frustration and further erode morale.
The time for personnel experiments is now over. The employees of TSA
deserve to be treated like their fellow employees in the DHS and across
the Federal government--fairly and equitably. Providing basic
employment protections and rights is critical to instill confidence in
the workforce. The time for two classes of TSA employees is over--this
bill eliminates this dichotomy.
This legislation brings parity to the TSA workforce. The bill affords
the workforce the same rights and protections their colleagues across
the Federal government and the Department enjoy under Title 5 of the
United States Code and other civil service laws such as provisions of
the Federal Labor Standards Act, Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in
Employment Act and the Rehabilitation Act, among others.
The legislation aims to transition the 60,000 plus TSA workforce in a
responsible way from its current and varied personnel systems to that
of Title 5. It provides the Secretary and Assistant Secretary the
discretion on how and when to move to the new system, although not
later than 60 days after the date of enactment. It also provides a
window for the transition to allow for consultation with employee
representatives and communication with the workforce. Further, it
ensures that no employee will lose any pay, accrued leave or health
benefit that is currently afforded to them.
To truly provide comprehensive transportation security, it must start
with those who provide the security--in this case all TSA employees,
including the TSOs. We must set up a system where all TSA employees are
protected, otherwise we will have a system that treats colleagues
differently and remains inefficient to the extent of hindering
transportation security. In the end, by creating one TSA as a part of a
one DHS the American public truly receives national security.
We look forward to working with our colleagues to put the TSA
workforce in a system that has stood the test of time and shown itself
to be fair and equitable.

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE NORTHLAND HIGH SCHOOL BOYS BASKETBALL TEAM

______

HON. PATRICK J. TIBERI

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. TIBERI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to
Northland High School in Columbus, Ohio. Northland High School is in my
congressional district, and as a Northland graduate, I am proud to
recognize a school that not only excels in academics but also
distinguishes itself on the basketball court. The Northland High School
basketball team recently won the 2009 Ohio Division I Boys Basketball
Championship. In the championship game, Northland defeated Cincinnati
Princeton 60 to 58.
The basketball team is an outstanding example of hard work,
determination and perseverance. They had 27 wins and only one loss in
the 2008-2009 season, and have earned the first boys basketball title
in school history.
They are led by their top scorer, Jared Sullinger, who was recently
named the Associated Press ``Mr. Basketball'' for Ohio, Junior James
``JD'' Weatherspoon, Seniors Sam Belisle, Dimonde Hale, Ricky Bennett
and Javon Cornley, along with teammates Charles Edgerton, Quentin
Henderson, Trey Burke, Lavante Justice, Ke'Chaun Lewis, Jordan Potts,
Devon Scott, Jakyl Cornley, and Roberto Pierre.
The team is led by Head Coach J. Satch Sullinger; Assistants Frank
Smith, Michael Clouse, Leigh Horston and Jerome White.
It is an honor to represent such a fine group of young people who
have a strong dedication to team work and academics. I know each one of
them will treasure the memories of their championship season and I
commend them, and the Northland community, for this truly great
achievement.

____________________

HONORING LEON FLEISHER

______

HON. JOHN P. SARBANES

of maryland

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. SARBANES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor pianist and
conductor Leon Fleisher on the occasion of his 80th birthday. His
musical contributions have touched the people of Maryland for many
years, and the story of Leon's life is a testament to both the
inspirational power of music and the indomitable nature of the human
spirit. As a young man, Leon was acclaimed as a once-in-a-generation
musical talent, and by his mid-twenties, Leon had become one of the
world's most-respected and sought-after piano soloists, creating a
number of timeless interpretations of classic works that are admired to
this day.
When a rare neurological condition stripped him of the use of his
right hand, he refused to allow the condition to limit his work and
continued to contribute to classical music. As a conductor and
director, Leon inspired and energized other musicians from such
distinguished

[[Page 10009]]

organizations as the Baltimore Symphony, the Annapolis Symphony
Orchestra, the Peabody Conservatory, the Royal Conservatory of Toronto,
and the Kennedy Center's Theater Chamber Players. As a teacher, Leon
imparted his own knowledge, passion, and skill to many musicians who
now carry the weight of his musical legacy. As a performer, Leon
performed the definitive left-handed interpretations of numerous works,
inspiring many composers to create new works for the previously
underutilized left hand.
After years of special treatments, Leon returned to Carnegie Hall in
a truly inspiring culmination of years of determined effort. The
recipient of countless awards and accolades, Leon Fleisher has been a
true gift to the people of the 3rd district of Maryland, and the field
of classical music in general. His performances and personal story
remain powerful, and on the occasion of his 80th birthday, I thank him
for all he has done, and all he will continue to do, to advance both
the world of music and the capacity of the human spirit.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE HEALTHY WORKFORCE ACT OF 2009, WHICH WOULD AMEND
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 TO PROVIDE A TAX CREDIT TO EMPLOYERS
FOR THE COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING WELLNESS PROGRAMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

______

HON. EARL BLUMENAUER

of oregon

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the
Healthy Workforce Act of 2009. In order to alleviate our public health
crisis, we must make it easier for Americans to make small, easy
choices that improve their overall health. With many Americans spending
more than half of their day at work, it makes sense to encourage our
places of employment to offer the information, opportunities and
support they need to make healthy choices.
The Healthy Workforce Act provides companies with an up to fifty
percent tax credit for implementing employee wellness programs. These
programs can include, but are not limited to, health education or
health risk assessments, behavioral change programs that encourage
healthy lifestyles, such as classes on nutrition or smoking cessation,
and to support environment changes to encourage employee participation.
Programs like this have a myriad of positive benefits for personal
health, employee productivity, workplace environment and the economy.
There can be no doubt that America is facing a public health crisis:
63 percent of Americans are overweight and 31 percent are obese. Even
more alarming, according to the Surgeon General, obesity is responsible
for 300,000 deaths per year. This crisis not only impacts the daily
lives of many Americans, but the bottom line for American companies.
Average employer medical costs increased 72 percent between 2000 and
2006, with some companies spending more than fifty percent of their
profits on employee health care expenses. Employers are increasingly
bearing the costs of diet-related chronic disease and obesity through
employer-provided health care plans and indirectly through higher rates
of absenteeism, decreased productivity and higher health care costs.
Obesity related health conditions cost employers approximately $33
billion in health care and other indirect costs.
The Healthy Workforce Act of 2009 will make it easier for companies
to encourage their employees to make healthy decisions and in turn,
decrease health care costs for employers, employees, and taxpayers.

____________________

BIG GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION

______

HON. JOE WILSON

of south carolina

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, yesterday, The Post and
Courier, of Charleston, S.C., reviewed the intervention of government
in the management of General Motors. I share the editorial opinion that
dismissal of business executives is not a proper function of government
personnel.

Editorial

President Obama fired General Motors Chief Executive
Officer Rick Wagoner over the weekend, ostensibly due to his
failure to come up with a ``plan'' acceptable to the
administration. If he hadn't cleaned out his desk and
surrendered his key to the executive washroom, he was told
there would be no more taxpayer dollars to keep GM afloat.
CEOs of other corporations taking federal bailout money
surely have taken note. The stock market certainly did when
the news hit.
If you are not worried by the Obama administration's
audacious grab for the commanding heights of the U.S.
economy--the banks, the insurance industry, the giant too-
big-to-fail manufacturers--you should be. Treasury Secretary
Tim Geithner even suggests that government takeover of
private corporations that have not accepted federal loans
would be warranted, if considered necessary to rescue the
overall economy.
The question boils down to this: Would it have been better
to let well-established bankruptcy law apply to GM (and other
failing corporate giants) rather than suffer Washington's
continued exertions on its behalf.
Or, to put it another way, would you like your next car
designed in Washington rather than in Detroit?

____________________

EARMARK DECLARATION

______

HON. GREG WALDEN

of oregon

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, consistent with the House Republican
Leadership's policy on earmarks, to the best of my knowledge the
requests I have detailed below (1) are not directed to an entity or
program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; and (2)
are not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other
entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified
purpose of the earmark. As required by earmark standards adopted by the
House Republican Conference, I submit the following information on
projects I requested and were included in H.R. 1105, The Omnibus
Appropriations Act, FY 2009.
Account: USDA--Cooperative State Research Education and Extension
Service
Project Title: Grass Seed Cropping Systems for Sustainable
Agriculture (OR, ID, WA)
Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity:
Oregon State University, College of Agricultural Sciences, 138 Strand
Hall, Corvallis, OR 97731
Project Location: Idaho, Oregon, and Washington
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $313,000 for the Grass
Seed Cropping Systems for Sustainable Agriculture project in Oregon,
Washington, and Idaho. Oregon State University has confirmed in their
justification that the appropriated funds for this project will be used
cooperatively between research and extension faculty from the three
states, scientists from the USDA's National Forage Seed Production
Research Center, and USDA's Agriculture Research Service to maintain a
sustainable grass seed cropping industry in the Pacific Northwest at a
time when the grass seed industry faces some critical environmental and
economic challenges including public pressure to phase out open-field
burning.
Account: USDA--Cooperative State Research Education and Extension
Service
Project Title: Northwest Multi-commodity Marketing Special Research
Grant
Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity:
Oregon State University, College of Agricultural Sciences, 138 Strand
Hall, Corvallis, OR 97731
Project Location: Oregon
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $244,000 for a special
research grant program that enhances competitiveness and expands the
economic value-added component in Oregon agricultural products through
research and outreach in food processing, product development, business
strategy, marketing, and consumer testing. Oregon State University has
confirmed in their justification that the appropriated funds for this
project will be used to conduct research to support food processing and
food product development, investigate consumer perceptions of product
quality and value, and evaluate marketing and food industry strategies.
Account: USDA--Cooperative State Research Education and Extension
Service
Project Title: Organic Cropping Research for the Northwest
Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity:
Oregon State University, College of Agricultural Sciences, 138 Strand
Hall, Corvallis, OR 97731
Project Location: Oregon and Washington
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $140,000 to Organic
Cropping Research for the Northwest. Oregon State University has
confirmed in their justification that

[[Page 10010]]

the appropriated funds for this project will be help expand the
research, education, and extension activities at Oregon State
University with a primary focus on the development and implementation
of sustainable organic farming systems for higher rainfall locations in
the Cascadia bioregion in the states of Oregon and Washington. Oregon's
organic agriculture industry will benefit from research directed at
problems facing organic commodities and, ultimately, enhance
competitiveness of Oregon's organic agriculture products. In Oregon,
357 certified organic farms generate more than $52.1 million in organic
products from approximately 59,200 certified acres. Oregon's strong
agricultural infrastructure and unique climate make Oregon's
agriculture uniquely positioned to grow dramatically in its market
share of organic dairy and meat, tree fruits, specialty seed, berry
crops, and processed and fresh market vegetables.
Account: USDA--Cooperative State Research Education and Extension
Service
Project Title: Potato Research (OR, ID, WA, and other states)
Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity:
Oregon State University, College of Agricultural Sciences, 138 Strand
Hall, Corvallis, OR 97731
Project Location: Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and other states
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $1,037,000 for a
research program which is operated jointly by an entity known as Tri-
State, which includes: USDA-ARS, Washington State University, Oregon
State University, and the University of Idaho. Oregon State University
has confirmed in their justification that the appropriated funds for
this project will be split equally between the four Tri-State partners
and used for research and development of new potato varieties. The Tri-
State program is considered to be one of the most elite variety
development programs in the world.
Account: USDA--Cooperative State Research Education and Extension
Service
Project Title: Regional Barley Genome Mapping (many states)
Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity:
Oregon State University, College of Agricultural Sciences, 138 Strand
Hall, Corvallis, OR 97731
Project Location: Many states
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $471,000 to continue
funding the United States Barley Genome Project (USBGP). Oregon State
University has confirmed in their justification that the appropriated
funds for this project will be used to continue the project's long-term
goal of enhancing the profitability and sustainability of U.S.
agriculture by achieving a complete understanding of the gene networks
that determine economically important traits in barley. The rationale
behind understanding gene networks is that knowledge regarding the
number, location, sequence, expression, regulation, and interaction of
genes will allow plant breeders to more efficiently develop barley
varieties.
Account: USDA--Cooperative State Research Education and Extension
Service
Project Title: Northwest Center for Small Fruit Research
Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon State University,
College of Agricultural Sciences, 138 Strand Hall, Corvallis, OR 97731
Project Location: Idaho, Oregon, and Washington
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $307,000 for the
Northwest Center for Small Fruit Research. Oregon State University has
confirmed in their justification that the appropriated funds for this
project will be used to fund extension, education, and cooperative
research activities on peer reviewed small fruits research project
proposals that will enhance profitability and sustainability of the
small fruits industry in the Pacific Northwest. This funding supports
critical aspects of the center not supported by USDAARS funds.
Account: USDA--Cooperative State Research Education and Extension
Service
Project Title: Solutions to Environmental and Economic Problems
(STEEP) (OR, ID, WA)
Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon State University,
College of Agricultural Sciences, 138 Strand Hall, Corvallis, OR 97731
Project Location: Oregon, Idaho, and Washington
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $444,000 for Solutions
to Environmental and Economic Problems (STEEP). Oregon State University
has confirmed in their justification that the appropriated funds for
this project will be used for this program which provides a base for an
agricultural research and extension education partnership to address
production and environmental issues in cereal cropping systems
throughout the Pacific Northwest. The partnership with producers,
industry, USDA-ARS, NRCS, conservation districts, and university
research and extension personnel enhances programs on: conservation of
soil quality; evaluation of reduced pesticide use and other
alternatives for crop protection; management options that substitute
for residue requirements in farm plans; and on-farm testing. General
program objectives are: determining impact of farming practices on
soil, water, and air quality; improving profitability of conservation
farming systems; facilitating production of biofuels, increasing carbon
sequestration and reducing greenhouse gases; developing crop varieties
better suited to planting in conservation farming systems; identifying
alternative crops for conservation farming systems in the PNW;
increasing the no-till acreage in the PNW; and accelerating adoption of
profitable conservation farming systems.
Account: Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; Operations, Research and Facilities
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Oregon State University
Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon State University, Attn: Larry
Curtis, Associate Dean, 138 Strand Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331,
Project Location: Corvallis, Oregon
Rep. Walden Statement for the Congressional Record H.R. 1105, April
2, 2009--Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $640,000 to
research management actions to reduce disease (ceratomyxosis) in
juvenile salmon in the Klamath River. Research will be conducted
through controlled laboratory and field experiments. OSU has stated
that all of the appropriated funds will go toward project coordination,
laboratory and field studies, field assistance, and website development
for information dissemination.
Account: Department of Justice; COPS; Law Enforcement Technology
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Medford, Oregon
Address of Requesting Entity: City of Medford, Attn: Bill Hoke, Dpty.
City Manager 411 West 8th Street, Medford, Oregon
Project Location: Medford, Oregon
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $700,000 for the
Jackson County, Oregon Consolidated 911 Dispatch Center. The project
will consolidated Jackson County, Oregon's two existing 911/emergency
dispatch centers into one facility which will improve coordination and
interoperability among emergency response agencies, improve call
processing times and decrease response times. The City of Medford has
stated that the appropriated funds will go toward the purchase of
dispatch consoles, computer equipment and software, costs associated
with connectivity of current communications tower and new facility.
Account: Department of Justice; Office of Justice Programs; Byrne
Discretionary Grants. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Oregon Health
and Science University Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon Health and
Science University, 3181 Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR 97239
Project Location: Portland, Oregon
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $200,000 to the
Multidisciplinary Institute for Neuropsychiatric Diagnosis to develop
evidence-based medical diagnosis and treatment for psychiatric
disorders that may be triggered by use of methamphetamine. OHSU has
stated that all of the appropriated funds will go toward salary for MD
and PhD scientists, research equipment and the salary for a clinical
coordinator.
Account: Department of Justice; OJP; Byrne Discretionary Grants
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Oregon Health and Sciences
University
Address of Requesting Entity: Wasco County, Oregon, Attn: Steve
Conover, Wasco Co Sheriffs Dpt. 511 Washington, Ste 102, The Dalles,
Oregon
Project Location: Portland, Oregon
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $300,000 for the Wasco
County, Oregon Interoperability 911 Center. The project will relocate
the County's Emergency Operations Center and equip it with hardware
that will provide additional data capacity and communications equipment
that meets interoperability requirements of local, state and federal
agencies. Wasco County, Oregon has stated that the appropriated funds
will go toward relocation costs and the purchase of emergency
communications equipment.
Account: EPA--STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project
Project Name: Milton-Freewater Stormwater Treatment Plant
Construction Project
Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity:
Umatilla County, Oregon Attn: Hulette M. Johnson, 216 SE 4th Street,
Pendleton, OR 97801

[[Page 10011]]

Project Location: The City of Milton-Freewater, Oregon
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $300,000 for the
Milton-Freewater for Stormwater Treatment Plant Construction Project to
be located in Milton-Freewater, Oregon. Umatilla County has confirmed
in their justification that the appropriated funds for this project
will be used by the City of Milton-Freewater to assist in development
of storm water treatment system which will result in increased clean
drinking water for the local community. Funds provided will enable the
community to construct a holding pond to catch silt-laden storm and
winter water run off which currently clogs the drainage system and
deposits silt into drinking water wells.
Account: US Forest Service--Land Acquisition
Project Name: Columbia River Gorge Land Acquisition
Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Columbia River Gorge
Commission, Attn: Jill Arens, Executive Director, 1 Town & Country
Square, 57 NE Wauna Avenue, White Salmon, WA 98672
Project Location: Columbia River Gorge, Oregon and Washington
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $2 million for
Columbia River Gorge Land Acquisitions in Oregon and Washington. The
Columbia River Gorge Commission has confirmed in their justification
that the appropriated funds for this project will be used by the U.S.
Forest Service (USFS) to purchase those remaining parcels of land with
signed options that were offered by landowners by March of 2004 under
Section 8(o) of the National Scenic Area Act but never acquired by the
USFS. The purchase of these remaining properties would finally fulfill
the federal government's commitment to these individuals.
Account: Corps of Engineers Construction
Project Name: Columbia River Channel Improvements, OR and WA
Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Columbia River Channel
Coalition, Attn: Dave Hunt, Executive Director, PO Box 903, Clackamas,
OR 97015
Project Location: Columbia River in Oregon and Washington
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $34.451 million for
the Columbia River Channel Improvements, OR and WA. The Columbia River
Channel Coalition has confirmed in their justification that the
appropriated funds for this project, which were also included in the
President's FY 2009 budget, will be used by the Corps to complete all
of the dredging and environmental features of the Columbia River deep-
draft navigation channel to a new depth of 43-feet. The channel
deepening is economically vital to the Nation and to the Pacific
Northwest because each year, $16 billion in exports and imports are
transported via the Columbia River.
Account: Corps of Engineers--Construction
Project Name: Columbia River Treaty Fishing Access Sites, OR and WA
Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Confederated Tribes of
the Umatilla Indian Reservation, PO Box 638, Pendleton, OR 97801
Project Location: Celilo Village in Oregon and other sites along the
Columbia River, OR and WA
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $5.125 million for the
Columbia River Treaty Fishing Access Sites, OR and WA. Confederated
Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation has confirmed in their
justification that the appropriated funds for this project will be used
to complete the Celilo Village Redevelopment Columbia River Treaty
Fishing Access Site construction by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The President's FY 2009 budget also included funds to complete this
project. This site is likely the single most prominent Native American
site along the Lewis and Clark Trail, and the present day Village
denotes an important and significant way-point for Lewis and Clark
among the large Native American fishing and trading community at Celilo
on the banks of the Columbia River.
Account: Department of Energy--EERE
Project Name: Columbia Gorge Community College Wind Energy Workforce
Training Nacelle
Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Columbia Gorge Community
College Attn: Dan Spatz, Chief of Institutional Advancement, 400 East
Scenic Drive, The Dalles, OR 97058
Project Location: The City of The Dalles, Oregon
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $237,875 for the
Columbia Gorge Community College Wind Energy Workforce Training
Nacelle. Columbia Gorge Community College has confirmed in their
justification that the appropriated funds for this project will be used
to acquire and place a wind turbine nacelle on its campus to provide
hands-on, real-world training to complement the classroom and shop
training currently offered by the community college. In 2007, Columbia
Gorge Community College established the first program of its kind on
the West Coast for wind turbine technician training.
Account: Department of Energy--EERE
Project Name: Geothermal Power Generation Plant (OR)
Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon Institute of
Technology, Attn: John Lund, Director of the Geo-Heat Center 3201
Campus Drive, Klamath Falls, OR 97601
Project Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $1,522,400 for the
Geothermal Power Generation Plant at Oregon Institute of Technology.
Oregon Institute of Technology has confirmed in their justification
that the appropriated funds for this project will be used to help
construct a high-temperature geothermal power plant on the Oregon
Institute of Technology campus. The plant would provide 100% of the
electricity demand on campus and would be the first geothermal power
plant in Oregon.
Account: Department of Energy--EERE
Project Name: Wave Energy Research and Demonstration Center (OR)
Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon State University,
Attn: Annette von Jouanne, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science,
3027 Kelley Engineering Center, Corvallis, OR 97331
Project Location: Corvallis, Oregon and near the City of Newport,
Oregon
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $2,331,180 for the
Wave Energy Research and Demonstration Center to be co-located in
Corvallis, Oregon at Oregon State University and near the City of
Newport, Oregon. Oregon State University has confirmed in their
justification that the appropriated funds for this project will be used
to establish the National Wave Energy Center, which will provide an in-
water infrastructure of up to five test berths approximately two miles
offshore that will be available to industry and public entities to test
wave energy generation devices. Research will emphasize developing high
quality wave energy generation systems that are efficient, durable in
hazardous ocean conditions, reliable and easily maintained.
Account: Corps of Engineers--Investigations
Project Name: Walla Walla River Watershed OR and WA
Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Confederated Tribes of
the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Attn: Rick George, Manager, PO Box
638, Pendleton, OR 97801
Project Location: Walla Walla River Watershed located in Oregon and
Washington
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $295,000 for the Walla
Walla River Watershed Investigations in Oregon and Washington. The
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation has confirmed in
their justification that the appropriated funds for this project will
be used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to initiate the
Preconstruction Engineering and Design phase of the Walla Walla River
Basin project based on the findings and recommendations of a
Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement.
Account: Bureau of Reclamation--Water and Related Resources
Project Name: Burnt, Malheur, Owyhee, and Powder River Basin Water
Opt. Feas. Study
Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Powder Basin Water and
Stream Health Committee, Attn: Peggy S. Browne--Coordinator, 1995 3rd
Street, Baker City, OR 97814
Project Location: Baker and Union Counties, Oregon
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $145,000 for the
Burnt, Malheur, Owyhee, and Powder River Basin Water Optimization and
Feasibility Study. Powder Basin Water and Stream Health Committee has
confirmed in their justification that the appropriated funds for this
project will be spent on a feasibility study for the project to address
the socio-economic, cultural, and environmental criteria of specific
water storage sites in the Powder Basin. Funding authorization for this
project ``appropriated such sums as are necessary'' in the Burnt,
Malheur, Owyhee, and Powder River Basin Water Optimization Feasibility
Study Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-237). The project will ultimately benefit
fish and aquatic ecosystems, wildlife and terrestrial ecosystems,
agriculture, energy and municipalities in the Powder River Basin.
Account: Bureau of Reclamation--Water and Related Resources
Project Name: Deschutes Project (Water conservation)
Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Deschutes Basin Board of
Control, Attn: Steve Johnson, Chairman, 1055 SW Lake Court, Redmond, OR
97756
Project Location: Deschutes Basin, Oregon
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $350,000 for Water
Conservation in

[[Page 10012]]

the Deschutes Project. Deschutes Basin Board of Control has confirmed
in their justification that the appropriated funds for this project
will be used by the Deschutes Basin Board of Control, which consists of
the seven primary irrigation districts in Central Oregon, to pursue
water conservation, piping, lining and efficiency projects that will
improve irrigation efficiencies, and result in increased in-stream
flows benefiting federally listed steelhead and bull trout in the
Deschutes and Crooked Rivers and their tributaries.
Account: Bureau of Reclamation--Water and Related Resources
Project Name: Savage Rapids Dam Removal
Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Grants Pass Irrigation
District, Attn: Dan Shepard, Manager, 200 Fruitdale Drive, Grants Pass,
OR 97527
Project Location: Savage Rapids Dam on the Rogue River in Oregon.
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $3 million to the
Bureau of Reclamation for the Savage Rapids Dam Removal project. Grants
Pass Irrigation District has confirmed in their justification that the
appropriated funds for this project will be used to finalize
construction of the Savage Rapids Pumping Plant located in the Rogue
River Basin in Oregon, authorized by P.L. 108-137.
Account: Small Business Administration
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: University of Oregon
Address of Requesting Entity: University of Oregon, 203 Johnson Hall,
Eugene, OR 97403
Description of Project: The University of Oregon confirms that this
funding will be used for the University of Oregon Integrative Science
Complex Phase II. This funding will be used for systems (e.g. oversize
freight elevator, crane system, and/or connections to adjacent
buildings) to ensure delivery of major scientific equipment to all
levels of the building. In order to carry out the previously stated
objectives, the University of Oregon has provided the following budget
and funding breakdown for the $100,000 provided for the project in H.R.
1105: to build a permanent crane system to move high tech
instrumentation between laboratories (budget is based on a crane system
serving five levels)--$45,000 for a crane and hoist, $40,000 for gates/
landings on 4 levels, and $15,000 for design, permits, etc.
Account: Interstate Maintenance Discretionary
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Oregon Department of Transportation
Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon Department of Transportation,
355 Capitol Street NE, Room 135, Salem, OR 97301
Description of Project: The Oregon Department of Transportation
confirms that it will use this funding to provide a separate lane for
trucks to climb the Three Mile Hill section of I-84 near the City of
Ontario in Malheur County, Oregon. In order to carry out the previously
stated objective, the Oregon Department of Transportation has provided
the following budget and funding breakdown for the $475,000 provided
for the project in H.R. 1105: the $475,000 will supplement the funding
currently dedicated to the project and complete the funding necessary
to build the truck lane.
Account: Transportation, Community, and System Preservation
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Deschutes County, Oregon
Address of Requesting Entity: Deschutes County, Oregon, 61150 SE 27th
Street, Bend, Oregon 97702
Description of Project: Deschutes County, Oregon confirms that it
will use this funding for the 19th Street Extension from Redmond to
Deschutes Junction. This funding will be used to construct six miles of
new road to provide improved access to the Redmond Airport, Deschutes
County Fair and Expo Center, and the rapidly growing southeast side of
Redmond. In order to carry out the previously stated objectives,
Deschutes County has provided the following budget and funding
breakdown for the $570,000 provided for the project in H.R. 1105:
$570,000 for preliminary engineering and possibly right of way
acquisition.
Account: Transportation, Community, and System Preservation
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Oregon Department of Transportation
Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon Department of Transportation,
355 Capitol Street NE, Room 135, Salem, OR 97301
Description of Project: The Oregon Department of Transportation
confirms that it will use this funding for Highway 140 Freight
Improvements. This will realign the intersection of Kirtland and
Blackwell roads in Jackson County, Oregon so through traffic does not
have to stop. In order to carry out the previously stated objectives,
the Oregon Department of Transportation has provided the following
budget and funding breakdown for the $95,000 provided for the project
in H.R. 1105: $95,000 to complete the funding necessary to build the
realignment.
Account: Economic Development Initiatives
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Hermiston, Oregon
Address of Requesting Entity: Attn: Mayor Robert E. Severson, City of
Hermiston 180 NE 2nd Street, Hermiston, Oregon 97838
Description of Project: The City of Hermiston confirms that it will
use this funding for the Northeastern Oregon Business and Economic
Growth Project's Eastern Oregon Regional University Center in
Hermiston, Oregon, to construct a learning center to accommodate 500
students and provide them courses in business, technology, science,
nursing, and other allied health professions, education, and the
liberal arts taught by faculty from Eastern Oregon University and Blue
Mountain Community College. In order to carry out the previously stated
objectives, the City of Hermiston has provided the following budget and
funding breakdown for the $142,500 provided for the project in H.R.
1105: $142,500 will go towards construction of the learning center.
Account: Department of Education; Higher Education
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Oregon Institute of Technology
Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon Institute of Technology, Attn:
Michael Kirshner, Center for Health Professions, 3201 Campus Drive,
Klamath Falls, OR 97601
Project Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $285,000 for the OIT
Center for Health Professions Health Informatics Simulation Lab to
purchase software and equipment to administer real-life training for
clinical information management, electronic medical records storage/
maintenance/use, picture archiving communication systems and laboratory
information systems. Students will receive hands-on experience with
sophisticated technology for careers in health professions. OIT has
stated that all of the appropriated funds will go toward equipment
purchase.
Account: Department of Education; Higher Education
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Portland State University
Address of Requesting Entity: Portland State University, Attn: Dr.
Lindsay Desrochers, VP of Finance and Administration, PO Box 751,
Portland, OR 97201
Project Location: Portland, Oregon
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $333,000 for the
establishment of the PSU Science Research and Teaching Center that will
focus on ways to improve science education at the university and K-12
level and will be a site for continuing education programs for K-12
science teachers. PSU has stated that all of the appropriated funds
will go toward lab and research equipment purchase.
Account: Department of Health and Human Services; Administration on
Children and Families; Social Services
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Deschutes County, Oregon
Address of Requesting Entity: Deschutes County, Oregon, Attn: Hilary
Saraceno, Director, Commission on Children and Families 1300 NW Wall
St, Suite, 200, Bend, OR 97701
Project Location: Bend, Oregon
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $238,000 to expand the
reach of the Family Access Network to connect 4,250 additional children
and their family members with support services including counseling,
clothing and food assistance, medication, after-school programs and
shelter. Deschutes County, Oregon has stated that the appropriated
funds will go toward program administration and service coordinator
salaries.
Account: Department of Health and Human Services; Health Resources
and Services Administration; Health Facilities and Services
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Hood River County, Oregon
Address of Requesting Entity: Hood River County, Oregon, Attn: David
Meriwether, County Administrator, 601 State Street Hood River, OR 97031
Project Location: Cascade Locks, Oregon
Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $143,000 for
development of an integrated health care facility to provide basic
medical, public health, mental health, dental and pharmaceutical
services to the community of Cascade Locks, Oregon and adjacent
community of Stevenson, Washington which currently have no such
services. Health care services will be delivered through collaboration
between Hood River County, Oregon and three non-profit health care
providers. Hood River County, Oregon has stated that all of the
appropriated funds will go towards making site improvements and utility
upgrades to the property where the facility will be built.

[[Page 10013]]

____________________

THE CHILD HEALTHCARE CRISIS RELIEF ACT

______

HON. PATRICK J. KENNEDY

of rhode island

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Child
Healthcare Crisis Relief Act. This legislation addresses the critical
mental health needs of our children, and shortage of providers
available to meet those needs.
In 1999, then Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher noted the crisis
faced by our Nation's children who suffer from mental illness.
According to this report, one out of every five children in America
suffers from a diagnosable mental disorder, yet only one-third of them
receive mental healthcare treatment. Part of the reason for this
alarming statistic is that mental health services specific to children
are in very short supply.
That is why today Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and I are
introducing the Child Healthcare Crisis Relief Act. This is a bill
designed to help alleviate the scarcity of mental health services for
our Nation's youth by providing incentives for mental healthcare
workers to specialize in the treatment of children and adolescents.
The Child Healthcare Crisis Relief Act creates incentives to help
recruit and retain child mental health professionals providing direct
clinical care, and to improve, expand, or help create programs to train
child mental health professionals by establishing:
Loan repayment and scholarships for child mental health and school-
based service professionals to help pay back educational loans;
Grants to graduate schools to provide for internships and field
placements in child mental health services;
Grants to help with pre-service and in-service training of
paraprofessionals who work in clinical mental health settings for
children; and
Grants to graduate schools to help develop and expand child and
adolescent mental health programs.
This bill also allows for an increase in the number of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatrists under the Medicare Graduate Medical Education
Program and extends the board eligibility period for residents and
fellows from four years to six years.
The Child Healthcare Crisis Relief Act is not only about providing
incentives for health care workers, it is also a bill about expanding
treatment options for children in need. Expanding treatment options
expands the opportunities for children with mental health concerns and
allows them to grow and become happy and productive members of our
society.
The hope and the potential for endless possibilities that we, as a
people. attribute to children are diminished with each child who
struggles with mental illness and who does not receive adequate
treatment. I, therefore, ask my colleagues to lend their support for my
Child Healthcare Crisis Relief Act.

____________________

FAMILY SMOKING PREVENTION AND TOBACCO CONTROL ACT

______

HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1256, the
``Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.''
This bill will provide the FDA with the authority to restrict the
marketing and sale of tobacco products, prohibit false or misleading
product claims, and establish tougher tobacco product standards to
better protect the public health. It also requires premarket approval
of all new tobacco products and sets forth new, stronger standards for
warning labels.
Although we've known about the dangers of tobacco use for decades,
smoking remains alarmingly common among our Nation's youth. Every day
1,000 youths become regular, daily smokers, and almost 80 percent of
new tobacco product users were underage when they started smoking.
Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in our country and,
according to the Institute of Medicine, accounts for more deaths than
AIDS, alcohol, cocaine, heroin, homicide, suicide, motor vehicle
crashes, and fires combined. Furthermore, the Center for Disease
Control and Prevention estimates that cigarette smoking costs over $193
billion per year in health care costs and lost productivity.
We cannot allow tobacco companies to continue to engage in
underhanded product design, marketing, and sales tactics directed
toward our children. Stemming the tide of underage smoking will improve
our public health, lower our Nation's health care spending, and cut
down on preventable deaths. This bill is a significant step forward in
the fight against underage smoking, and I urge all of my colleagues to
join me in voting for the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control
Act.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. MIKE ROSS

of arkansas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. ROSS. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, March 31, 2009, I was not
present for rollcall vote 170.
Had I been present for rollcall 170, H.R. 577, the Vision Care for
Kids Act of 2009, I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________

IN HONOR OF TEMPIE LYNN ARMSTRONG PATRIOT AND VETERANS' ADVOCATE

______

HON. JOE SESTAK

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor an exceptional
American, Ms. Tempie Lynn Armstrong, who suddenly passed from us on
January 27, 2009.
Born February 22, 1967 to Paul and Sara Jane Armstrong as their
youngest of 5 children, she was raised with her sisters Patricia, and
Jeanie and brothers David and Paul in Wagontown, Pa. Tempie and her
siblings were very close and loved each other dearly. Her relationship
with Jeanie was the closest of all. There were so inseparable, they
were frequently considered to be twins. Each was always there for the
other through good times and bad. Their lives traveled parallel paths
and their love for one another is eternal.
Tempie also had great affection for, and took enormous pride in, her
nephews and nieces, Bryan, Paul Jr, Michael, Amanda and Emily. Her
relationship with each was loving and unique. However, as Tempie,
Jeanie, Donald and Bryan all shared the same home she had a special
relationship with Bryan and was always certain that he would be grow to
become a truly great man.
A 1985 graduate of Coatesville Area High School, Tempie was a very
good student. While in high school, she entered into a work study
program at Coatesville Veterans Administration Medical Center (VAMC).
Immediately, she knew that she wanted a career in the Veterans
Administration helping those extraordinary men and women in their time
of need. She fulfilled that ambition and in twenty-five years of
honorable service with our government, she proudly served thousands of
hospitalized veterans and their families. Her colleagues would often
hear Tempie cheering up Veterans by joking with them about her cats
``Phil and Lil'', and her dogs ``Bear, Maggie, and Rupert''. Her love
of animals was just behind that of her family `her Vets'.
For the past seventeen years, she served as the Administrative
Support Assistant for the Coatesville VAMC Community and Congressional
Affairs office. In that capacity she worked very closely with her
supervisor and true friend, Andy Pahountis. The two of them fought
tirelessly to meet the daily needs of our nation's Veterans. In
addition to their considerable responsibilities at the medical center
they also created a superior outreach program to make the public aware
of the worthy mission and noble patients of Coatesville VAMC. The love
and respect they had for each other was unsurpassed. Tempie was also a
close friend to Andy's wife, Carole and considered part of the family
by Andy's children Leah and Gregory. Together they spent countless
hours at the beach along with Andy's Labrador retrievers Maddie and
Lexy. Their friendship will never be forgotten and always treasured.
For the past eight years she was the hub of the Coatesville VAMC
community. Her relationships with her friends and co-workers, Jack,
John, Jeff, Judi, Wayne, and many others were founded on mutual respect
and affection. She worked very closely with Congressional Offices in
Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware as well as dozens of Veteran
Service Organizations. Everyone who worked with Tempie knew they could
depend on her.
Madam Speaker, tragically and unexpectedly, Tempie Lynn Armstrong
died recently during surgery for a cardiac condition. When she passed
there was great sorrow throughout the proud Coatesville VAMC and among
thousands of patients past and present. There, life

[[Page 10014]]

without Tempie will never be the same. I ask that this chamber pause
and join Veterans and their families everywhere in acknowledging the
many contributions made by Tempie Armstrong to her family and friends,
our Veterans and our nation. We have lost a great American.

____________________

WILLARD V. MEYER

______

HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Pastor Willard V.
Meyer of Zion Lutheran Church in Bethalto. Pastor Meyer is retiring
after 40 years of ministry. Thirty years of his ministry has been
served at Zion Lutheran Church.
Pastor Meyer started his service at Zion Lutheran Chuch as the Youth
Minister and later became the Senior Minister. Pastor Meyer, and his
wife Stephanie, are well loved by their congregation and his service
will be missed.
As the chuch is celebrating their sesquicentennial this year, Pastor
Meyer was quoted in The Telegraph saying,--``Although many,
significant, and profound changes have taken place at Zion over these
150 years, what has been constant and unchanging are the proclamation
of the good news of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and the
ministry of sharing that love of Christ throughout the community and
the world.'' Pastor Meyer's remarks could have well been said about his
own ministry, constantly proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ.
Pastor Meyer's words also bring to mind Colossians 3:23-24, ``And
whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;
Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the
inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.'' For the last 40 years,
this could be said of Pastor Meyer's ministry as well.
I praise God for Pastor Meyers 40 years of service to Him. I extend
my best wishes to Pastor Meyer for an enjoyable retirement celebration
on April 19, 2009. May God richly bless him and his family in the years
to come.

____________________

IN HONOR OF THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE PSI GAMMA CHAPTER OF THE OMEGA
PSI PHI FRATERNITY, INC. OF KENT STATE UNIVERSITY IN KENT, OHIO

______

HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of
the 40th Anniversary of the Psi Gamma Chapter of the Omega Psi Phi
Fraternity, Incorporated, a proud heritage reflecting four decades of
leadership, service, unity, academic achievement and pride.
In March of 1968, the first young men were initiated into the Omega
Psi Phi Fraternity at Kent State University. On April 1, 1969, the Psi
Gamma Chapter was chartered at Kent State University. The '68 founding
line, the Devine 9, built a foundation of brotherhood and social
action, taking up the torch that their brothers carried before them. In
1969, the Defiant 9 were the first bloodline to form at Psi Gamma
Chapter at Kent State University, living up to their name as leaders in
defiance of social injustice, ignorance and racism, and champions of
the Four Cardinal Principals: Manhood, Scholarship, Uplift and
Perseverance.
The Omega Psi Phi Fraternity of Kent State University collectively
stands on the courageous shoulders of the young men of Howard
University in Washington, DC, where the first young black men united in
brotherhood and in their universal goal of advancement, civil rights
and opportunity for all.
Madam Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition
of every member and leader of the Psi Gamma Chapter of the Omega Psi
Phi Fraternity at Kent State University, as we join them in celebrating
forty years of young black men in brotherhood, service to others and
action for the cause of civil rights. The young black men of Psi Gamma
Chapter, and the young black men of black fraternities across the
country, were a critical influence in the changing course of race in
America--and continue to serve as a force of advancement, hope and
change--one young man, one chapter at a time. This brotherhood,
fortified with an education and unified agenda proudly raised the torch
of freedom and the hope for justice and liberty for all, paving the way
for civil and human rights and changing the social landscape of our
nation forever--from the Psi Gamma Chapter House of Kent State
University, to the White House of Washington, DC.

____________________

HONORING MARY BARCIKOWSKI

______

HON. C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER

of maryland

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Madam Speaker, I rise before you today to honor
Mrs. Mary Barcikowski, recently awarded the 2008 Congressional
Volunteer Recognition Award by the 2nd Congressional District of
Maryland's Veterans Advisory Council. Mary has been selected to receive
this award because of her volunteer service at the VA, based on her
outstanding dedication to serving the needs of veterans within her
community.
Veterans of the United States Armed Forces have dedicated themselves
to protecting the lives of every American. Their service to our Nation
deserves the highest level of gratitude. It is of the utmost importance
that we take the time to recognize the individuals who give of their
time and talents to support veterans and ensure their comfort, care,
and well-being.
Mrs. Barcikowski is the Business Manager of Public and Community
Relations at the Baltimore VA Rehabilitation and Extended Care Center
(BRECC). Throughout her years of service as an employee of the VA, she
has served as the Coordinator of Voluntary Services at the BRECC, and
has been employed at Perry Point VA Medical Center. Despite obligations
to her family and her ailing father, Mary has given time and money to
support veterans on several occasions.
Madam Speaker, I ask that you join with me today to honor Mrs. Mary
Barcikowski. Her compassion and dedication to veterans of the U.S.
Armed Forces has become an inspiration to us all, and is deserving of
the utmost gratitude. It is with great pride that I congratulate Mary
on her exemplary service as an advocate and a volunteer.

____________________

CONGRATULATING BOONE COUNTY ON THE OPENING OF A NEW JAIL AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT FACILITY

_____

HON. JOHN BOOZMAN

of arkansas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate the citizens of
Boone County, Arkansas on the opening of a new Jail and Law Enforcement
Facility.
As Boone County has grown over the decades, the need for a modern
jail and law enforcement facility became apparent. Ground was broken
for this 27,000 square-foot building in August 2007, and less than 2
years later we have an excellent facility that will help us in the
fight to keep the county safe. The people of Boone County should be
proud of their new facility.
Thanks is due to my friends Sheriff Danny Hickman and Judge Mike
Moore for their leadership, and to the Quorum Court and other elected
officials for their hard work. Also, a local \1/4\ cent sales tax
increase was passed to fund construction of this facility, so it is
proper to acknowledge that the taxpayers are truly the ones who have
enabled the construction of this facility.
We all know and understand that law enforcement is vital to keeping
our homes secure, our streets safe, and communities prosperous. This
new facility would not have been built without the efforts of everyone
working together, and they have my congratulations.

____________________

HONORING SUSAN KERN

_____

HON. C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER

of maryland

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Madam Speaker, I rise before you today to honor
Mrs. Susan Kern, recently awarded the 2008 Congressional Volunteer
Recognition Award by the 2nd Congressional District of Maryland's
Veterans Advisory Council. Susan has been selected to receive this
award because of her volunteer service at the VA, based on her
outstanding dedication to serving the needs of veterans within her
community.
Veterans of the United States Armed Forces have dedicated themselves
to protecting the lives of every American. Their service to our

[[Page 10015]]

Nation deserves the highest level of gratitude. It is of the utmost
importance that we take the time to recognize the individuals who give
of their time and talents to support veterans and ensure their comfort,
care, and well-being.
Mrs. Kern is the Program Manager for Voluntary Services at the
Baltimore VA Rehabilitation and Extended Care Center. Throughout her
years of service as an employee of the VA, she has consistently gone
out of her way to become an advocate for veterans. She has traveled to
various events to speak on behalf of veterans, and has arranged extra
times for volunteers to get identification badges. Volunteers must go
through a certification process including an exam in order to give of
their time. Susan has gone out of her way to make sure every volunteer
has the opportunity to take the exam at a convenient time. Because of
her commitment, more people are able to become volunteers at the VA.
Despite having a family and many personal obligations, Mrs. Kern does
most of these activities outside of work, on her own time.
Madam Speaker, I ask that you join with me today to honor Mrs. Susan
Kern. Her compassion and dedication to veterans of the U.S. Armed
Forces has become an inspiration to us all, and is deserving of the
utmost gratitude. It is with great pride that I congratulate Mrs. Kern
on her exemplary service as an advocate and a volunteer.

____________________

IN REMEMBRANCE OF VIJAYA EMANI

______

HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Vijaya
Emani, a profoundly respected and well known leader throughout
Northeast Ohio for her work promoting peace, her work with Cleveland's
Asian-Indian American community and for working to bring Cleveland's
many international communities together.
Vijaya was killed in a tragic accident on the Ohio Turnpike on
January 15, 2009, at the age of 51. On that morning Vijaya was on her
way to work at Kent State University when she stopped to help crash
victims along an icy stretch of the turnpike. She is being honored by
the Cleveland Cultural Gardens Federation on April 14 at its Annual
Spring Dinner at Karlin Hall in Cleveland's Slavic Village.
Vijaya was an active member of the Asian-Indian community of Greater
Cleveland and served at the President of the Federation of Indian
Community Associations in Cleveland. Due to her leadership, India is
now among the many international countries represented in the Cleveland
Cultural Gardens in Rockefeller Park. The Cleveland Cultural Gardens is
an internationally known site which serves to represent the numerous
diverse ethnic groups which continue to make Cleveland and the United
States into the diverse, egalitarian, and pluralistic society we enjoy.
Prior to Vijaya's involvement, representation at the Cleveland Cultural
Gardens was mainly European; however, following the dedication of the
India Cultural Garden, we celebrated the opening of the African-
American and Azerbaijani gardens and plans are now underway for Native
American, Hispanic, Syrian, Philippine, and Vietnamese gardens.
The India Cultural Garden is also significant for the giant statue of
Mohandas K. Gandhi for which Vijaya worked to raise money for. She was
a tireless advocate for peace, a Hindu, and a follower of the teachings
of Gandhi. She was instrumental in bringing in Mahatma Gandhi's
grandson Rajmohan Gandhi, to speak at One World Day at Rockefeller Park
last year. Another aspect of Vijaya's quest for world peace was her
participation in Toastmasters International. She appreciated
Toastmasters founder Ralph Smedley's belief that if people could
communicate better with one another, they could break barriers to
peace. Vijaya was an active member of the Crossroads Toastmasters club
in Strongsville and Toastmasters District 10 in Northern Ohio. She
received the one of the highest honors last year when she received the
Advanced Communicator Silver award by the Toastmasters International.
Vijaya used her communication skills to advocate peace not only among
nations, but among families. She bravely broke her own silence about
domestic violence, which even today is not widely discussed among
immigrant families. After her own experience, she counseled other
immigrant wives and girlfriends trapped in abusive relationships. She
brought together fellow community activists in Cleveland's
international community to form a coalition to confront domestic
violence in immigrant communities.
Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in remembrance of one of
Cleveland's great champions of peace, Vijaya Emani. She developed her
skills as a communicator and community organizer to bring peace in the
home and peace in the world. The Greater Cleveland community will
surely miss the presence of Vijaya at community events, but the passion
and commitment she brought to everything she did will never be
forgotten. Our condolences go out to her daughters Sujata and Nirmala,
and her extended network of family and friends around the world.

____________________

INTRODUCING THE INACTIVE ACCOUNT CLOSURE NOTIFICATION ACT

______

HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce
the Inactive Account Closure Notification Act, which protects consumers
from having their credit cards closed and their credit scores lowered
against their will.
Under current law, credit card companies can close an inactive
account without providing any prior notification to the customer.
Often, the customer does not know his or her credit card account is
being closed until after the fact.
Because of the way credit scores are calculated, unilateral account
closures can lower the credit scores of consumers.
In addition, because credit card companies are only closing inactive
accounts that do not carry a balance and do not incur fees or finance
charges, the consumers that are seeing their credit scores penalized
are likely to be the most responsible borrowers.
Just the other day, I heard from a woman in my district who recently
had her credit card terminated for inactivity.
She had never missed a payment on her card and had excellent credit
prior to her account being closed.
Her credit card company gave her no early warning that it was
planning to terminate her account.
Had she received notification that the company was planning to close
her account due to inactivity, she would have been more than happy to
use the card again.
She even called the company to see if it would be willing to reopen
her account if she used her card, but was told no.
These stories are not unique to my home district of San Diego.
Consumers all over the country are going through the same exact
experience.
I request permission to enter into the Record an article from the
Wall Street Journal from March 11 of this year detailing the havoc
these account closures are wreaking on the credit scores of consumers
across our nation.
The bill I am introducing today--the Inactive Account Closure
Notification Act--will protect consumers by requiring credit card
companies to provide customers with a 60-day notification before they
can close their accounts for inactivity.
During this 60-day period, customers can use their credit cards to
prevent their accounts from being closed.
If an account has been closed for inactivity, a customer will still
have 30 days to contact the credit card company requesting that his or
her account be reopened.
With lenders dramatically tightening their standards in the current
economic climate, even a small dent in a consumer's credit score can
severely impact his or her ability to take out a mortgage, start a
small business, buy a car, or pay for college.
Responsible consumers deserve to have advance warning that their
credit cards will be closed and their credit scores will be lowered.
Help me protect our consumers.
I urge the adoption of the Inactive Account Closure Notification Act
and yield back my time.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 11, 2009]

Credit Card Issuers: Buy Something or Else!

(By Kelli B. Grant)

One of the biggest causes of the financial crisis was that
Americans were borrowing (and spending) more money than they
could afford to pay back.
So how are credit-card issuers reacting to consumers'
attempts to live a more financially responsible lifestyle?
They're threatening to cut their credit cards off if they
don't spend enough.
Loretta Maxwell of Troy, Mich., thought her credit score of
790 buffered her against most of the fallout of the credit
crunch. When Chase closed her $6,000-limit card in December
without warning after two years of inactivity, she called to
fight it. She was

[[Page 10016]]

unsuccessful. ``If you're not using it, they entice you to do
so, and then the moment you don't spend enough, they cut your
limit,'' she says. (Chase says it is standard practice is to
review inactive accounts. ``Inactive cards with large open
credit lines present a real risk of fraudulent use and large
potential liabilities for Chase,'' says spokeswoman Stephanie
Jacobson.)
Maxwell's experience is far from an isolated incident. Most
major issuers, including Chase, Bank of America, American
Express and Citibank have been slashing credit lines and
closing the accounts of those who don't spend on their card
regularly. While these issuers are required to notify you in
writing of an account closing, there's no requirement that
they do so in advance. Even when they do give early notice,
the only way a cardholder can stop their account from getting
shut down is to start spending again.
In December, Discover reported that it closed three million
accounts during 2008 due to inactivity, and plans to cull up
to two million more. A Discover spokeswoman says the issuer
is constantly reevaluating cardholder's credit and assessing
whether they have the most appropriate credit line and
product. Capital One is suspending accounts that have been
inactive for at least a year, warning account holders they
only have 60 days to redeem their rewards. ``Some of these
accounts had literally never been used,'' says spokeswoman
Pamela Girardo. A spokeswoman for Bank of America, meanwhile,
says the bad economy prompted it to close accounts with zero
balances that have been inactive for more than a year.
American Express spokeswoman Lisa Gonzalez says it
periodically reviews inactive accounts for cancellation.
Citibank did not respond to requests for comment.
From a business perspective, cutting off certain customers
is a smart financial move, says Sanjay Sakhrani, an analyst
with investment bank Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. Closing rarely-
used accounts lowers a card issuer's risk profile by keeping
their potential liabilities (i.e., the amount of credit
available they extend to cardholders) from outweighing their
assets. Inactive accounts also cost the issuer money to
maintain, without providing the benefit of income from
interest or merchant fees, he says.
For consumers, however, closing accounts can be
devastating--especially to their credit score. Your credit
utilization ratio--the amount of your debt in relation to the
amount of your available credit--comprises 30% of your score,
says Craig Watts, a spokesman for Fair Isaac Corporation, the
company that calculates and issues the FICO credit score that
most lenders use. So when an account is closed, you have less
credit available to you--and the ratio immediately jumps
higher. A person with a solid credit score of 720 or so,
whose utilization ratio jumps from 35% to 75% after one of
their accounts is closed is likely to see their score drop by
``several dozen points,'' to somewhere in the 600s, he says.
That's a far cry from the 760 (or higher) consumers need to
get the best rates from lenders.
One thing that somewhat softens the blow is that FICO
factors in closed accounts when calculating the longevity of
your credit history, which accounts for 15% of your score.
While lenders may make a note on your report indicating
whether the account was closed by them or you, the
information isn't used in the scoring formula, says Watts.
Ironically, an excellent credit score can actually serve as
more of a bulls-eye than a shield, says Dennis Moroney, a
research director and senior analyst for consulting firm
Tower Group. He says banks figure they can limit cardholder
backlash by targeting consumers with few debts and plenty of
other accounts. That way, a closed account won't have as much
of a detrimental effect on their creditworthiness.
Even years of loyalty and regular spending won't spare some
cardholders. David Good of Houston, used to be devoted to
American Express, with which he had two credit cards: an
unlimited charge account and a $7,500 revolving account. Yet
a solid credit score, eight years of on-time payments and
fairly frequent purchases on the cards--including more than
$100,000 last year alone--weren't enough to save his
accounts. In December, Good received a written notice that
the issuer had closed both due to ``low activity in the past
six months.'' ``I was shocked,'' he says. ``They lost my
trust, totally.'' (American Express declined to comment on
Good's or any other individual's accounts.)
New Yorker Veronica Eady Famira was vacationing in Germany
when she discovered that her $1,500-limit Delta SkyMiles card
from American Express had been shut down. ``I must have spent
$300 in cellphone charges calling banks,'' she says. ``I was
pretty stranded.'' Adding insult to injury, Famira had just
earned a free companion ticket on the card valued at up to
$400 for a domestic flight--now she can't redeem the ticket.

____________________

CONGRATULATING EUGENIA ARMBRECHT FOR BEING NAMED FIRST LADY OF MOBILE

______

HON. JO BONNER

of alabama

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. BONNER. Madam Speaker, it is with great pride and pleasure that I
rise today to honor Mrs. Eugenia Armbrecht on the occasion of her being
named First Lady of Mobile. The Mobile chapters of Beta Sigma Phi, an
international women's network with over 165,000 members, recently
bestowed this honor on her.
Known to her many friends as ``Gigi,'' she is a tireless volunteer
and has devoted her entire life to improving the lives of countless
people who call Mobile and south Alabama home.
Gigi moved to Mobile from Galveston, Texas, just in time for her
senior year at Murphy High School. Following graduation, she moved to
Tuscaloosa where she attended the University of Alabama and received a
bachelor's degree in education. She met her future husband, Conrad
Armbrecht, in Tuscaloosa, and after graduation, they moved to Mobile
where she began teaching first grade.
She soon developed an interest in special education and began working
on her first master's degree at the University of South Alabama. Gigi
also began giving much of her time as a volunteer for Mobile United,
and by 1988, she was a paid employee of the organization. Ten years
later, she was recruited to join AT&T, and she now serves as manager of
regional and external affairs for the company.
Gigi was also honored this year as a distinguished University of
South Alabama alumna and the Junior League of Mobile's Sustainer of the
Year.
Madam Speaker, I would like to offer my personal congratulations to
Mrs. Eugenia ``Gigi'' Armbrecht for being named this year's First Lady
of Mobile; truly, no one is more deserving of this high honor. And in
so doing, I would also like to recognize Gigi for her lifetime of
outstanding professional and philanthropic accomplishments; she is
truly a role model for our entire community.
Furthermore, I would ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating
this respected and dedicated friend to many throughout south Alabama. I
know Gigi's family; her husband, Conrad; their two wonderful children,
Stewart and Amanda; her granddaughter and her many friends and other
family join me in praising Gigi's accomplishments and extending thanks
for her never-ending efforts to make south Alabama a better place to
live and call home.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR.

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I want to state for the record that
yesterday, April 1st, I was in my district attending the funeral of my
mother Roffie Pascrell, who recently passed away at the age of 95, and
I therefore missed the 8 rollcall votes of the day.
Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No.
175 on the Motion to Table the Resolution--H. Res. 312.
Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No.
176 On Agreeing to the Resolution Providing for consideration of the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 85) setting forth the congressional
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2010 and
including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2009 and
2011 through 2014--H. Res. 305.
Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No.
177 On Agreeing to the Resolution Providing for consideration of the
bill (H.R. 1664) to amend the executive compensation provisions of the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to prohibit unreasonable
and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance
standards--H. Res. 306.
Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No.
178 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended End Government
Reimbursement of Excessive Executive Disbursements (End GREED) Act--
H.R. 1575.
Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No.
179 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree Honoring the lives, and
mourning the loss, of Sergeant Mark Dunakin, Sergeant Ervin Romans,
Sergeant Daniel Sakai, and Officer John Hege, members of the Oakland
Police Department in California who were brutally slain in the line of
duty--H. Res. 290.
Had I been present I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote No.
180 On Agreeing to the Amendment--Bean of Illinois Amendment to H.R.
1664.
Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No.
181 On Agreeing to

[[Page 10017]]

the Amendment--Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania Amendment to H.R. 1664.
Lastly, had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall
vote No. 182 On Passage To amend the executive compensation provisions
of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to prohibit
unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on
performance standards--H.R. 1664.

____________________

SALUTING THE SERVICE OF FRED V. KROEGER

______

HON. JOHN T. SALAZAR

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam Speaker, this evening, the Southwestern Colorado
Water Conservation District will bid farewell to a most dedicated,
knowledgeable and remarkable man who has served on its board for 55
years.
Fred V. Kroeger of Durango, Colorado is a devoted man--to his family,
his community and water resources.
Fred was born in 1918 in Durango, Colorado and he lived there all his
life. He graduated from Fort Lewis College and he made his home there
with his beloved wife Eleanor. Fred and Eleanor raised their children
in Durango and operated a business there--Kroeger's True Value
Hardware.
But Fred's grandfather and father were tied to the rural land and the
agricultural economy of the region, and Fred's commitment to the
farmers and ranchers who were his neighbors continued throughout his
life. That commitment was evidenced by Fred's steadfast support for the
Animas-La Plata Project, which was to deliver water to the ``dry side''
so that those farmers and ranchers could thrive with a more reliable
and generous water supply. To this day, Fred bemoans the loss of the
irrigation features of the project, which is now nearly complete but is
limited to municipal and industrial supplies.
Indeed, the first water meeting Fred attended was with the
Southwestern District to discuss the Animas-La Plata Project in 1948.
In addition to serving on that board, Fred served on the Animas-La
Plata Water Conservancy District board for 24 years, the Colorado Water
Conservation Board for 21 years and has been a member of the Colorado
Water Congress for 51 years.
That organization bestowed upon Fred the prestigious Wayne Aspinall
Water Leader of the Year Award, given in the name of one of my
predecessors who chaired the then-House Interior Committee where many
of the water projects Fred Kroeger fought for were developed.
Fred was active in his community and its civic and cultural
organizations. He always carries a little pocket calendar with him, and
it is jammed with meeting commitments to boards, business, family and
friends.
At 91, Fred has decided to free up some of those days on the
calendar, and so he decided to retire from the Southwestern District
board. He richly deserves the recognition he will receive tonight from
his colleagues. I offer not only my congratulations to him on his
retirement, by a little regret that he will be leaving and a mountain
of respect for what he has given to the water resource community.

____________________

HONORING THE MEMORY OF ELIZABETH ANN PITTROFF COPELAND

______

HON. JO BONNER

of alabama

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. BONNER. Madam Speaker, the city of Mobile and, indeed, the entire
State of Alabama recently lost a dear friend, and I rise today to honor
Elizabeth Ann Pittroff Copeland and pay tribute to her memory.
Known to her many friends as Betty, she was a lifelong resident of
Mobile. She graduated from The Visitation Monastery and was a lifelong
member of St. Pius X Catholic Church. She married her husband of 58
years, Reggie Copeland Sr., just three days before he was sent to
Germany with the U.S. Army in 1950.
Betty's first priority was raising her children and later her
grandchildren. She was known for seamstress skills and for being a
prolific note-writer. Whenever she saw something in the newspaper about
someone she knew, she would clip it out and send it to them with a
personal note.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering a
dedicated community leader and friend to many throughout south Alabama.
Elizabeth Ann Pittroff Copeland will be dearly missed by her family--
her husband, Mobile City Council President Reggie Copeland Sr.; their
five children, Reggie Copeland Jr., Randy Copeland and his wife Alison,
Gayle Phillips and her husband Lee, Riley Copeland and his wife Penny,
and Russ Copeland and his wife Leigh; their 12 grandchildren, Tre'
Copeland, Ryder Copeland, Randall Copeland, Anna Copeland, Grace
Copeland, Jordan Phillips, Will Phillips, Riley Phillips, Conrad
Copeland, Cunningham Copeland, Madison Copeland, and Anderson Copeland;
and her sister, Mary Ellen Ham and her husband Victor--as well as the
countless friends she leaves behind.
Our thoughts and prayers are with them all during this difficult
time.

____________________

HONORING THE SERVICE OF C. RAY BAKER

______

HON. JOHN BOOZMAN

of arkansas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the service
and commitment of C. Ray Baker who has devoted his life to helping make
``Life worth living in Fort Smith, Arkansas.''
Ray Baker has been a lifelong champion of Fort Smith. He's shown his
love for the community through serving its citizens for the past 19
years as Mayor.
He shared his enthusiasm for the community with the generations of
students he taught over his 46 years as an educator. His legacy is far
reaching beyond the halls of Southside High School where he taught for
44 years.
He has received numerous awards and commendations for his years in
the classroom including being named Arkansas PTA Teacher of the Year, a
Milken Family National Educator, Arkansas Teacher of the Year and
Daughters of the American Revolution National American History Teacher
of the Year.
Teaching was only one passion, he has dedicated countless hours
volunteering for civic service organizations and the energy he brings
to ribbon cuttings, groundbreakings and awards ceremonies and special
community events is contagious. His dedication to Fort Smith has
inspired an award named after him, the ``Ray Baker Lifetime Achievement
Award.''
Ray is a true American hero. He has had a tremendous impact on me
because of the way he lives his life.
His energetic spirit has given us all strength, and we are fortunate
to have his leadership and dedication. Fort Smith is a better place
because of Ray Baker.

____________________

CELEBRATING THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT
SHIRLEY STRUM KENNY

______

HON. GARY L. ACKERMAN

of new york

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Stony
Brook University President, Shirley Strum Kenny, on the occasion of her
being recognized as a Stony Brook University ``Star'' at the Tenth
Annual Stars of Stony Brook Gala. In her numerous roles in the field of
education, President Kenny has demonstrated her commitment to the
principle that education remains the key to breaking down our own
economic barriers and to securing our nation's standing in the world. I
commend President Kenny for her commitment to public education and
dedication to the egalitarian notion that a higher education should be
affordable and accessible to all. This commitment is in the finest
traditions of Stony Brook University and the State University of New
York system as a whole.
In 1994, President Kenny began her tenure as the first woman
President of the University. Since that time, Stony Brook has
experienced a renaissance with expansions in the opportunities it
provides across the board: from Division I Athletics to major
improvements to the Stony Brook University Medical Center. During her
presidency, enrollment has increased from 17,500 to more than 23,000,
faculty numbers are up 8 percent, and demand for a Stony Brook
University education has increased exponentially. With President
Kenny's leadership, Stony Brook University has undertaken major
construction projects, including the Charles B. Wang Center, a Stony
Brook Manhattan campus, the Simons Center for Geometry and Physics, new
buildings for Life Sciences, Humanities, and Engineering, and

[[Page 10018]]

most recently, the Stony Brook University Southampton campus.
Concerned about our nation's educational system as a whole, President
Kenny has been a leader for national reform. She launched and chaired
the Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research
University, which produced a report advocating a dynamic model of
education that would engage students and inspire them to conduct
research consistent with the unique resources of each institution. She
has served as Chair of the Association for American Colleges and
Universities, and as a board member of the Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching.
President Kenny's impact on countless numbers of students, to whom
she has dedicated her life and work, is immeasurable. For her selfless
dedication to her students and commitment to advancing education for
all, I ask all my colleagues in the House to please join me in honoring
President Shirley Strum Kenny.

____________________

HONORING CHARLES W. BETZ

______

HON. C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER

of maryland

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Madam Speaker, I rise before you today to honor
Mr. Charles W. Betz, recently awarded the 2008 Congressional Volunteer
Recognition Award by the 2nd Congressional District of Maryland's
Veterans Advisory Council. Charles has been selected to receive this
award because of his volunteer service and based on his outstanding
dedication to serving the needs of veterans within his community.
Veterans of the United States Armed Forces have dedicated themselves
to protecting the lives of every American. Their service to our Nation
deserves the highest level of gratitude. It is of the utmost importance
that we take the time to recognize the individuals who give of their
time and talents to support veterans and ensure their comfort, care,
and well-being.
Mr. Betz has been a strong advocate for veterans of the Armed Forces
through his office as Post Surgeon and Hospital Chairman of the VFW.
Not only does he give of his time to prepare and execute visits to the
Baltimore VA Rehabilitation and Extended Care Center, but he and his
wife also coordinate activities for the residents. Their group sing-a-
longs and Bingo games are always received with much appreciation.
Despite personal health problems, with both knee and shoulder
surgeries, Mr. Betz has continued to volunteer at least 30 hours a
month.
Madam Speaker, I ask that you join with me today to honor Mr. Charles
W. Betz. His compassion and dedication to veterans of the U.S. Armed
Forces has become an inspiration to us all, and is deserving of the
utmost gratitude. It is with great pride that I congratulate Mr. Betz
on his exemplary service as an advocate and a volunteer.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT OF
2009

______

HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the bipartisan
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, along with
Representatives Kirk, Frank, Biggert, Baldwin, Ros-Lehtinen, Nadler,
Bono Mack and Polis. This legislation will provide assistance to state
and local law enforcement agencies and amend federal law to facilitate
the investigation and prosecution of violent, bias-motivated crimes.
Last Congress, this legislation passed with bipartisan support by a
vote of 237-180. Bipartisan majorities have also voted in favor of hate
crimes legislation for the last three consecutive Congresses. With a
strong statement of Presidential support, the time has finally come for
the enactment of this important legislation.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act has attracted the support of nearly
300 civil rights, education, religious, and civic organizations.
Importantly, virtually every major law enforcement organization in the
country has endorsed the bill--including the International Association
of Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the
National Sheriffs Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, and
31 state Attorneys General.
At a time when our nation is celebrating its diversity, bias crimes
are disturbingly prevalent and pose a significant threat to the full
participation of all Americans in our democratic society. In the wake
of the November Presidential election, the Southern Poverty Law Center
has detailed hundreds of hate crime incidents, vandalism and threats,
including the election-night assault of Alie Kamara on Staten Island by
two teenagers who shouted racial epithets and ``Obama!'' as they beat
him. Moreover, statistics have shown hate crimes against Latinos and
Asian Americans rising steadily over the past four years as the
immigration has grown more intense. In the last eight months, there
have three brutal hate-related murders of Latinos in New York and
Pennsylvania. While intolerance may be in retreat, its presence is
still felt in many minority communities.
The FBI has the best national data on reported hate crime, though the
program is voluntary. Since 1991, the FBI has documented over 118,000
hate crimes. For the year 2007, the most current data available, the
FBI compiled reports from law enforcement agencies across the country
identifying 7,624 bias-motivated criminal incidents that were directed
against an individual because of their personal characteristics. Law
enforcement agencies identified 9,535 victims arising from 9,006
separate criminal offenses. As in the past, racially motivated bias
accounted for approximately half (50.8 %) of all incidents. Religious
bias accounted for 1,400 incidents (18.4 %) and sexual orientation bias
accounted for 1,265 incidents--(16.6 %), followed by ethnicity/national
origin bias with 1,007 incidents--(13.2%). While these numbers are
disturbing, it is important to note that, for a variety of reasons,
hate crimes are seriously under-reported.
Despite the deep impact of hate violence on communities, current law
limits federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to incidents directed
against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national
origin--but only when the victim is targeted because he/she is engaged
in a federally protected activity, such as voting. Further, the
statutes do not permit federal involvement in a range of cases where
crimes are motivated by bias against the victim's perceived sexual
orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. The federal
government must have authority to be involved in investigating and
prosecuting these crimes when state authorities cannot or will not do
so.
This legislation, which is identical to the version approved in the
110th Congress, will strengthen existing federal law in the same way
that the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 helped federal prosecutors
combat church arson: by addressing the unduly rigid jurisdictional
requirements under federal law. The bill only applies to bias-motivated
violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any
way. In fact, the measure includes an explicit First Amendment free
speech protection for the accused modeled on the existing Washington
state hate crimes statute. This bill will only apply to criminal
conduct that is already being prosecuted.
State and local authorities currently prosecute the overwhelming
majority of hate crimes and will continue to do so under this
legislation. The federal government will continue to defer to state and
local authorities in the vast majority of cases; the Attorney General
or other high ranking Justice Department official must approve any
prosecutions undertaken pursuant to this law, ensuring federal
restraint. However, in appropriate circumstances, the federal
government will be able to provide support for local prosecutions--an
intergovernmental grant program created by this legislation will make
Justice Department technical, forensic or prosecutorial assistance
available. The legislation also authorizes the Attorney General to make
grants to state and local law enforcement agencies that have incurred
extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and
prosecution of hate crimes.
Hate crime statistics do not speak for themselves. Behind each of the
statistics is an individual or community targeted for violence for no
other reason than race, religion, color, national origin, sexual
orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Law enforcement
authorities and civic leaders have learned that a failure to address
the problem of bias crime can cause a seemingly isolated incident to
fester into widespread tension that can damage the social fabric of the
wider community. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act
of 2009 is a constructive and measured response to a problem that
continues to plague our nation. These are crimes that shock and shame
our national conscience. They should be subject to comprehensive
federal law enforcement assistance and prosecution.

[[Page 10019]]

____________________

CONGRATULATING DR. VIC MORGAN

_____

HON. CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate my friend, Dr.
Vic Morgan, as he formally retires after 18 years of serving as
President of Sul Ross State University.
Throughout his tenure as President, Dr. Morgan has demonstrated
strong leadership and a commitment to providing a valuable academic
experience for the students of Sul Ross State University. Having begun
his career at SRSU as an Associate Professor of Mathematics, Dr. Morgan
is the first faculty member to be promoted from within the University
to its highest position.
In addition to having fulfilled his responsibilities as President,
Dr. Morgan remained extremely active in professional organizations in
mathematics, student affairs, and educational administration. He has
exemplified community service through his selfless work with the Church
of Christ, the Lions Club, the Chamber of Commerce, and numerous youth
related activities and organizations.
After a decorated career at Sul Ross State University, Dr. Vic Morgan
will retire having left a lasting impact on so many students and
teachers whose lives he's touched. As a former educator myself, I am
especially thankful for his steadfast commitment to students and
educators in Texas' 23rd Congressional District. I wish to extend my
sincerest wishes to Dr. Vic Morgan and his family for a healthy and
much deserved retirement.

____________________

HONORING THE DOGWOOD TRAIL MAIDS FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE NATIONAL
CHERRY BLOSSOM FESTIVAL

______

HON. JO BONNER

of alabama

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. BONNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Dogwood
Trail Maids for being selected to participate in this year's National
Cherry Blossom Festival.
Held annually, the Cherry Blossom festival commemorates the 1912 gift
of 3,000 cherry trees from the mayor of Tokyo to the city of Washington
and honors the lasting friendship between the United States and Japan.
Today, more than a million people travel to Washington each year to
see the blossoming cherry trees and attend events that signal the
beginning of spring in our Nation's capital.
For 49 years, the Dogwood Trail Pageant and Scholarship Program--
comprised of six high school girls from Baldwin County--complete nearly
200 hours of community service and make more than 50 appearances,
including festivals, charity runs and ceremonies. The trail maids were
even invited to both of Governor Bob Riley's Inaugural parades.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the
Dogwood Trail Maids for their participation in the 2009 National Cherry
Blossom Festival. I know Baldwin County and indeed, the State of
Alabama are so proud for these young ladies to travel to Washington and
participate in the organization's first Cherry Blossom parade.

____________________

HONORING GARY CHASEY FOR ``CITIZEN OF THE YEAR'' AWARD

______

HON. JEB HENSARLING

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
exceptional service and leadership of Mr. Gary Chasey of Athens, Texas.
Mr. Chasey has served his community for years in many capacities and
was recently recognized as the ``Citizen of the Year'' by the Athens
Chamber of Commerce.
Gary, along with his wife, Sharon, volunteers with Court Appointed
Special Advocates (CASA). Through this very special and important
capacity, Gary has changed the lives of dozens of children in his
community. As a CASA volunteer, he looks after the interest of children
who are in the court system. He has spent countless hours advocating
and watching over abused and neglected children.
For several years, Gary has served as President and Vice-President
for Labor of Love of Henderson County. Labor of Love is an organization
that repairs homes for those in the community who cannot afford to make
repairs or complete maintenance tasks. As a leader in Labor of Love,
Gary has helped increase completed projects by over 90%. His financial
expertise, leadership and tireless work ethic have undoubtedly
benefited countless citizens.
In addition, Gary is a member of the First Presbyterian Church and is
active with the Methodist Men at First United Methodist Church.
As the Congressman for the Fifth District of Texas, I am pleased
today to recognize Gary Chasey for his many years of public service and
countless contributions he has made to make his community and his
country a better place. Gary, on behalf of all the constituents of the
Fifth District, especially those in Henderson County, I would like to
extend our most sincere thanks.

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS SOUTH TEXAS COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
MEMBER MANUEL BENAVIDEZ, JR.

_____

HON. HENRY CUELLAR

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the late Manuel
Benavidez, Jr. for his service to the people of Starr County, the State
of Texas, and the education community across the country. His life was
a symbol of what hard work and desire can achieve. He was a respected
member of his community and of the State of Texas and we will all miss
him dearly.
Mr. Benavidez was born in La Grulla, Texas in 1952. A former migrant
farm worker, he graduated from Rio Grande City High School and later
attended Pan American University where he received a bachelor's degree
in bilingual education. Education has been a focal point in Mr.
Benavidez's life, where he has not just worked to educate himself but
has dedicated himself to helping others enhance their lives through
study.
In 1993, he was appointed to the South Texas College Board of
Trustees as the representative for Starr County. He worked tirelessly
to bring the first community college to the area and through the years
he has been instrumental in bringing millions of dollars to the county
for STC campuses. His testimony in support of the dual enrollment
program was key to getting legislation passed that has helped families
across Texas save millions of dollars on the cost of college tuition.
His life has revolved around the idea of bettering his community by
giving the residents of Starr County an equal opportunity to accessing
higher education.
Madam Speaker, please join me in honoring Manuel Benavidez, Jr. for
his lifetime of dedicated service to Starr County and to the education
community across the country. He was a husband, a father, and an
inspiration for all of us. He will be greatly missed.

____________________

HONORING VANESSA SCOTT

_____

HON. C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER

of maryland

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Madam Speaker, I rise before you today to honor
Mrs. Vanessa Scott, recently awarded the 2008 Congressional Volunteer
Recognition Award by the 2nd Congressional District of Maryland's
Veterans Advisory Council. Vanessa has been selected to receive this
award because of her volunteer service at the VA, based on her
outstanding dedication to serving the needs of veterans within her
community.
Veterans of the United States Armed Forces have dedicated themselves
to protecting the lives of every American. Their service to our Nation
deserves the highest level of gratitude. It is important that we take
the time to recognize the individuals who give of their time and
talents to support veterans and ensure their comfort, care, and well-
being.
Mrs. Scott has been an advocate for veterans for the past 15 years.
She has worked at both Fort Howard and the Baltimore VA Rehabilitation
and Extended Care Center. While raising a family, Vanessa has given of
her time to the sick and lonesome men and women in those VA facilities,
such as spending her evenings playing Bingo with patients. Her
unwavering dedication has inspired those who serve with her to provide
exceptional service and care.
Madam Speaker, I ask that you join with me today to honor Mrs.
Vanessa Scott. Her compassion and commitment to veterans of the U.S.
Armed Forces has become an inspiration

[[Page 10020]]

to us all, and is deserving of the utmost gratitude. It is with great
pride that I congratulate Mrs. Scott on her exemplary service as an
advocate and a volunteer.

____________________

TRIBAL LAW AND ORDER ACT OF 2009

______

HON. STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN

of south dakota

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Madam Speaker, today, I am pleased to
reintroduce the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009, critical legislation
to address needs of law enforcement and justice services in Indian
Country. I want to thank Senator Dorgan and his colleagues and staff on
the Senate Indian Affairs Committee for their tireless dedication to
these issues.
The Tribal Law & Order Act would establish accountability measures
for the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice with
regard to tribal law enforcement. This bill also seeks to increase
local control to tribal law enforcement agencies and to authorize
additional resources for tribes to address the safety and security
needs of their communities.
In June 2007, the House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing
on the Lower Brule Reservation in South Dakota. Entitled, The Needs and
Challenges of Tribal Law Enforcement in Indian Reservations, tribal
leaders and law enforcement officials from eight tribes testified for
the need to improve government-to-government consultations between
tribes and the federal agencies charged with supporting their law
enforcement goals. Witnesses explained the need for more resources for
officers, equipment, jails, and tribal courts.
For example, the Law Enforcement Department of Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe of South Dakota serves a population spread across 19 communities
with a land base of approximately 2.8 million acres. Some of these
communities are located as far as 90 miles away from department
headquarters. With approximately 4,500 miles of roadways on the
reservation, it often takes officers a considerable amount of time to
address calls, including emergencies.
At current funding levels, the Cheyenne Rivers Sioux Tribe Law
Enforcement Department is unable to provide adequate police protection
to all of these communities. In FY08, the tribal police force was
reduced by 10 patrol officers due to budget constraints. Now, officers
are logging over 4000 hours of overtime each quarter, which leads to
stress and strain on the officers and their families, and ultimately,
undermines retention efforts and leads to communities that are not as
safe as they should be.
From my work with tribal communities in South Dakota and as a Member
of the Committee on Natural Resources, I know that Cheyenne River is
not an extreme case. In fact, across all Indian Country, there are less
than 3,000 tribal law enforcement officers to patrol over 56 million
acres of land. This figure represents less than one-half of the law
enforcement presence in comparable rural communities. This disparity is
unacceptable and shameful.
The Tribal Law and Order Act is an important step to addressing the
complex and broken system of law and order in Indian Country. This bill
would clarify the responsibilities of Federal, State, tribal, and local
governments with respect to crimes committed in tribal communities;
increase coordination and communication among Federal, State, tribal,
and local law enforcement agencies; empower tribal governments with the
authority, resources, and information necessary to effectively provide
for the public's safety in tribal communities; reduce the prevalence of
violent crime in tribal communities and combat violence against Indian
and Alaska Native women; address and prevent drug trafficking and
reduce rates of alcohol and drug addiction in Indian country; and
increase and standardize the collection of criminal data and the
sharing of criminal history information among Federal, State, and
tribal officials responsible for responding to and investigating crimes
in tribal communities.
The Senate Indian Affairs Committee has held numerous hearings and
has reached out to tribes across the United States while crafting this
bill, and I appreciate their efforts to address the concerns raised by
tribal members and leaders. I recognize that this bill alone will not
solve the problems raised by tribes in these consultations and
hearings. As such, I will continue to work for increased funding for
law enforcement personnel, detention facilities, equipment and
training, tribal courts, and other components required for a successful
justice system. I will continue to hold the Bureau of Indian Affairs
accountable for upholding the trust responsibility within the realm of
law enforcement. Ultimately, I believe that this bill offers important
and necessary tools in our shared goal of making Indian Country a safer
place to be.
Madam Speak, I urge my colleagues to join with me to pass the Tribal
Law and Order Act into law.

____________________

RECOGNIZING GALILEE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH UPON THEIR 100TH
ANNIVERSARY

______

HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Galilee
Missionary Baptist Church on its 100th anniversary.
Galilee Missionary Baptist Church was originally founded in 1909 near
Sanger, Texas. In 1910, Church officials established a church for the
community to worship in and a school where they could educate their
children. Construction of a new church building began in the 1950s
after the first building was not big enough to accommodate the growing
number of members.
Galilee Church takes pride in its service as an educational facility
and a place for worship for its community. Many members have served in
the United States armed forces. Others happily serve their communities
through various leadership and service activities, participating as
Sanger Sellabration Singers, Nursing Home Carolers, community
Thanksgiving program volunteers, and more. Their Women's Mission Group
frequently supports the community by opening their hands and hearts to
the Denton State School, Annual School supply drive, African Orphans,
Operation smile, Food Pantry and Chamber of Commerce Angel Tree
Program.
I am proud to recognize Galilee Missionary Baptist Church for their
accomplishment of a century of service to their community. It is my
privilege to represent the members of Galilee Missionary Baptist Church
in the 26th district of Texas.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR.

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I want to state for the record that
today, April 2nd, I was returning from my district after attending the
funeral of my mother Roffie Pascrell, who recently passed away at the
age of 95, and I therefore missed the first 5 roll call votes of the
day.
Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote #183
On Agreeing to the Resolution Providing for the adjournment of the
House and Senate--H. Con. Res. 93.
Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote #184
On Agreeing to the Resolution Providing for consideration of H. Con.
Res. 85--H. Res. 316.
Had I been present I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote #185
On Agreeing to the Amendment--Buyer of Indiana Substitute Amendment to
H.R. 1256.
Had I been present I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote #186
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions the Family Smoking Prevention
and Tobacco Control Act--H.R. 1256.
Lastly, had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall
vote No. 187 On Passage of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act--H.R. 1256.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE REAGAN NATIONAL AIRPORT FAIRNESS ACT OF 2009

______

HON. HARRY E. MITCHELL

of arizona

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, today I introduced, with my colleagues
Jeff Flake and Dean Heller, the Reagan National Airport Fairness Act of
2009.
This legislation would allow more nonstop access to Reagan National
Airport for passengers from Phoenix, Las Vegas and cities throughout
the west.
Currently, that access is limited by a so-called Perimeter Rule that
unfairly limits nonstop flights from cities located more than 1,250
miles away.
Flights from cities within 1,250 miles of Washington, D.C., by
contrast, are not subject to this limitation.

[[Page 10021]]

Originally designed to encourage passengers to use Dulles Airport
when it was first built, the Perimeter Rule has long since outlived its
intended purpose. Dulles Airport is now one of our nation's busiest.
Congress has already recognized the need to relax these flight
restrictions, and now a small number of nonstop flights from western
cities are allowed limited access to Reagan National Airport.
In addition, H.R. 915, the Federal Aviation Administration
Reauthorization Act, would increase the number of nonstop flights
allowed.
This would be another important step forward.
However, in the interest of fairness and free market competition, I
believe we must go further.
The legislation we introduced today would allow more flights from
more western airports into Reagan National Airport.
It's the right thing to do, and I encourage my colleagues to support
it.

____________________

HONORING BARBARA SWANN

______

HON. C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER

of maryland

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Madam Speaker, I rise before you today to honor
Mrs. Barbara Swann, recently awarded the 2008 Congressional Volunteer
Recognition Award by the 2nd Congressional District of Maryland's
Veterans Advisory Council. Barbara has been selected to receive this
award because of her volunteer service at the VA, based on her
outstanding dedication to serving the needs of veterans within her
community.
Veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces have dedicated themselves to
protecting the lives of every American. Their service to our Nation
deserves the highest level of gratitude. It is of the utmost importance
that we take the time to recognize the individuals who give of their
time and talents to support veterans and ensure their comfort, care,
and well-being.
Mrs. Swann currently serves as the Coordinator of Volunteer Services
for the Baltimore Rehabilitation and Extended Care Center. She has been
instrumental in an effort to collect non-perishables and other items to
send to Marines in Afghanistan. While raising a family, Barbara has
worked early mornings and late evenings, giving of her personal time to
veterans. She has recruited volunteers and made it a point to ensure
their proper training, medical examinations, and understanding of HIPPA
leave.
Madam Speaker, I ask that you join with me today to honor Mrs.
Barbara Swann. Her compassion and dedication to veterans of the U.S.
Armed Forces has become an inspiration to us all, and is deserving of
the utmost gratitude. It is with great pride that I congratulate Mrs.
Swann on her exemplary service as an advocate and a volunteer.

____________________

HONORING LABOR OF LOVE OF HENDERSON COUNTY

______

HON. JEB HENSARLING

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
outstanding service that Labor of Love provides the communities in
Henderson County, Texas.
The Athens Samaritans was formed as a precursor to Labor of Love in
1986 when members of the First Christian Church of Athens went to
Amarillo to help with a Habitat for Humanity project. Members became
energized about founding their own organization locally that would help
with housing for the disadvantaged. The group decided to focus on
repairing existing homes and thus organized the Labor of Love in 1987.
Since that time, the First Presbyterian Church, First United
Methodist Church and First Baptist Church joined the effort and helped
expand the organization. Labor of Love now has 12 project managers who
recruit workers from dozens of volunteers.
In 2008 alone, Labor of Love completed 231 projects in Henderson
County. The organization's efforts are supported with resources from
the Henderson County United Way, the Cain Foundation and the Murchison
Foundation, as well as other foundations, churches, businesses and
individuals. Labor of Love also sponsors paint projects for groups such
as the Boy Scouts, Young Life, 4-H, church groups and businesses.
This organization provides an invaluable service to those in the
community who truly need assistance. Over the years, hundreds of
individuals and families have been blessed by the men and women of
Labor of Love.
As the Congressman for the Fifth District of Texas, I am pleased
today to recognize the Labor of Love for their contributions to
Henderson County. To all the men and women who give of their time and
efforts so generously, on behalf of all the constituents of the Fifth
District, I would like to extend our most sincere gratitude.

____________________

CONGRATULATING MARTHA HERNANDEZ FOR 45 YEARS OF COMMITMENT TO FIREMAN'S
FUND

______

HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, in an age in which the average job tenure
is 5 years, it is increasingly rare fo someone to be with the same
company for 20 years, and extraordinary that someone would be with one
organization for 45 years and still engaging in the workplace with the
same enthusiasm and professionalism that they had throughout their
career.
Such is the case with Martha Hernandez, who joined the Fireman's Fund
Insurance Company in San Francisco in May 1964 and continues to be with
them today, moving with the company to Novato, California, in my
Congressional District.
Martha came to Fireman's Fund as a 14-year-old girl having moved from
Mexico City with her parents and brother Rubin to the United States
where they settled in Pacifica, California. Her first job at the Fund
was manually coding policies that would then go to a key punch
operator, high tech for the time, but now the technological equivalent
of the horse and buggy age. Over time, Martha's work continued to
expand and she became an underwriting technician where she developed an
excellent reputation for her attention to detail.
For Martha, the people at Fireman's Fund are a part of her family,
and apparently it is a two way street. She left the company for a grand
total of two weeks in 1984 when there was a reduction in force, but
came back when her friends and colleagues helped find another job for
her. As far as everyone is concerned, she never left Fireman's Fund
just as no one can ever escape a loving home.
Martha is very involved in her church and is a devoted aunt to her
four nephews and one niece and a two-year-old great niece. Over the
years, she has made her own unique contributions to the Christmas
holiday festivities at Fireman's Fund by bringing in her three types of
homemade tamales that have reduced the enthusiasm her colleagues have
for the ones they usually get in restaurants.
Martha continues to work at Fireman's Fund in their Resolution
Services division, and commutes everyday from her home in San Francisco
to Novato in her red and white Mini Cooper.
Madam Speaker, most of the news we read regarding work life is
directed at people who are in top management who might be making the
big decisions. However, our economy is really dependent upon the people
who keep things going, processing the information, and making certain
that goods and services are provided for. Martha Hernandez is a person
who has helped our country to flourish, and it gives me tremendous
pleasure to recognize her contribution to Fireman's Fund and to the
well-being of the Bay Area.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO BURT BLUMERT

______

HON. RON PAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, Burton Samuel Blumert passed away on Monday
March 30, following a long battle with cancer. Burt was a true hero of
the freedom movement and my close friend, advisor, and business
partner.
As the founder and manager of Camino Coins in Burlingame, CA, Burt
was one of the nation's leading dealers in gold and silver coins. A
student of Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian school of economics, Burt
understood the important role precious metals played in protecting
ordinary citizens from the damage wrought by fiat money and inflation.
Thus, he regarded his work as a coin dealer not just as a business, but
as an opportunity to help people by providing with some protection from
the Federal Reserve's inflation tax.

[[Page 10022]]

After I stepped down from Congress in 1984, I partnered with Burt in
the coin business, a partnership which lasted until I returned to
Congress in 1996. Our partnership was based on nothing more than our
words. As anyone who ever dealt with Burt could testify, that was all
that was needed, because Burt's word was truly his bond. I am unaware
of anyone who dealt with Burt who questioned his integrity or his
commitment to his customers.
As well-known and respected as he was for his leadership in the coin
business, Burt was best known as a promoter of libertarian ideas. Burt
was a long time friend and patron of Murray Rothbard, one of Mises' top
American students and a pioneer in economics, political theory,
history, and much else. Burt helped Murray establish the Center for
Libertarian Studies, and served as its president from 1975 until his
death.
Burt also played a key role in the flourishing of the Ludwig von
Mises Institute, which, as its name suggests, is the leading center for
the promotion and development of Austrian economics and libertarian
political theory in the nation. Burt served as a founding board member
of the Institute and the chaired the Institute's board after the
original chair, Mrs. Margit von Mises, passed away in 1993. He also
published The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, a well-read libertarian
newsletter written by Murray Rothbard and Mises Institute President Lew
Rockwell.
Burt played a major role in making the ideas of liberty a force on
the internet by serving as the publisher of Lewrockwell.com, as well
supporting the development of Mises.org. Burt also played an
instrumental role in the development of Antiwar.com. Burt also served
as chairman of my first run for the presidency, and important counselor
in the second.
In addition to his work with these organizations, Burt was a friend,
mentor, and patron to numerous libertarian scholars and activists. He
was incredibly generous with both his time and his resources. Talking
to Burt was always a treat, because he had one of the best senses of
humor I have ever known, and it seemed like he was always in a good
mood. Events that would send his friends into fits of depression, rage,
or both would be used by Burt as fodder for a series of jokes and
wisecracks. Even in the last days of his battle with cancer he remained
upbeat. One of Burt's friends called him shortly after learning about
Burt's cancer, but instead of consoling Burt, this friend ending up
having his sprits lifted by Burt's humor.
It is somewhat of a comfort to myself, and I am sure to Burt's other
friends, to know that he lived long enough to see so many of his
efforts bear fruit. Today, the Mises Institute teaches sound economies
and the principles of liberty to thousands of students every year while
Mises.org is one of the leading economics websites in the world.
Lewrockwell.com is one of the top providers of political, economic, and
cultural commentary on the web, while Antiwar.com is the leading source
of information for scholars, journalists, and activists looking for
material to combat the propaganda of the war party.
As I travel across the country, I am astounded at the number of young
people I met who are interested in the cause of individual liberty,
peace, and sound money. Many of them got their introduction to these
ideas through one of the many organizations nurtured by Burt Blumert.
Madam Speaker, perhaps the highest compliment one can pay to a
departed friend is to say that they left the world better than they
found it. That is certainly true in the case of Burt Blumert. While I
am saddened that I will never again benefit from Burt's good humor and
wise counsel, I am comforted by knowing that I was blessed by his
friendship and the thought that the vibrant and growing freedom
movement will serve as a living monument to Burt for years to come. I
therefore join friends of liberty around the world in mourning Burt's
passing, and saluting all he accomplished during his lifetime.

____________________

IN RECOGNITION OF PRINCETON'S BOYS BASKETBALL TEAM

______

HON. BRAD ELLSWORTH

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the
Princeton Community High School Boys Basketball Team for winning its
first 3A State Championship. The victory capped a perfect 29-0 season
for the Tigers and earned them their first state title in school
history.
The Tigers defeated the Rochester Zebras by a score of 81-79 in a
thrilling double overtime victory at Conseco Fieldhouse in
Indianapolis. I was able to attend the game and it was one of the best
I've seen, with 16 lead changes and a last second pair of free throws
to put Princeton over the top.
As Tigers' coach Tom Weeks said, ``That's what Indiana high school
basketball is about. It doesn't get any better than what we saw
tonight.''
These young men are shining examples of the idea that success in life
comes to those who are willing to set goals and work hard to achieve
them. They are an inspiration to me and everyone in the Princeton,
Indiana, community who have followed them throughout the years.
Go Tigers!

____________________

RECOGNIZING PAUL K. HARRAL FOR HIS CONTRIBUTIONS

______

HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Paul K. Harral
for his service to the Fort Worth community throughout his career with
the Fort Worth Star Telegram. After providing his expertise for nearly
a quarter-century in almost every news department of the Star Telegram,
Harral will retire at the end of April.
Media is Harral's passion. Before joining the Star-Telegram family in
1986, Harral served the United Press International, Baptist Medical
Center and Florida City Magazines Inc. In the Star-Telegram, his goal
has always been to present the issues that are important to his
community and keep citizens informed. Over the years, Harral served as
Senior Editor of Metro news, Ombudsman, Editor of the editorial pages,
Editor of zoning operations, and supervised the online department.
Under his tenure in 1995, the Texas Associated Press Managing Editors
(APME) recognized the weekend and daily commentary sections as best in
the state.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to recognize Paul K. Harral for his years
of service to Fort Worth. His devotion serves as an example to those
who had the privilege of working with him. Even though he is retiring,
his contribution will be forever appreciated by the Fort Worth
community. It is an honor to represent him as a member of the 26th
district of Texas.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO KEITH CLARKE

______

HON. KEN CALVERT

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to
an individual whose dedication and contributions to the community of
Corona, California are exceptional. Corona has been fortunate to have
dynamic and dedicated community leaders who willingly and unselfishly
give their time and talent and make their communities a better place to
live and work. Keith Clarke is one of these individuals. On April 16,
2009, Keith will retire as the Director of the Building Department for
the City of Corona.
Keith graduated from Pacifica High School in 1973 and obtained his
Associates Degree in Engineering from Cypress Junior College in 1976.
He attended the University of California at Los Angeles and then
attended California State University at Long Beach from 1977 to 1979.
After attending college, Keith became a General Contractor and
contracted a variety of projects which included masonry structures,
patio covers and room additions. From 1981 to 1982, Keith worked as a
Deputy Concrete and Masonry Inspector for Southern California Testing
Labs where he performed inspections on masonry and concrete structures
in order to insure compliance with approved plans and structural
specifications. In 1982, Keith came to the City of Corona and he began
as a Building Inspector. He quickly rose up the ranks: he became a
Senior Building Inspector in 1984, an Assistant Building Official in
1986, a Building Official/Director in 1989, the Acting Director of
Parks and Community Services in 2005 and the Building Official/Director
from October 2005 to March 31, 2009.
Keith is a member of several organizations, including: the
International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, the
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), the
International Association of Electrical Inspectors, the International
Fire Code Institute, Building Officials and Code Administrators, the
Citrus Belt Chapter of ICBO, and

[[Page 10023]]

California Building Officials. He also serves or has served on the
California Building Officials (CALBO) Board of Directors, the CALBO
State Contractors License Board, the United States Navy League, the
CALBO State Historical Code Committee, the ICC Citrus Belt Chapter, the
Toastmasters International, and the Rolling Thunder Motorcycle Club and
as a Calbo CTI Instructor.
Keith has received several awards over the years including: Building
Inspector of the Year; Citrus Belt Chapter ICBO 1986; Building Official
of the Year; Citrus Belt Chapter ICBO 1988; Toastmasters, Best Table
Topics Speech Contest 1997; California Building Officials, Building
Department of the Year, 2003; California Building Officials, Building
Official of the Year, 2004; and California Building Officials, Hall of
Fame Award, 2009.
Keith's tireless passion for community service has contributed
immensely to the betterment of the community of Corona, California. I
am proud to call Keith a fellow community member, American and friend.
I know that many community members are grateful for his service and
salute him and his 27 years of service to the City of Corona.

____________________

HONORING ROBERT AYERS GOULD, SR.

______

HON. JEB HENSARLING-

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, today I would like to honor Mr. Robert
Ayers Gould, Sr., for his exceptional leadership and outstanding public
service.
After graduating from Athens High School in 1957, Bob joined the
United States Navy where he served aboard the USS Coral Sea. Following
an Honorable Discharge, he returned to Athens where he opened the Gould
Insurance Agency in 1962, which he has owned and operated for over
forty years.
Bob Gould served on the City Council of Athens for twelve years
before his retirement in 2007, where he oversaw many projects
benefiting his community. Among his many civic activities, Bob has been
the Director and Vice-President of the Athens Chamber of Commerce, Co-
Founder of the Texas High School Basketball Hall of Fame, and the
Charter Director for the Henderson County YMCA. He has also received
many awards from his community, including the Roadhand Award from the
Texas Highway Commission and the Athens Citizen of the Year Award in
1984.
In addition to faithfully serving his community, Bob is a husband to
Mrs. Peggy Lorene Lubben Gould and father of four children: Robert Jr.,
Joseph, Patricia, and Mary.
I want to recognize Bob for his service and commitment to his
community. Due to Bob's leadership in the city and throughout the
business community, Athens remains a strong, supportive, and vibrant
community.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of the 5th District of Texas, it is my
pleasure to recognize my good friend Mr. Robert Ayers Gould, Sr. for
being an invaluable public servant and community leader.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT OF 2009

______

HON. MAXINE WATERS

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to reintroduce the
Private Property Protection Act of 2009. I am also pleased to be joined
again by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the Chairman Emeritus of the
Judiciary, and the lead Republican on this bipartisan bill. This bill
is successor to H.R. 3053, from the 110th Congress and we are joined
today by 24 original copsonsors.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides in part that ``nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.''
On June 23, 2005, a majority of the Supreme Court chose to close its
eyes to the Constitution and our Nation's rich history of protecting
private property rights. The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Kelo vs.
City of New London, held that ``economic development'' can be a
``public use'' under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause justifying
the government's taking of private property. The Court held that the
creation of a more lucrative tax base can justify the government's
taking of private property from one small homeowner and giving it to a
large corporation for a private research facility.
The Kelo decision interpreted government taking for ``public use'' to
mean no more than ``public purpose.'' Put simply, this decision meant
that government would have an almost unlimited ability to seize private
property--homes, churches, synagogues, and thriving businesses--and
hand it over to private companies so long as they convince the local
land authority that the project will yield economic benefit for a
community that has been arbitrarily deemed ``distressed.'' Private
companies and developers all over the country went into a frenzy to
file project site plans when Kelo was decided. They knew that they
would be able to make huge amounts of money so long as they produced
public benefit--this was a ridiculous over-expansion of the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
As the dissent in Kelo pointed out, ``To reason, as the Court does,
that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent
ordinary use of private property render economic development takings
`for public use' is to wash out any distinction between private and
public use of property--and thereby effectively to delete the words
`for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.'' The
dissent made clear that, as a result of the majority's decision, ``Any
property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but
the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries
are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and
power in the political process, including large corporations and
development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license
to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with
more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.''
The bottom line is that local and Federal governments must take every
landowner as a special case because the people who own the properties
that are subject to economic redevelopment play just as big a role as
the projected revenues that the local jurisdiction hopes to bring in
with a new development. Just because you are poor does not mean that
your right to private property is worth any less than that of a wealthy
developer.
The Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2009 will restore the
property rights of all Americans that the Supreme Court changed with
the Kelo decision. This legislation would prevent the Federal
Government or any authority of the Federal Government from using
economic development as a justification for exercising its power of
eminent domain. This bill would also discourage States and localities
from abusing their eminent domain power by denying States or localities
that commit such abuse all Federal economic development funds for a
period of two years. This bill is substantially similar to H.R. 4128,
legislation that passed the House in the 109th Congress by an
overwhelmingly vote of 376-38, nearly a 10-1 margin, but unfortunately,
was never enacted.
I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to protect the private property rights of every American and
hope they will join me in sponsoring the Private Property Rights
Protection Act of 2009.

____________________

COMMEMORATING THE 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE TAIWAN
RELATIONS ACT

______

HON. DAVID WU

of oregon

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 30th anniversary of
the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act.
For 60 years, the United States and Taiwan have fostered a close
relationship that has been of mutual political, economic, cultural, and
strategic benefit. When the United States shifted diplomatic relations
from the Republic of China (Taiwan) to the People's Republic of China
in January 1979, Congress moved quickly to pass the Taiwan Relations
Act to ensure that the United States would have continued commercial,
cultural, and other relations with Taiwan. With President Carter's
signature on April 10, 1979, this important and lasting piece of
legislation became law and codified the basis for relations between the
United States and Taiwan. This year will mark the 30th anniversary of
the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act.
Over these past 30 years, Taiwan has seen remarkable changes, from
rapid economic growth to significant political transformation. During
the late 1980s and early 1990s, Taiwan witnessed a peaceful transition
of political power from a one-party state under martial law to a full-
fledged democracy and a multi-party political system. In March of last
year, the people of Taiwan participated in Taiwan's fourth direct and
democratic presidential election. The smooth and peaceful transition
from

[[Page 10024]]

one administration to another is a testament to Taiwan's continued
dedication to the principles of democracy, human rights, and the rule
of law.
The Taiwan Relations Act has also been instrumental in maintaining
peace, security, and stability across the Taiwan Strait. When the
Taiwan Relations Act was signed into law, it affirmed that the United
States' decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People's
Republic of China was based on the expectation that the future of
Taiwan would be determined by peaceful means. The Act also states that
``the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles
and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable
Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.'' I believe
that, in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States
should continue to support the legitimate defense needs of Taiwan.
It is my hope that the United States, Taiwan, and the People's
Republic of China can continue to work together to promote enduring
peace, stability, and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region, especially
across the Taiwan Strait. Let us recognize the past 30 years of the
Taiwan Relations Act and maintain and strengthen U.S.-Taiwan relations
for many years to come.

____________________

HONORABLE JOHN LAWRENCE MADURO

______

HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN

of the virgin islands

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, one of the legends of the U.S. Virgin
Islands, the Honorable John Lawrence Maduro will be laid to rest next
week. Many will rise to speak in his honor for he was one of the
founding fathers of the political system in the territory and as a
consequence someone who influenced our community in the social and
economic aspects as well.
Born on St. Thomas, Maduro was a graduate of Charlotte Amalie High
School, New York University and George Washington University School of
Law. He served in World War II in the North African and European
theaters and achieved the rank of Master Sergeant and later Second
Lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserves.
We were proud to honor him and all living WWII Veterans in the Virgin
Islands two years ago, and he was always very proud of his service
When he returned to the Virgin Islands in the 1950s, he became active
in politics and in the process became one of the titans of the
Legislature, serving for twenty-two years. He presided over the body
twice and during his tenure, worked with his colleagues to achieve
political rights for the territory that included the right to elect its
own governor and delegate to congress, the right of the Legislature to
apportion its seat in accordance to the vote rule, the right to fix the
compensation of its members and the rights to override gubernatorial
vetoes.
Maduro presented a weekly political radio broadcast that kept his
constituency informed about legislative issues and also was an active
partner in the law firm of Birch, deJongh and Farrelly.
It has been said of John L. Maduro that ``he was determined to create
a Virgin Islands that would offer unlimited opportunities to its
citizens in all areas of social, political and economic endeavor and a
Virgin Islands where pride in one's heritage and homeland would be
everlasting.''
Madame Speaker, John L. Maduro and Elmo D. Roebuck, who I spoke of
earlier this week are part of a generation of leaders who put their
intellect, their discipline and their foresight to the use of the
people of the Virgin Islands. They were leaders who we were proud to
follow, who rose to the challenge of shepherding the territory through
the rapid changes of 20th century modernization and they gave our
generation and the generations to follow a territory that is still
poised to be a regional leader and a positive example of democratic
government.
Madam Speaker, we will miss Johnny Maduro. The people of the Virgin
Islands will not forget his example as we work to create for this
century, a free and prosperous Virgin Islands.

____________________

IRAN'S MISSION FOR NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

______

HON. SCOTT GARRETT

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to draw
attention to Iran's mission for nuclear proliferation. If Iran were to
acquire nuclear weapons, the repercussions would be detrimental to our
global security. A nuclear Iran would not only pose a threat to the
United States and our allies, but would also destabilize an already
volatile Middle East region.
Under the guise of energy production, Iran is today actively seeking
to acquire nuclear weapon technology. This fact is supported by United
Nations inspectors who have found that certain aspects of the Iranian
nuclear program are useful only for developing nuclear weapons.
Recently, Iran has further developed its nuclear weapons production
capability. In December, Iran constructed a domed containment center
adjacent to a heavy water reactor in Arak. This structure makes it
impossible to monitor the reactor by satellite. In the past three
months, Iran has installed nearly 1,500 centrifuges. As a result, it
could take only 2 to 3 months for Iran to enrich uranium to weapons
grade. Furthermore, Iran has recently acquired 2,200 pounds of low
enriched uranium--enough for one first-generation nuclear bomb.
A nuclear Iran would significantly impact the surrounding region. The
repercussions would be felt not only by Middle Eastern countries, but
also by countries around the world. The possible outcomes could range
from a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race to the sale of nuclear
technology to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
It is widely accepted that Iran is one of the largest sponsors of
terrorism; this reality has been published in the Central Intelligence
Agency's World Factbook analysis of Iran. The United States, the United
Nations, and the European Union have all placed economic sanctions on
Iran due to Iran's sponsorship of terrorism. Hezbollah, a terrorist
organization formulated and supported by Iran, is responsible for
numerous terrorist attacks; the most infamous of these attacks occurred
in Beirut on October 23, 1983 when Hezbollah detonated a bomb inside a
U.S. Marine Barracks and killed nearly 300 servicemen.
It is imperative that we in Congress do everything we can to prevent
Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. I am pleased by the recent steps
taken by my Congressional colleagues to ensure that this event never
takes place. Specifically, I was encouraged that the Financial Services
Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade held a hearing
about H.R. 1327, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, on March 12.
Afterward, I urged Chairman Barney Frank to schedule a markup of H.R.
1327 sometime before the April recess.
In closing, I urge my fellow Members to support taking the necessary
steps to limit Iran's access to nuclear weapons. We must convince Iran
to turn away from its current, dangerous course of action.

____________________

HONORING THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF ADMIRAL ROBERT E. PEARY AND MATTHEW
HENSON'S ARRIVAL AT THE NORTH POLE

______

HON. MICHAEL M. McMAHON

of new york

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. McMAHON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 100th
anniversary of Admiral Robert E. Peary and Matthew Henson becoming the
first documented explorers to reach the North Pole on April 6, 1909.
Admiral Peary and Matthew Henson through careful planning, foresight,
and extreme fortitude reached the North Pole through great danger and
peril to themselves. Where many men had failed and perished, these two
men succeeded.
Completing their mission took over eighteen years and was delayed,
hampered, and restarted many times. Through all the failures and
hardships these two brave men would not allow adversity or
disappointment to keep them from their goal.
Their path to the North Pole was long and arduous, but through
ingenuity and with help from the Native Inuit, they managed to plant
the American flag at the North Pole and survive the trip back.
Peary and Henson had made previous trips north before their ultimate
success. They suffered through the arctic cold and they even needed to
turn back because of the rough weather.
Despite not reaching the North Pole on these previous attempts, they
had voyaged further north than any men in recorded history.
While pursuing his dream of reaching the North Pole, Peary was on
leave from the

[[Page 10025]]

United States Navy where he was a civil engineer. Upon successful
completion of his eighth and final expedition, he was promoted to the
rank of Rear Admiral.
Matthew Henson's contributions to the success of the exploration
remained obscured and ignored for many years. His eventual induction
into the Explorer's Club and acknowledgement by President Eisenhower
can be recognized again by celebrating this important anniversary.
Admiral Robert Peary and Matthew Henson achieved their dreams and
proved to America and the rest of the world that we can accomplish
anything if we put our minds, hearts, and souls into it. Their drive
and hard work still shine as an example to us all.
I am proud today to honor Admiral Robert Peary and Matthew Henson.

____________________

WORLD AUTISM AWARENESS DAY

_____

HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

of new york

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize World Autism
Awareness Day that is held on April 2. This special day is held to
educate people about this birth disorder that is the fastest growing
serious developmental disability in the U.S. The cause of autism has
not been determined so there is a great need for funding to research
its cause.
It is important to understand this disorder since 1 in 150
individuals are diagnosed with autism. It occurs in all racial, ethnic,
and social groups and is four times more likely to strike boys than
girls. Autism impairs a person's ability to communicate and relate to
others. It is also associated with rigid routines and repetitive
behaviors, such as obsessively arranging objects or following very
specific routines. Autism usually is detected by parents who notice
unusual behaviors or developmental problems in children as young as 6
months. There are several services available to help autistic people
live their own independent lives and to participate and contribute to
their communities. Although this is a developmental disability, people
with autism still achieve and accomplish many things in life. Several
autistic people attend college and hold a variety of jobs from those
that require enormous amounts of concentration but limited intense
interaction with others, such as computer programming or graphic
design, or more repetitive jobs, such as filing.
More still needs to be done to help those that have autism and to
find the cause. Through broader awareness this can be accomplished.

____________________

IN HONOR OF THE 2008 SACRAMENTO RIVER CATS

_____

HON. DORIS O. MATSUI

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, as the Sacramento River Cats 2009 home
opener approaches, I rise in tribute of their 2008 season in which they
defended their title as Pacific Coast League and the Triple-A
Champions. After marching through the Pacific Coast League playoffs,
the River Cats defeated the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Yankees to win the
Bricktown Showdown for the second consecutive year. As the River Cats
prepare for the 2009 season, I ask all of my colleagues to join with me
in recognizing their remarkable 2008 accomplishments.
The River Cats were consistent all year and finished atop the Pacific
Coast League Southern Division at the end of the regular season with 83
wins and only 61 losses. Their opening playoff series matched them up
with the Salt Lake City Bee's. The River Cats made quick work of the
Bee's, defeating them in four games by scoring a total of 39 runs.
The second round pitted the River Cats against the Texas Rangers AAA
affiliate, the Oklahoma City Red Hawks. The River Cats prevailed, 3
games to 1, led by post-season MVP Chris Denorfia who went 17-35, with
12 runs scored and four homers in the post-season. By defeating the Red
Hawks, the 2008 River Cats won their second straight Pacific Coast
League title and their fourth in the last six years.
After claiming the Pacific Coast League title in Oklahoma City, they
stayed in Oklahoma City for one more game, the Bricktown Showdown, an
annual match up to declare the AAA champion. Led by six different
pitchers, the River Cats stifled the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Yankees
offense en route to a 4-1 victory. The game and championship season
concluded in dramatic fashion when River Cats infielder Brooks Conrad
turned a line drive double-play on an outstanding diving catch.
For another year, the leadership of Art Savage, the River Cats
President and CEO, the entire front office, Manger Todd Steverson, and
the players on the field played a vital role in the team's success. On
and off the field, the River Cats organization once again was the envy
of the entire Pacific Coast League. Their success and professionalism
was reciprocated by the Sacramento fans, as the River Cats led the
Pacific Coast League in attendance for an astounding 9th year in a row.
Madam Speaker, as the River Cats prepare for another successful
season, I am honored to pay tribute to the many hard-working men and
women of the River Cats organization who brought so much joy and pride
to the people of Sacramento. Their successes are truly remarkable. I
ask all my colleagues to join me in celebrating the River Cats 2008
championship season.

____________________

IN HONOR OF HULET HORNBECK

______

HON. GEORGE MILLER

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to
commend to my colleagues an article in the Martinez News Gazette, my
hometown paper, that beautifully captures the wonderful contributions
that Hulet Hornbeck has made to the environment and open space in our
portion of the East Bay of San Francisco.
The article is entitled, ``Life, Love and the Great Outdoors,'' dated
February 28-March 1, 2009.
I have known Hulet for many, many years and I have always admired him
as a great leader and an avid defender of the environment. He
understood many years ago just how important it is to protect open
space for generations to come. He has been a leader in our community in
acquiring lands for public use and creating magnificent recreational
and open space opportunities for young and old alike.
We owe a debt of gratitude to Hulet for his lifelong work and I am
proud to be able to rise today to publicly thank Hulet for his vision
and for his tireless efforts on behalf of our community.

[From the Martinez News-Gazette, Feb. 28-March 1, 2009]

Life, Love and the Great Outdoors

Hulet Hornbeck was instrumental in expanding East Bay Regional Parks,
the largest park agency in the Nation

(By Greta Mart)

At his serene, wooded home in Muir Oaks, Hulet Hornbeck
looks out at the horse pastures and wildflower-blanketed
hills and savors the sound of silence.
``It's the sound of wind, of birds, or simply the trees
rustling, I love it,'' Hornbeck said, standing on his wooden
deck that hugs his one-story house, in which comforting
silence permeates. Inside a fire burns quietly in a large
stone hearth; non-fiction books are stacked three feet high
and four feet deep on the grand piano, oriental rugs dot the
hardwood floor, and 50 years of treasures, travel mementos
and memories decorate the walls.
In October he will turn 90. A lifetime of adventure, good
works and good luck has kept him spry, handsome and spirited.
He is one more Martinez resident--one you might see at the
store or on Main Street--who holds in his heart an
extraordinary character, and if you enjoy the plentiful open
space and parkland around the area, you would understand how
important his efforts are to you today.
On Thursday he regaled this reporter with an abridged life
story.
Born in New Jersey in 1919, Hornbeck spent his first decade
in Detroit, until his father abandoned the family at the
start of the Great Depression. His mother moved him and his
younger sister back to New Jersey to be closer to her two
sisters, who provided ``some degree of comfort,'' said
Hornbeck.
There, in a suburb of Newark, he shared a bed with a cousin
and his sister went to a friend's house while his mother went
to work in a factory. During his teenage years, Hornbeck's
mother worked her way up the socioeconomic ladder, segueing
into sales and earning enough to move the family into a four-
story walkup in Bloomfield.
``I liked it, because we could finally live together, and I
got good exercise going up and down the stairs,'' said
Hornbeck. ``My mother was quite liberal with me, never
telling me that I couldn't do something. If I said I wanted
to sleep on the roof, she said okay, but tie a rope around
your ankle so you don't sleepwalk off.''

Falling in love with the great outdoors

He was befriended by a local Boy Scout troupe leader, and
soon was accompanying groups on camping trips in the Ramapo
Mountains. Hornbeck's mother and aunts

[[Page 10026]]

liked to hike, and with little money and no car, hiking was a
frequent form of entertaining excursions for the family.
There was still a great deal of open space and nature in New
Jersey in the 1930s, said Hornbeck, before the freeways and
industrialization obliterated the landscape.
When his mother purchased a used car, the family took its
first vacation, down to Cape May in the southern tip of New
Jersey. There they stayed in a boardinghouse, and Hornbeck,
at age 17, was so impressed with this new environment he
asked his mother if he could stay on there for the summer.
She told him to go to the hotel across the street and ask for
a job.
``I asked the guy if I could wash dishes, and he made me a
bus boy. At that time there weren't a lot of restaurants and
such, the hotel fed three meals a day to a lot of people, it
was a big dinning hall with the girl waitresses lined up
against one wall and the boys on the other,'' Hornbeck.
``There was a separate smaller dinning room, where a big
family would sit for meals, curtained off from the main hall.
They had their own waitresses and bus boys. My boss told me
it was the Ambassador to Great Britain and his family.''
The U.S. Ambassador to England at the time was Joseph
Kennedy and the children Hornbeck watched meal after meal
were Robert, Teddy, Rosemary and the four youngest siblings
of JFK. JFK wasn't there, as he was already in his 20s at
that point and was studying at Harvard.
``I remember saying to my coworkers, you watch, those kids
are going to be something else,'' said Hornbeck.
A small inheritance from a Unitarian Universalist minister,
a suitor of his mother's, then sent Hornbeck to prep school
at the Newark Academy.
``He had asked my mother to marry him, but then he died, so
for $50 a month, I got a whole different viewpoint and
knowledge for two years,'' said Hornbeck. ``It opened my
eyes. After that I hitchhiked to Maine with a friend and we
slept in the woods. I got cleaned up in a gas station and
went to the registrar of the University of Maine and asked if
I could attend. He was impressed that we had come all that
way and he said, you're in, just like that.''
His time in Maine was spent studying Forestry and
luxuriating in the great outdoors, spending school breaks in
the White Mountains of New Hampshire.

World War II

But the looming clouds of war were gathering and Hornbeck,
after his sophomore year, told his friends and family there
would be a war in Europe, and he was going to join the
military.
``I told them I wanted to be trained by the time it
started, and that I wanted to fight in the air, not ground,''
said Hornbeck. ``I joined the Army Air Corps, and was sent to
cadet school. They saw pretty quickly that I didn't have good
eye/hand coordination, and that I liked mathematics, so they
made me a navigator.''
Pan American Airlines operated one of the few aerial
navigation schools at the time, in Coral Gables, Florida, and
Hornbeck studied there until November of 1941, when the Air
Corps shipped half of his class to Salt Lake City. There his
platoon was, introduced to the brand-new B 17 ``Flying
Fortress'' bombers they would soon be flying in the Pacific
Theater.
On December 6, Hornbeck was at Hamilton Field in San
Francisco, ready to ship out to the Philippians, with a stop
in Honolulu, the next day.
``I was still in my blue cadet's uniform, and right before
take-off we heard, `you can't go,'' something has happened,''
said Hornbeck. ``Well, we took off that night I steered us
all the way to Hawaii using the compass and drift meter,
getting a fix on the stars, and suddenly we were right off of
Diamond Head [on the island of Oahu].''
Soon he was part of the famed Reconnaissance Squadrons that
plied the South Pacific for the next three years, serving as
the eyes of General McCarthy and Fleet Admiral Nimitz, and
using his navigation skills to locate the Japanese naval
fleet in the vast ocean waters.
After the war Hornbeck returned to the States to earn a law
degree at Rutger's University courtesy of the G.I. Bill.
``While we were in the South Pacific, I asked a buddy,
where's a good Western town to go live when this is over. He
said Boise, Idaho,'' said Hornbeck. ``Sure enough, I got
myself to Boise and met Mary-Lynn.'' The two were married for
50 years until Mary-Lynn's death twelve years ago.

Moving to Martinez

The pair first lived in New York City, and soon Hornbeck
requested a transfer to San Francisco. They rented a house in
Pleasant Hill, until Mary-Lynn found their home in Muir Oaks.
``She said, you don't even have to come look at it, it was
built for you,'' said Hornbeck.
Mary-Lynn attended DVC, and then U.C. Berkeley, while
raising their two children, Jane and Lawrence, and teaching
fourth grade at John Muir Elementary for 20 years.
``It took her several years to get her degree, because she
only went to classes at night or on the weekends, she never
attended a full semester. When she was finally finished, she
said I'm too embarrassed to go get my diploma, so I went to
get it for her,'' said Hornbeck.
Meanwhile, Hornbeck was working at a large insurance firm
in San Francisco, but it was ``not what I was cut out to
do,'' and on the side he had started a group of nature
enthusiasts called the Contra Costa Park Council.

Brush with death

In 1965, a doctor's visit revealed melanoma tumor. The
doctor gave him five years to live and encouraged him to
start pursuing his dreams.
``I went to Bill Mott of the East Bay Regional Park
District, and said, I want to work for you,'' Hornbeck said.
``Timing is so significant.''
According to the East Bay Regional Parks District's history
section of its Web site, ``In 1962, William Penn Mott, Jr.
became the District's next General Manager. Mott's first
order of business at the Park District was to reorganize and
plan for the future. He brought new life to every aspect of
the District's operation by restructuring, and bringing in
talented professionals like Richard Trudeau, Chief of Public
Information and Hulet Hornbeck, Chief of Land Acquisition who
both would serve as leaders in the park and trail movement
during the next 40-years. Mott's enthusiastic vision of a
grand system of hilltop and shoreline parks would require
additional stable funding, and he moved quickly to increase
District revenues. The Forward 1964-1969 Plan was developed
by Mott and his staff in 1963 to identify the Park projects
that were needed to serve all East Bay residents, even those
outside of the District's boundary. In 1962, residents in
Contra Costa County had turned down a funding measure for
county parks; so park supporters began pushing for annexation
to the Regional Park District. In 1964, voters in West and
Central Contra Costa County approved annexation to the
District, and Kennedy Grove and Briones were soon developed
and opened as the first Regional Parks entirely within Contra
Costa County.''
Hornbeck said the District didn't have a single square acre
of parkland when he started, but by the time he retired in
1985, 64,000 acres were purchased and incorporated into the
park system, including much of Briones and the Franklin
Hills.
``Now it's over 100,000 acres, and thanks to the recent
passage of Measure WW, it will keep growing. As a special
district, we had the power of eminent domain, but we never
used it as a threat, and we always paid fair market value,''
said Hornbeck. ``We had the support of all the key developers
in the area, who knew the value of balancing people with open
space, and we always worked with justice and integrity. The
public supported us.''
Hornbeck said Senator John Nejedly was instrumental in
securing legislation that expanded the District's ability to
create a trail system.
The Hulet Hornbeck trail in the Carquinez Strait Regional
Shoreline was dedicated in 2005.
``Hulet is credited with overseeing the acquisition of
49,000 acres of parkland, expanding the District's land
holdings from eight parks (13,000 acres) to 46 parks (62,000
acres) thus securing the unique position that the East Bay
Regional Park District still enjoys today as being the
largest regional park agency in the nation,'' according to
the nonprofit American Trails organization.

____________________

IMPROVING FEDERAL FINANCING FOR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE TERRITORIES

______

HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO

of guam

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, today I have introduced two bills to
increase the percentage of clean water state revolving loan funds and
drinking water state revolving loan funds annually reserved for
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
(CNMI), Guam, and the Virgin Islands under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act respectively. The effect of
these bills would be, if enacted, to increase by approximately 50% the
amounts of federal funding awarded by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) annually under these state revolving loan
funds to each of the governments of these territories to help them
finance critical water and wastewater infrastructure projects.
I am joined by my colleagues from the territories, Mr. Faleomavaega
of American Samoa, Mrs. Christensen of the Virgin Islands, and Mr.
Sablan of the Northern Mariana Islands, in introducing these two bills.
H.R. 1889 would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with
respect to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and H.R. 1890 would
amend the Safe Drinking Water Act with respect to the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund. These bills help ensure that all Americans,
including our constituents, enjoy access to clean and safe drinking
water.

[[Page 10027]]

Specifically, H.R. 1889 and H.R. 1890 would require the reservation
of one half of a percent of amounts made available each fiscal year for
grants to the states and territories under both revolving funds.
Currently, the four territories are limited by statute to a third of a
percent of total funding, meaning that they actually receive less on a
per capita basis than a number of states. This inequity persists in
spite of the fact that the territories have some of the most severe
needs for federal assistance for clean water and drinking water
infrastructure projects. With respect to the Pacific territories, the
USEPA generally estimates that over 25% of the population lacks access
to sanitary drinking water. That figure is a mere 0.6% nationwide.
Furthermore, federal courts have ruled that the territories' water and
wastewater systems are in non-compliance with federal laws and
regulations and have ordered a wide range of improvements and upgrades.
However, the territorial governments are currently challenged in
financing these court-ordered projects as a result of budget shortfalls
and declining revenues associated with the economic downturn. As a
result, the territorial governments remain, in certain cases, unable to
comply with the court mandates without risking bankruptcy. In sum, the
very regions of the United States that have the direst need for
assistance in financing water and wastewater infrastructure are limited
by federal law to a diminutive fraction of a percent of total funding.
In contrast, each state is guaranteed under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act to receive each fiscal year
no less than a full one percent of total funding irrespective of need
or population.
Madam Speaker, raising the cap on funding made available to assist
the territories from a third of a percent to one-half a percent would
be a significant step toward fulfilling critical needs for new
infrastructure in the territories. A one-half of a percent funding
level is consistent with funding set-asides for the territories under
other laws enacted by Congress governing formula grant programs.
Finally, because the states are each guaranteed a minimum level of
funding as opposed to the ceiling set on the territories, these bills
will not significantly impact funding made available to help finance
projects in the rest of the United States.
In effect, raising the cap from a third of a percent to a half a
percent involves less than five one-thousandths of one percent of the
federal budget. It would, however, have a tangible and measurable
impact on the health and quality of life for hundreds of thousands of
American citizens and nationals residing in the territories. Madam
Speaker, I urge a thorough review of this issue and these bills by the
committees of jurisdiction.

____________________

THE INTRODUCTION OF THE PAKISTAN ENDURING ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION
ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2009

______

HON. HOWARD L. BERMAN

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about the
Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act--or PEACE
Act--a bill I introduced today with a distinguished group of original
cosponsors, including Mr. Kirk, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Royce, Ms. Jackson-
Lee, Mr. Sherman, and Mr. Wexler. The fundamental purpose of this
legislation is to strengthen the U.S. relationship with Pakistan--a
country that is central to our national security and to-global
stability,
The timing of this bill could not be more crucial. We stand at a
pivotal moment in our relations with Pakistan and in our campaign to
bring stability and security to Afghanistan. Several days ago, the
Obama Administration unveiled its new strategy for those countries, the
main focus of which is to enhance our ability to disrupt, dismantle,
and defeat al Qaeda in its safe havens in Pakistan. The PEACE Act is
written with that critical goal in mind. But it also reflects our deep
appreciation of the fact that it is in our national interest to create
a long-term strategic partnership with Pakistan; one that speaks to the
needs of the average citizens of Pakistan--those who live in rural
areas, without access to adequate education or healthcare, and who have
suffered at the hands of a frequently dysfunctional and corrupt
judicial system and police force.
By tripling U.S. assistance for democratic, economic and social
development, our bill lays the foundation for a creating a stronger,
more stable Pakistan. It places a particular emphasis on strengthening
Pakistan's fragile democratic institutions--including the parliament
and judicial system--enhancing economic development by increasing local
capacity, and improving Pakistan's education system and vocational
training.
To help ensure that American assistance is spent appropriately, our
legislation requires increased auditing, monitoring and evaluation, and
includes rigorous reporting requirements. U.S. taxpayers--and the
Pakistani people--should know that our assistance is making a real
difference, and not being squandered.
For many years, the U.S. relationship with Pakistan has been
characterized by fits and starts. Now that Pakistan has returned to an
elected civilian democracy, it is important to emphasize our long-term
commitment to the Pakistani people. To achieve that goal, our bill
establishes a Pakistan Freedom and Prosperity Fund, a permanent fund in
the U.S. Treasury that serves as a conduit for all social and economic
development assistance. At the same time, we must take a hard look at
what we want from Pakistan. We clearly want them to be a partner and a
friend. In that spirit, we also expect them to take action against
those who threaten Pakistani and American security interests. Our bill
clarifies these expectations.
Achieving stability in Pakistan, however, will require more than
economic assistance--it will also require us to provide Pakistan the
tools it needs to protect its people, secure its borders and augment
its ongoing counterterrorism operations. To that end, our bill
authorizes increased Foreign Military Financing (FMF), while requiring
that the vast majority of such assistance be used for counterterrorism
and counterinsurgency purposes. It also authorizes increased assistance
for International Military Education and Training (IMET), which will
enhance cooperation between the U.S. and Pakistani militaries.
Finally, our bill requires that military assistance may only be
provided to Pakistan if the President determines that the Government of
Pakistan is continuing to cooperate with the United States in
preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and has both
demonstrated a sustained commitment to combating terrorist groups and
has made progress towards that end.
Madam Speaker, we cannot succeed in defeating al Qaeda by ourselves.
We need a robust, long-term relationship with our strategic partners to
prevail against those who threaten our national security. The PEACE Act
will help us establish just such a relationship with Pakistan.

____________________

HONORING THE LIFE AND PUBLIC SERVICE OF SPEAKER CARLOS P. TAITANO

_____

HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO

of guam

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and
public service of the Honorable Carlos Pangelinan Taitano, a
distinguished resident of Guam who passed away on March 25, 2009.
Carlos served our nation and the people of Guam as an officer in the
United States Army, a community leader, businessman, attorney,
Assemblyman in the Guam Congress, Senator in the 3rd Guam Legislature
and Speaker of the 8th Guam Legislature.
Born on March 14, 1917 to Jose San Nicolas and Dolores P. Taitano of
Hagatna, Carlos attended elementary and middle school on Guam. He
subsequently moved to Hawaii to attend high school. After his high
school graduation from McKinley High School in Hawaii, Carlos enrolled
in the University of Hawaii where he earned a Bachelor of Science
degree in Chemistry in 1941. After graduation from the University of
Hawaii, he was hired by the Honolulu Police Department as an Assistant
Chemist. At the onset of World War II Carlos joined the United States
Army and was commissioned as an officer. He participated in the
campaign to liberate the Philippines. After the war, he was assigned to
Fort Ruger, Hawaii and Fort Meade, Maryland. It was during the latter
posting in Maryland that he married Marian Agueda Johnston.
Carlos and Marian returned to Guam in 1947, and in 1948 he was
elected to the Guam Congress as an Assemblyman. Carlos was an advocate
for United States citizenship for the Chamorro people who had endured a
brutal enemy occupation. He famously organized a walkout by the Guam
Congress on

[[Page 10028]]

March 5, 1949 to call attention to Guam's quest for a civilian
government to replace the post-war Naval government. He fed news of the
walkout to the national media, and coverage of this event in national
newspapers helped to raise awareness about the plight of the Chamorro
people. This event gave momentum to Congressional efforts to pass the
Organic Act of Guam in 1950 which granted United States citizenship to
the Chamorros on Guam and established a civilian government. He was the
only Chamorro in attendance at the White House signing ceremony of the
Organic Act of Guam on August 1, 1950 by President Harry S. Truman.
Carlos was accepted to the law program at Georgetown University in
Washington, D.C. where he graduated with a Juris Doctor degree in 1953.
While at Georgetown University, Carlos participated in activities with
the Guam community in the National Capital area and was instrumental in
founding the Guam Territorial Society to promote Guam and our Chamorro
culture.
In 1953 Carlos returned to Guam and helped to establish the
Territorial Party of Guam, which later became the Republican Party of
Guam. He was elected to the 3rd Guam Legislature in 1954. After serving
one term in the Legislature, Carlos returned to his business interests
which included the Micronesian Village, a gift shop featuring
Micronesian and Chamorro arts and crafts. In the mid-1960s Carlos
became the President and General Manager of Guam's Coca-Cola Bottling
Company, a position he held for six years.
Carlos reentered public service in 1965 and was elected to the 8th
Guam Legislature. He was selected by his colleagues to serve as
Speaker, an honor that recognized his many contributions to Guam's
political development. Under his leadership, the 8th Guam Legislature
urged the United States Congress to expand self-governance for the
people of Guam by amending the Organic Act to authorize the direct
election of the Governor of Guam and to provide a Delegate to Congress.
Carlos' vision for self-governance was passed by the 90th Congress in
1968 for the elected Governor and by the 92nd Congress in 1972 for the
Delegate to Congress.
Carlos contributed his time and resources to civic organizations and
government boards throughout his life to help improve our community.
His civic contributions included notable service as the first president
of the Guam Bar Association, past president of the Rotary Club of Guam,
past chairman of the Guam Memorial Hospital Authority Board of
Trustees, and past president of the Reserve Officers Association of
Guam.
Throughout his life, Carlos promoted the preservation and celebration
of the Chamorro culture. He was among the first authors of plays and
pageants depicting Chamorro epic tales, and he wrote essays calling
attention to the need to do more to promote the Chamorro language and
culture. He encouraged cultural groups to perform chants and dances
that depicted Chamorro culture in the pre-contact era. He helped to
found Pa'a Taotao Tano', an organization of cultural performers and
their supporters who are dedicated to preserving a more authentic
portrayal of Chamorro culture in song and dance. He promoted indigenous
culture and pride at a time when Guam was undergoing many social and
economic changes, and his voice reminded us then as now of the
importance of the Chamorro culture to our people and to our nation.
The people of Guam will always remember Speaker Carlos Pangelinan
Taitano as a visionary leader who was proud of his Chamorro heritage.
He served our nation and our island as a soldier and statesman and his
contributions will always be appreciated and remembered. I join the
people of Guam in extending our sympathy to Marian Taitano and to their
children, Linda, Carl and Tyrone and their extended family. Speaker
Carlos P. Taitano was a leader and public servant who inspired us in
many ways and we honor his contributions to our island community and to
our nation.

____________________

WORLD AUTISM AWARENESS DAY

______

HON. DAVID G. REICHERT

of washington

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Mr. REICHERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the second
annual World Autism Awareness Day. As the Founder and Co-Chair of the
Congressional Children's Health Care Caucus, I recognize the
debilitating force that is autism and I am proud to recognize Worldwide
Autism Awareness Day in order to bring attention to this life-altering
and, too often, unrecognized disorder.
I am proud to consistently support medical research on autism and its
causes. I have worked with many members of this body and many other
individuals and groups to increase funding to the National Institutes
of Health (NIH) in order to more fully understand the root causes and
best prevention practices to minimize its debilitating effects.
But we must continue to work. Evidence shows that one in every 150
American children is affected by an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).
Last year at this time, there was no medical detection or cure for
autism. This year, there has been progress to uncover more about the
root causes of ASD related disorders and why they may occur more often
than expected among people who have certain other medical conditions.
Families need hope, and we must make a commitment to help them find
the missing pieces to the puzzle. I urge all of my colleagues to
continue supporting NIH funding so that--as groups like Autism Speaks
and Families for Early Autism Treatment know--we can continue to fight
against the fastest-growing developmental disability in the world.